John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation Senator Santorum and I are introducing, the ``Deposit Insurance Fairness and Economic Opportunity Act.'' This legislation would increase the amount of money that is available for banks and thrifts to lend in their communities. Our financial services industry is incredibly strong, and the public benefits from this strength. Last year, this Senate passed comprehensive banking reform legislation that will increase consumer choice and make our financial institutions more competitive. Throughout the consideration of that measure, I steadfastly supported efforts to improve and increase credit availability to local communities. Though I believe we achieved this goal, I also said that we could and should do more. The legislation I introduce today with my colleague Senator Santorum does just that. This measure would use the extra money that is in the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF), money that banks and thrifts have paid, to pay the interest on Financing Corporation (FICO) bonds. As a result, banks and thrifts will be able to use the money they would otherwise pay to FICO to increase lending in their communities. Right now, a financial institution of approximately $200 million in domestic deposits could expect to pay roughly $42,000 this year for its FICO obligation. If that $42,000 obligation can be paid out of our excess money in the insurance funds, without compromising the safety and soundness of the funds, it will mean that institution has $42,000 more to lend. Right now, the BIF and the SAIF are beyond fully capitalized. They both contain millions of dollars more than required by federal law. That excess money is sitting here in Washington. The funds keep growing, and the money keeps sitting here. Now, the trouble with pots of money sitting in Washington is that quite often, the money just stays here in Washington and doesn't help our communities. This legislation would change that. By relieving some of the financial burden on our banks and thrifts through this common-sense legislation, we will be opening up opportunities for these institutions to put that money to good use. The $42,000 saved in my example could translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars more in available credit. This means money available to help folks in eastern North Carolina rebuild their homes and lives after Hurricane Floyd. This means money to help revitalize inner-city neighborhoods. This means more money to help farmers who have suffered crop damage. And it means money to help more Americans know the joys of home ownership. I would like to say a few words about safety and solvency of the insurance funds. These funds, the BIF and SAIF, are administered by the FDIC and are used to pay insured depositors in the event of a bank or thrift failure. I am pleased to say that in these booming economic times, both funds are well above their statutorily required level. Current law requires each fund to have 1.25 percent of all insured deposits. Right now, the BIF and SAIF are both well above this level, and the funds are growing. In this legislation, we take great care to recognize the importance of protecting the insurance funds. In fact, we actually build in an additional cushion to help insure the solvency of the funds. Only if the funds are above 1.4 percent will excess money above that level be used to pay the FICO obligation. Moreover, we maintain the authority and ability of the FDIC to make necessary adjustments to the funds to protect their solvency, should the need arise. Right now, the money is sitting in an account here in Washington. I think it can be put to better use in local communities. This legislation represents a method to help do just that, without sacrificing the safety and soundness protections that are currently in place.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues today-- Republicans and Democrats alike--in voting to repeal the Social security earnings test. For 75 years now, Congress has kept a provision in the Social Security program that hurts our seniors who continue to work. The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act is a sensible measure. It will correct an injustice in our Social Security program, infuse our tight labor market with experienced workers, and most importantly, help hundreds of thousands of seniors become more financially secure. Currently, retirees drawing Social Security benefits are subject to an earnings test. This means that for seniors ages 65 to 69, benefits are deferred by $1 for every $3 that their earnings exceed $17,000. In my state, nearly 2,500 seniors are hurt by the Social Security earnings test. According to the Social Security Administration, the average amount of benefits lost per recipient in 1995 was $3,596. My state benefits from the contributions of these employees, substantively and economically; yet these individuals are being penalized for their efforts. It is now time for Congress to bring the Social Security program into a new era. Retiring the earnings test, not our seniors, is a first step. In 1935, when the Social Security program was established, the United States had a crowded labor field. The earnings test was designed to encourage seniors to leave the work force to open their jobs to younger people. But today the rationale for the test has faded. It's about time we replaced this antiquated provision. Indeed, no one today would seriously consider structuring the program to discourage older workers. Our unemployment rate is at an historic low. And our country is enjoying unprecedented economic prosperity. Seniors bring years of experience to the work force--knowledge and judgment that cannot be obtained from a textbook, but only from first- hand experience. Employers today are seeking skilled, dependable, and honest employees. Many older Americans would be willing to fill this need if they were not faced with decreased Social Security benefits. The government should not tell people who want to work that they cannot, but this is exactly the message the earnings test sends to many seniors. This message is discriminatory and fundamentally wrong. Moreover, at a time when we are experiencing such phenomenal economic growth, many of our senior citizens are struggling to pay for everyday needs. This measure will help them. I have heard from hundreds of seniors from North Carolina who are struggling to pay their medical bills and daily living costs. By now, they have been working and paying Social Security taxes for decades. These same seniors are the ones who start to lose benefits because they continue to work, simply because they earn a salary that the government believes is too high for them. It must be said that this legislation is a patch to one problem in the Social Security system that is currently riddled with holes. If Congress does not start considering overall Social Security reform, we will eventually have a hole too big to fix. It is my hope that the current momentum to fix small holes in the system will lead to a larger dialogue on how to save the Social Security program. But until then, the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act is a win-win measure. It lets seniors earn a higher salary without retribution. It keeps skilled employees in the workplace. It helps maintain a strong economy. It helps our seniors to afford today's cost of living. And finally, it's the right thing to do. This bill has a lot of benefits, and it costs the government nothing. I look forward to its quick passage in the Senate and to the positive effects that it will have for our country.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Hagel, submit the National Fragile X Awareness Week Resolution. This measure will establish July 17 through July 23 as National Fragile X Awareness Week. Fragile X is the leading known cause of mental retardation. Despite the devastating impact of the disease, the disorder is relatively unknown to many, even in the medical community, largely due to its fairly recent discovery. Today, one in 2,000 males and one in 4,000 females have the gene defect. One in every 260 women is a carrier. Current studies estimate that as many as 90,000 Americans suffer from Fragile X, yet up to 80 to 90 percent of them are undiagnosed. It does not effect one racial or ethnic group more than another, and it is found in every socioeconomic group. Scientists have only known exactly what causes Fragile X since 1991. The disorder results from a defect in a single gene. Other diseases caused by single gene defects include cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy. In fact, the incidence of Fragile X is similar to that of cystic fibrosis. Fragile X occurs when a specific gene, which should hold a string of molecules that repeat six to fifty times, over-expands, causing the gene to hold anywhere from 200 to 1,000 copies of the same sequence, repeating over and over, much like a record skipping out of control. The result of this error is that instructions needed for the creation of a specific protein in the brain are lost. Consequently, the Fragile X protein is either low or absent in the affected person. The lower the level of the protein, the more severe the resulting disabilities. People with Fragile X have effects ranging from mild learning disabilities to severe mental retardation. Behavioral problems associated with Fragile X include aggression, anxiety, and seizures. The effects on both the victims of the disorder and their families are profound, taking a huge emotional and financial toll. People with Fragile X have a normal life expectancy but usually incur special costs that on average add up to over $2 million over their lifetime. Because it is inherited, many families have more than one child with Fragile X. Recent advances in Fragile X research now make it possible to test definitively for the disorder through DNA analysis. Yet many doctors are still not familiar with Fragile X, and subtle symptoms in early childhood can make it difficult to detect. Today, in our country, thousands of children have Fragile X, but their parents have never heard of the disease. These parents know something is wrong, but they cannot give the problem a name, and neither can any doctor they have consulted. They may know their child has mental retardation, but they do not know why. They do not know that if they have more children, those children may also be at risk. They do not know there are treatments for the problem. They do not know that someone is working on a cure. the same holds true for many adults in our society. They are living in group homes and in institutions around the country. They have been cared for during entire lifetimes by devoted family members. Yet they have never had a diagnosis beyond ``mental retardation.'' The need to raise the profile of Fragile X across our nation is clear. The impact of the current lack of understanding of this disorder is that all too often it is years before the diagnosis is made. As a result, early intervention and treatment are delayed--treatment that could help to mitigate the effects of the disorder. We also hope that by raising awareness we can communicate the good news about Fragile X. Now that scientists have identified the missing protein that causes the disorder, there is hope for a cure. And because Fragile X is the only single-gene disease known to directly impact human intelligence, understanding the disease can give us insight into human intelligence and learning and into dealing with other single gene defects. Understanding Fragile X may also unlock some of the mysteries of autism, schizophrenia, and other neurological disorders. But we need to fund research efforts into this devastating disease. Mr. President, this resolution seeks to raise awareness in both the general population and the medical community about the presence and effects of Fragile X. By doing so, we hope to promote earlier diagnosis of the disease, more effective treatment, and support for research that will one day lead to a cure.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today with my colleagues Senator Lautenberg and Senator Torricelli, I introduce the College Fire Prevention Act. This measure would provide federal matching grants for the installation of fire sprinkler systems in college and university dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. Mr. President, the tragic fire that occurred at Seton Hall University on Wednesday, January 19th of this year will not be long forgotten. Sadly, three freshman, all 18 years old, died. Fifty-four students, two South Orange firefighters and two South Orange police officers were injured. The dormitory, Boland Hall, was a six-story, 350 room structure built in 1952 that housed approximately 600 students. Astonishingly, the fire was contained to the third floor lounge of Boland Hall. This dormitory was equipped with smoke alarms but no sprinkler system. Unfortunately, the Boland Hall fire was not the first of its kind. And it reminded many people in North Carolina of their own tragic experience with dorm fires. In 1996, on Mother's Day and Graduation Day, a fire in the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill killed five college juniors and injured three others. This fraternity house was 70 years old. The National Fire Protection Association identified several factors that contributed to the tragic fire, including the lack of fire sprinkler protection. Sadly, there have been countless other dorm fires. On December 9, 1997, a student died in a dormitory fire at Greenville College in Greenville, Illinois. The dormitory, Kinney Hall, was built in the 1960s and had no fire sprinkler system. On January 10, 1997, a student died at the University of Tennessee at Martin. The dormitory, Ellington Hall, had no fire sprinkler system. On January 3, 1997, a student died in a dormitory fire at Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg, Missouri. On October 21, 1994, five students died in a fraternity house fire in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. The list goes on and on. In a typical year between 1980 and 1997, the National Fire Protection Association estimates there were an average of 1,800 fires at dormitories, fraternities, and sororities, involving 1 death, 69 injuries, and 8.1 million dollars in property damage. So now we must ask, what can be done? What can we do to curtail these tragic fires from taking the lives of our children . . . our young adults? We should focus our attention on the lack of fire sprinklers in college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. Sprinklers save lives. Indeed, the National Fire Protection Association has never recorded a fire that killed more than 2 people in a public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building where a sprinkler system was operating properly. Despite the clear benefits of sprinklers, many college dorms do not have them. New dormitories are generally required to have advanced safety systems such as fire sprinklers. But such requirements are rarely imposed retroactively on existing buildings. In 1997, over 90 percent of the campus building fires reported to fire departments occurred in buildings where there were smoke alarms present. However, only 28 percent of them had fire sprinklers present. At my state's flagship university at Chapel Hill, for example, only six of the 29 residence halls have sprinklers. A report published by The Raleigh News & Observer in the wake of the Seton Hall fire also noted that only seven of 19 dorms at North Carolina State University are equipped with the life-saving devices, and there are sprinklers in two of the 10 dorms at North Carolina Central University. At Duke University, only five of 26 dorms have sprinklers. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today authorizes the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the United States Fire Administration, to award grants, on a competitive basis, to States, private or public colleges or universities, fraternities, or sororities to assist them in providing fire sprinkler systems for their student housing and dormitories. These entities would be required to produce matching funds equal to one-half of the cost. This legislation authorizes $100 million for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. In North Carolina, we decided to initiate a drive to install sprinklers in our public college and university dorms. The overall cost is estimated at $57.5 million. Given how much it is going to cost North Carolina's public colleges and universities to install sprinklers, I think it's clear that the $100 million that this measure authorizes is just a drop in the bucket. But my hope is that by providing this small incentive we can encourage more colleges to institute a comprehensive review of their dorm's fire safety and to install sprinklers. All they need is a helping hand. With this modest measure of prevention, we can help prevent the needless and tragic loss of young lives. Mr. President, parents should not have to worry about their children living in fire traps. When we send our children away to college, we are sending them to a home away from home where hundreds of other students eat, sleep, burn candles, use electric appliances and smoke. We must not compromise on their safety. As the Fire Chief from Chapel Hill wrote me: ``Parents routinely send their children off to college seeking an education unaware that one of the greatest dangers facing their children is the fire hazards associated with dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses and other forms of student housing. . . . The only complete answer to making student-housing safe is to install fire sprinkler systems.'' In short, the best way to ensure the protection of our college students is to install fire sprinklers in our college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. My proposal has been endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association and the College Parents of America. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation, the letters of support and a partial list of fatal college fires be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today I introduce two bills that are very important crime fighting measures. My legislation will help provide law enforcement with additional assistance in locating missing people. One bill, the ``Abducted Young Adults Act,'' will give the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children the legal authority to assist law enforcement officers in locating abducted young adults aged 18 through 21. The second bill, ``Kristen's Law,'' authorizes the Attorney General to provide grants to public agencies and nonprofit private organizations that help find missing adults. Mr. President, let me tell you a story about a girl from my State of North Carolina. Her name is Kristen Modafferi. Kristen was a bright, hard-working student at North Carolina State University. After finishing up her freshman year of college, she traveled to San Francisco to spend the summer taking a photography class at Berkeley. Once Kristen arrived in San Francisco, she started her class and got a couple of jobs to help pay for her expenses. She was settling in and making friends. On Monday, June 23, 1997, Kristen left work to visit a local beach. She has not been seen since. Kristen was three weeks over the age of 18 when she disappeared. Law enforcement devoted a great deal of time to finding Kristen and should be commended for their efforts. Despite a number of leads, Kristen has never been found. For 15 years, since the creation of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, our Nation has recognized the vulnerability of young children to abductions and exploitation. We have provided the funding and support vital to ensuring rapid and multi jurisdictional responses to these cases. But in Kristen's case we could not--and all because she was 3 weeks past her 18th birthday. The charter for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children only allows the Center to help law enforcement search for missing children aged 0 to 18. When a person involuntarily disappears, time is of the essence. Search efforts must begin quickly, and they must reach across jurisdictions. Abducted youngsters are often taken across state lines. In order to effectively coordinate a search, the groups conducting the search must have an easy way to share information with each other, no matter how far away from one another they may be. The greater the number of agencies helping in the search, the more likely it is that the person will be found. But there is no central, federally- established organization that exists to aid law enforcement in their efforts to locate missing 18-21 year-olds. Unfortunately, Kristen's tragic story illustrates the need for such an organization. And what better way to fill this need than to build upon a reputable, federally- partnered organization--the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children--that already exists to search for missing individuals under 18? The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children serves as the national clearinghouse for information on missing children and the prevention of child victimization. The Center works in partnership with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the U.S. Department of Justice, and its mission is codified in federal law. Because the Center was established for the purpose of assisting with cases that involve missing children under the age of 18, the Center does not typically assist with cases involving involuntarily missing college students and other people who happen to be 18 through 21 years old. The sad fact is that had Kristen been just a few weeks younger when she disappeared, the Center would have immediately mobilized to start a search. One of the measures I introduce today, The Abducted Young Adults Act, would expand the Center's charter to allow it to use its expertise and resources to help find involuntarily missing young adults in the 18 through 21 year-old age group. Mr. President, some people might inquire why I chose to limit expansion of the Center's mission by only covering individuals under age 22. For example, my bill would not affect the Center's ability to help police search for Kristen's sister Allison and other individuals who are 22 and over. The second bill I am introducing today, Kristen's Act, will help fill this gap. I will discuss that bill in a moment. However, the reason for my decision to limit the expansion of the Center's mission is twofold. First, although a person is considered a legal adult when they attain the age of 18, I think most people would agree that college-aged kids are just that--kids. Members of this age group are particularly vulnerable to criminals and are frequently victims of crime. They are away from home for the first time in their lives, in an unfamiliar area, without the presence of their parents. I believe that most people would agree that this age group needs special protection. Statistics demonstrate the need to address the issue of missing young adults and to find a way to provide some additional resources for this group. In fact, according to data from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Sheriff's office in my state of North Carolina, in 1999, they received reports of 132 missing persons aged 18-21. That's the number for just one city, in just one state in the country. If we were to amass similar statistics for every jurisdiction across the country, I believe we would be astounded at the high rate of disappearances for this age group. For example, in February, 1999, the FBI reported 1,896 new cases of missing 18 through 21-year-olds--1,896 new cases in just one month. This is a frighteningly large number. And I believe that the Abducted Young Adults Act is a necessary protective measure. It will provide some comfort to the millions of parents who send their children to college every year and worry about their safety: If anything does happen, a national effort will be mobilized to help. The second reason that the legislation would apply to a limited age group is that I believe the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children should stay focused on its central mission--to help search for missing children. Since its founding, the Center has helped recover nearly 48,000 children. Imagine the benefit to families and law enforcement if the Center were to help search for abducted young adults. Surely the number of active missing young adult cases would decline if the Center helped with the search efforts. I believe my legislation is a logical extension of the Center's current mission. My bill would authorize appropriations of $2.5 million per year through 2003 so that the Center does not have to divert any of the funding it needs to effectively search for children. I have worked closely with the Center's staff to ensure that my bill will enhance not harm the Center's current mission. As a result, the Abducted Young Adults Act is fully supported by the Center. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) also strongly supports my legislation. Gilbert Gallegos, National President of the FOP, is a member of the Board of Directors for the Center. As he so aptly states in his letter of support for the bill, ``Just because you turn eighteen is no guarantee that you will not be the victim of a crime.'' Mr. President, I believe that it is important to mention that it is true that some individuals aged 18 through 21 may disappear because they want to. Some of these individuals may live in abusive households. Others may want to start a new life. And because they are considered legal adults, they have the choice to remain missing. In these cases, it may not make sense for law enforcement, the Center, or anyone else to launch a search. My legislation ensures that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will use its public resources to search for only those missing young adults aged 18-21 that law enforcement has first determined to be missing involuntarily. Specifically, my bill says that in order for an individual to be defined as an involuntarily missing young adult, the following criteria must be met: (1) their whereabouts must be unknown to their parent or guardian; (2) law enforcement must have entered a missing persons report on the individual into the National Crime Information Center; and (3) there must be a reasonable indication or suspicion that the individual has been abducted or is missing under circumstances suggesting foul play or a threat to life; or (4) the individual is known to be suicidal or has a severe medical condition that poses a threat to his or her life. I believe that the Abducted Young Adults Act is a common-sense way to help prevent further incidences like the one involving Kristen Modafferi. For every child the Center assists in locating, there are a handful of individuals that it cannot help find. If my bill enables the Center to help find just one more missing youngster, then I believe the bill will have succeeded in its goal. I am pleased that the Abducted Young Adults Act is co-sponsored by Senator Biden. Senator Biden was instrumental to the establishment of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and I thank him for his leadership and support. Mr. President, the Abducted Young Adults Act is only one part of the solution. The other part of the solution is to provide the organizations that are devoted to searching for missing adults with the resources they need to be more effective in their efforts to search for all adults, regardless of age. That is why I am also introducing Kristen's Law, named after Kristen Modafferi. This bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Sue Myrick, and I thank her for her involvement in this issue. As I mentioned, Kristen's Law would allow the Attorney General to make grants to public agencies or nonprofit private organizations to assist law enforcement and families in locating missing adults. Grants could also be used by these agencies and organizations for a number of other reasons. For example, funds could be used to maintain a national, interconnected database for the purpose of tracking missing adults who are determined by law enforcement to be endangered due to age, diminished mental capacity, or the circumstances of disappearance. And the grants could be used to help establish a national clearinghouse for missing adults and to assist with victim advocacy related to missing adults. Generally, the greater the number of people conducting a search, the greater the chance is of locating missing individuals. The combination of the Abducted Young Adults Act and Kristen's Law sends a message to families that they deserve all of the help necessary to locate endangered and involuntarily missing loved ones. Together, these bills will help ensure that all endangered and involuntarily missing adults-- regardless of age--will receive not only the benefit of search efforts by law enforcement, but also by experienced, specialized organizations. I request that the text of the two bills be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today I introduce two bills that are very important crime fighting measures. My legislation will help provide law enforcement with additional assistance in locating missing people. One bill, the ``Abducted Young Adults Act,'' will give the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children the legal authority to assist law enforcement officers in locating abducted young adults aged 18 through 21. The second bill, ``Kristen's Law,'' authorizes the Attorney General to provide grants to public agencies and nonprofit private organizations that help find missing adults. Mr. President, let me tell you a story about a girl from my State of North Carolina. Her name is Kristen Modafferi. Kristen was a bright, hard-working student at North Carolina State University. After finishing up her freshman year of college, she traveled to San Francisco to spend the summer taking a photography class at Berkeley. Once Kristen arrived in San Francisco, she started her class and got a couple of jobs to help pay for her expenses. She was settling in and making friends. On Monday, June 23, 1997, Kristen left work to visit a local beach. She has not been seen since. Kristen was three weeks over the age of 18 when she disappeared. Law enforcement devoted a great deal of time to finding Kristen and should be commended for their efforts. Despite a number of leads, Kristen has never been found. For 15 years, since the creation of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, our Nation has recognized the vulnerability of young children to abductions and exploitation. We have provided the funding and support vital to ensuring rapid and multi jurisdictional responses to these cases. But in Kristen's case we could not--and all because she was 3 weeks past her 18th birthday. The charter for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children only allows the Center to help law enforcement search for missing children aged 0 to 18. When a person involuntarily disappears, time is of the essence. Search efforts must begin quickly, and they must reach across jurisdictions. Abducted youngsters are often taken across state lines. In order to effectively coordinate a search, the groups conducting the search must have an easy way to share information with each other, no matter how far away from one another they may be. The greater the number of agencies helping in the search, the more likely it is that the person will be found. But there is no central, federally- established organization that exists to aid law enforcement in their efforts to locate missing 18-21 year-olds. Unfortunately, Kristen's tragic story illustrates the need for such an organization. And what better way to fill this need than to build upon a reputable, federally- partnered organization--the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children--that already exists to search for missing individuals under 18? The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children serves as the national clearinghouse for information on missing children and the prevention of child victimization. The Center works in partnership with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the U.S. Department of Justice, and its mission is codified in federal law. Because the Center was established for the purpose of assisting with cases that involve missing children under the age of 18, the Center does not typically assist with cases involving involuntarily missing college students and other people who happen to be 18 through 21 years old. The sad fact is that had Kristen been just a few weeks younger when she disappeared, the Center would have immediately mobilized to start a search. One of the measures I introduce today, The Abducted Young Adults Act, would expand the Center's charter to allow it to use its expertise and resources to help find involuntarily missing young adults in the 18 through 21 year-old age group. Mr. President, some people might inquire why I chose to limit expansion of the Center's mission by only covering individuals under age 22. For example, my bill would not affect the Center's ability to help police search for Kristen's sister Allison and other individuals who are 22 and over. The second bill I am introducing today, Kristen's Act, will help fill this gap. I will discuss that bill in a moment. However, the reason for my decision to limit the expansion of the Center's mission is twofold. First, although a person is considered a legal adult when they attain the age of 18, I think most people would agree that college-aged kids are just that--kids. Members of this age group are particularly vulnerable to criminals and are frequently victims of crime. They are away from home for the first time in their lives, in an unfamiliar area, without the presence of their parents. I believe that most people would agree that this age group needs special protection. Statistics demonstrate the need to address the issue of missing young adults and to find a way to provide some additional resources for this group. In fact, according to data from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Sheriff's office in my state of North Carolina, in 1999, they received reports of 132 missing persons aged 18-21. That's the number for just one city, in just one state in the country. If we were to amass similar statistics for every jurisdiction across the country, I believe we would be astounded at the high rate of disappearances for this age group. For example, in February, 1999, the FBI reported 1,896 new cases of missing 18 through 21-year-olds--1,896 new cases in just one month. This is a frighteningly large number. And I believe that the Abducted Young Adults Act is a necessary protective measure. It will provide some comfort to the millions of parents who send their children to college every year and worry about their safety: If anything does happen, a national effort will be mobilized to help. The second reason that the legislation would apply to a limited age group is that I believe the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children should stay focused on its central mission--to help search for missing children. Since its founding, the Center has helped recover nearly 48,000 children. Imagine the benefit to families and law enforcement if the Center were to help search for abducted young adults. Surely the number of active missing young adult cases would decline if the Center helped with the search efforts. I believe my legislation is a logical extension of the Center's current mission. My bill would authorize appropriations of $2.5 million per year through 2003 so that the Center does not have to divert any of the funding it needs to effectively search for children. I have worked closely with the Center's staff to ensure that my bill will enhance not harm the Center's current mission. As a result, the Abducted Young Adults Act is fully supported by the Center. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) also strongly supports my legislation. Gilbert Gallegos, National President of the FOP, is a member of the Board of Directors for the Center. As he so aptly states in his letter of support for the bill, ``Just because you turn eighteen is no guarantee that you will not be the victim of a crime.'' Mr. President, I believe that it is important to mention that it is true that some individuals aged 18 through 21 may disappear because they want to. Some of these individuals may live in abusive households. Others may want to start a new life. And because they are considered legal adults, they have the choice to remain missing. In these cases, it may not make sense for law enforcement, the Center, or anyone else to launch a search. My legislation ensures that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will use its public resources to search for only those missing young adults aged 18-21 that law enforcement has first determined to be missing involuntarily. Specifically, my bill says that in order for an individual to be defined as an involuntarily missing young adult, the following criteria must be met: (1) their whereabouts must be unknown to their parent or guardian; (2) law enforcement must have entered a missing persons report on the individual into the National Crime Information Center; and (3) there must be a reasonable indication or suspicion that the individual has been abducted or is missing under circumstances suggesting foul play or a threat to life; or (4) the individual is known to be suicidal or has a severe medical condition that poses a threat to his or her life. I believe that the Abducted Young Adults Act is a common-sense way to help prevent further incidences like the one involving Kristen Modafferi. For every child the Center assists in locating, there are a handful of individuals that it cannot help find. If my bill enables the Center to help find just one more missing youngster, then I believe the bill will have succeeded in its goal. I am pleased that the Abducted Young Adults Act is co-sponsored by Senator Biden. Senator Biden was instrumental to the establishment of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and I thank him for his leadership and support. Mr. President, the Abducted Young Adults Act is only one part of the solution. The other part of the solution is to provide the organizations that are devoted to searching for missing adults with the resources they need to be more effective in their efforts to search for all adults, regardless of age. That is why I am also introducing Kristen's Law, named after Kristen Modafferi. This bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Sue Myrick, and I thank her for her involvement in this issue. As I mentioned, Kristen's Law would allow the Attorney General to make grants to public agencies or nonprofit private organizations to assist law enforcement and families in locating missing adults. Grants could also be used by these agencies and organizations for a number of other reasons. For example, funds could be used to maintain a national, interconnected database for the purpose of tracking missing adults who are determined by law enforcement to be endangered due to age, diminished mental capacity, or the circumstances of disappearance. And the grants could be used to help establish a national clearinghouse for missing adults and to assist with victim advocacy related to missing adults. Generally, the greater the number of people conducting a search, the greater the chance is of locating missing individuals. The combination of the Abducted Young Adults Act and Kristen's Law sends a message to families that they deserve all of the help necessary to locate endangered and involuntarily missing loved ones. Together, these bills will help ensure that all endangered and involuntarily missing adults-- regardless of age--will receive not only the benefit of search efforts by law enforcement, but also by experienced, specialized organizations. I request that the text of the two bills be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I thank Dr. Ogilvie for helping work to get Dr. Elliott here this morning. Dr. Ogilvie has been a wonderful friend and counselor to me in the short time I have been here, and we are also very pleased to see he is doing well. Dr. Elliott, the guest Chaplain today, is the minister of my home church, the church of which I am a member in Raleigh, NC. Edenton Street United Methodist Church is a church of which we are very proud-- about 3,000 strong, I think, the last time I saw. He is here this morning with his lovely wife Jackie. We are very proud to have both of them with us. The church itself, as I say, is a church of which we are extremely proud. It is a church that is involved in every aspect of ministering to the community in Raleigh and outside of Raleigh. Dr. Elliott has provided extraordinary leadership for this church. He has been a wonderful friend and counselor to myself and my family. Dr. Elliott, I believe, received his doctorate degree from Duke University and did some postdoctoral study at Drew University. More important than that, though, is that he baptized both of my daughters, Emma Claire and Kate, of whom we are, of course, very proud. But most importantly, Dr. Elliott is a true messenger for God. He speaks the word of God rightly, and he inspires all of us; when he preaches on Sunday morning, we all come out knowing that God was present in our service. That is the most important thing I can say about Dr. Elliott. There is no finer Methodist anywhere, no finer minister anywhere, and I am very proud and honored to have him with us this morning to give the opening prayer.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the human suffering and devastation we incurred in North Carolina is absolutely unparalleled. Our people have never suffered and struggled the way they are suffering right now. This storm has completely devastated us. Our farmers are in the worst shape they have ever been in. I appreciate very much the majority leader's commitment, Senator Stevens' commitment, and the minority leader's commitment. We have talked throughout this process on a daily basis. We had an agreement, a commitment to two things, basically. One was a loan forgiveness program, which has been talked about, and, second, some language that would help the payment for structural damage on farms in North Carolina. I appreciate very much the commitment we have received today. I do have to say I am counting on my colleagues' commitments--the majority leader's commitment, Senator Stevens' commitment, Senator Daschle's commitment--to do everything in their power to get this thing passed in this Congress; that it will be included in the CR we are discussing right now and that, when it goes to the House side, the majority leader will speak to the Speaker. We will do everything in our power, Senator Helms and myself, to make sure that happens. But it is critical to Senator Helms and me that we not need to rely on the commitment to do something after the first of the year, that we get this done tonight or tomorrow. With that, I thank the majority leader.

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, in addition to the 5 minutes, I be granted an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I have spoken before on the floor about the devastation created by Hurricane Floyd in my State of North Carolina. Let me update and speak briefly on that subject, particularly since we are in the process of a continuing resolution right now. Everybody knows, because they have seen the pictures on television, what happened to my families in North Carolina as a result of Hurricane Floyd. We have two huge issues that have to be addressed before this Congress adjourns. One is housing. We have people in eastern North Carolina who don't have homes and have no prospect of having homes any time in the foreseeable future. We have to address this housing situation in North Carolina before we adjourn. Second is our farmers. Our farmers were already in desperate straits long before Hurricane Floyd came through, and they have been totally devastated as a result of Hurricane Floyd. We have to address the needs of our farmers in eastern North Carolina before we leave Washington and before the Congress adjourns. Let me say, first, that we have, in the last 24 hours, made progress on both fronts. First, on the issue of housing, we have, at least in principle, reached agreement that FEMA will have an additional $215 million of authority--money already appropriated--for housing buyouts. Based on the information we presently have, that should get us well into next year in the process of participating in the housing buyouts and helping all of our folks who desperately need help. That is good progress, a move in the right direction. There is more work that needs to be done. But at least in terms of getting us through the winter, I think we have probably done what we need to do in terms of housing. On the issue of our farmers and agriculture, there is at least in principle an agreement for approximately $554 million of additional agricultural relief. My concern has been and continues to be whether that money, No. 1, will go to North Carolina and North Carolina's farmers; and, No. 2, whether it addresses the very specific needs that our farmers have. We are now in the process of working with everyone involved in these budget negotiations to ensure that both of those problems are addressed: No. 1, to make sure that a substantial chunk of that money goes to North Carolina, and that additional money, to the extent it is needed for very specific purposes, can be appropriated and allocated to North Carolina's farmers to deal with the devastation created by Hurricane Floyd; No. 2, to make sure at least a portion of the money that has already been appropriated goes to address the very specific needs our farmers have. It is absolutely critical that before the Senate adjourns and before this Congress adjourns and leaves Washington these two problems be addressed. I said it before; I will say it again. Our government serves no purpose if we are not available to meet the needs of our citizens who have been devastated by disasters--in this case, Hurricane Floyd. These are people who have worked their entire lives--in the case of our farmers, they have farmed the land for generations. They have paid their taxes. They have been good citizens. They have always lived up to their end of the bargain. What they say to us now is: What is their government-- because this is their government--going to do to deal with their needs in this time of greatest need in the wake of Hurricane Floyd and disasters created by Hurricane Floyd? We have a responsibility to these people. We need to make sure their needs at least have been addressed through the winter. When we come back in the spring--we will be back in the spring, I assure my colleagues--we will be talking to our colleagues again about what additional needs we have because we will have additional long-term needs. This problem is not going to be solved in a month. It is not going to be solved in 3 months. This will take a period of years. When Congress comes back in the spring, there will be many additional needs that will have to be addressed. But at a bare minimum, we need to ensure this Congress does not adjourn and people do not go home until we have made sure we have at least addressed the housing needs which will get us through the winter--I think we have made real progress in that direction--and, second, that we have gotten our farmers back up on their feet so they can be back in business in the spring in order for them to continue their farming operation. Those two problems have to be addressed before we leave. Let me make clear what I have made clear before, which is my people are in trouble. They are hurting. They need help. Senator Helms and I have worked together very diligently to try to get them the help they need in this time of crisis. I want to make it clear once again that I intend to use whatever tool is available to me to ensure that my people get the help they need and the help they deserve. This Congress and this Senate cannot go home and cannot leave Washington until we ensure that our people in North Carolina have a home to go to. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, we are about to pass a resolution to keep the Government operating for approximately a week. The question I ask is, What are we doing for the victims of Hurricane Floyd? Keeping this Government open is not important unless it does the things it should and needs to do for its citizens. We keep telling the people of this country that this is their Government, it belongs to them. Every week they get their paycheck, and they have a huge deduction for Federal taxes. They wonder every time they get their paycheck and their paycheck stub where that money is going. The truth is, now is the time, in the wake of the devastation of Hurricane Floyd, when they are entitled to expect their Government will respond and respond in a responsible way to what has been done to them. The people of eastern North Carolina--I know because I have been there over and over, including this past weekend--are wondering how they are going to make it through the winter. They are completely and totally innocent. These are people who had a hurricane drop inches and inches of water on them. It devastated their homes and, thereby, devastated their lives. In many cases, it devastated their workplaces. What they are saying to us now is: What is my Government to which I have been paying taxes for all these years going to do? The reality is, if the Government does not respond to this disaster and this terrible situation, the Government serves no purpose. We had 50 people die in North Carolina as a result of this hurricane and 5 people are still missing. We have 3,000 people who are still in temporary housing. More than 30,000 homes have been damaged and approximately 20,000 have been completely destroyed. The damage estimate for housing alone is approximately $400 million, and that number will grow. We have eight counties that still have damaged water systems where people are required to boil their water to use it. Over 2 months after this hurricane ravaged eastern North Carolina, our people are still struggling and suffering and will continue to struggle as we go forward. I ask my colleagues these questions: No. 1, do they take for granted the roof over their heads? No. 2, do they assume when they turn the tap on that they will be able to drink the water that comes out of that tap? And No. 3, do they assume their children will be able to go to school? Let me tell my friends and colleagues in the Senate that there are tens of thousands of North Carolinians who no longer take those things for granted and no longer assume they are going to be able to do those things because they know they cannot. The question they ask me and, more important, the question they ask us as their representatives in this Government is, What are we going to do to respond to what has happened to them? We have kids in eastern North Carolina who are going to school in small trailers in a gravel parking lot of the National Guard grounds in Tarboro. In order to go to the restroom, they have to leave these small trailers and travel to the one small trailer that has a restroom. They are already going to school in little trailers on a gravel parking lot, and there is not even a restroom in the trailer they are using for a classroom. In order to use the restroom, they have to leave their trailer and go down the parking lot to another small trailer. The water rose in this area, for example, 88 inches in an elementary school in Tarboro. The school was completely destroyed. Transportation--we have more than 90 sections of State roads and 12 bridges still washed out. Agriculture--our farmers are hurting as they have never hurt before. Before this hurricane went through eastern North Carolina, our farmers were teetering on the edge from low crop prices and many years of having a very difficult time financially. What is the effect of a hurricane coming through? This is the time of year when many of our farmers in eastern North Carolina would be doing the bulk of their work. They would be harvesting their crops. Not this year. Many of our farmers have lost all of their crops. The current crop loss estimate is $543 million--over $\1/2\ billion. The livestock loss is estimated at about $2 million. We have more than $200 million in damage to structures on farms, the structures that are necessary for these farmers to operate their farms day to day. Many of these structures have been destroyed. In addition, they have lost the machinery that is necessary to operate their farms on a daily basis. In almost all cases, the structures are not covered by insurance, and, in many cases, the machinery is not covered by insurance. The bottom line is we have many farmers in eastern North Carolina who have lost their crops. They have lost the buildings from which they operate and they have lost the machinery they use to farm. They are out of business. What they say to us in Washington is: What is my Government going to do to respond? I have paid my taxes. I have been a good, law-abiding citizen all these years, and I have always been told this is my Government. So my question to Washington now is, What is my Government going to do to respond? The reality is, nobody in North Carolina is asking for a handout. Our people have responded heroically to this situation. Our businesses have been extraordinary. They have made millions and millions of dollars worth of donations to help the people who have been devastated by Hurricane Floyd. Our individual citizens have made contributions. They have not only made contributions with funds to help the victims of Hurricane Floyd, they have taken time off from work, with their employers' permission; they are taking their weekends and their time off to go to eastern North Carolina to work to try to help the folks who have been devastated. They have done everything they can. Every person in North Carolina is doing what they can to help our people who have been damaged by this storm. That is not enough. We need this Government to respond in a way that addresses the needs. No. 1, we need housing relief. We have thousands of families who have lost their homes as a result of this storm. They have no way to rebuild their homes and rebuild their lives without our assistance. It is assistance to which they are entitled. They have paid their taxes all these years, never knowing this disaster, this devastation was coming. Now that it has hit them, it is time for this Government to respond and to get them back into houses. They do not need help 6 months from now or a year from now; they need help right now. Right now is the time they are living in small trailers, on gravel parking lots. They want to get back into a home, a real home, the kind of home they had before Hurricane Floyd came. We have a responsibility to do everything we can to put them in those homes. Agriculture: We have over 25,000 farmers who desperately need help just to make it through the winter. I am talking about an intense and immediate financial crisis that our farmers are confronted with. So we have two things we must do before we go home. We have to address the housing needs in North Carolina, people who are not going to be able to get through the winter unless we do something for them; and, secondly, we have to help our farmers who are already in trouble and have been completely devastated. I want us to compare the needs and the devastation in eastern North Carolina to some of the things on which we spend money. While I am strongly in support of spending funds for the defense of this country, we have spent billions of dollars on projects the Pentagon did not ever suggest they wanted. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on relocating bureaucrats and renovating or restoring Federal buildings, millions on debt forgiveness for foreign governments, tens of millions on foreign cultural exchange programs, and on top of all that, a congressional pay raise. Surely these folks in North Carolina, whose lives have been devastated--totally innocent victims of Hurricane Floyd--are entitled to at least that level of priority. Those are things we have already done. And we ought to do things for these Third World countries. We ought to do things to help other countries that are in need. But the reality is, we have North Carolinians and Americans who are in desperate straits. They do not have anyplace to live. We have farmers who are literally out of business. Their families have, for generations, farmed the land of eastern North Carolina, and they are now out of business. It is time for their Government to step to the plate and do the responsible thing, to give them the help they need to put our folks in eastern North Carolina back into houses, to put our farmers back on their feet and back in business. If we cannot do that, what function do we serve as a Government? For all those people who, for all these years, we have been saying, this is your Government; this is not some foreign thing up in Washington that has nothing to do with your lives, now they are asking us to make good on that promise and to make good on our responsibility to them for all their years--year in and year out--of doing the responsible thing: Paying their taxes and being good Americans. So I close by saying, I understand that we are nearing the end of this session. I understand the needs and priorities on which we are all focused: Education, health care, responsible fixes for the BBA, and hospitals and health care providers around this country. We have many needs that need to be addressed. But I want to make clear that when it comes to Hurricane Floyd and my people in North Carolina who do not have a place to live and are worried about getting through this winter, and our farmers who are literally out of business, that I intend to use absolutely everything at my disposal and to take whatever action is necessary to assure that our people in North Carolina are taken care of. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act. This legislation is of critical importance to America and will benefit our nation's financial services companies and American consumers. Quite simply, I believe it helps pave the way to our continued economic prosperity. This legislation will ensure stronger consumer protections in the rapidly changing and consolidating world of financial services. The legislation is important to consumers, because the industry is already changing dramatically, but through regulatory backdoors and without much-needed consumer protections. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies--historically separated from one another--have already started engaging in each others' business, and there have been no affirmative protections in place for the nation's consumers. This law rectifies that situation. I do have some concerns with certain sections regarding federal preemption of state laws that I hope to clarify. Throughout consideration of this legislation--S. 900, H.R. 10, and the chairmen's mark--I have worked with my colleagues to make sure that the final language of the bill does not adversely affect recently passed consumer protection legislation in my home state of North Carolina. North Carolina is a leading state in the financial services world on several fronts. We are home to some of the largest banks in the country. We are home to some of the strongest and most innovative community development groups in the country. We see, every day, how well these players work with one another to provide convenient banking services to all North Carolinians. North Carolina is also a leader in consumer protections. Our state General Assembly recently passed two important pieces of consumer legislation that had broad support. First, the General Assembly passed legislation that will require Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina--a non-profit--to create a public trust to help fund public health expenses in the event it converts to for-profit status. Its rationale was simple. A company should not be able to use its not-for- profit status--a government granted exemption from taxation--to build market dominance and then convert to for-profit status. In that situation, the not-for-profit status would have acted as a government subsidy, and conversion should not be allowed without some form of assessment for the subsidy. This legislation had bipartisan support and was agreed to by all parties. Throughout consideration of financial modernization legislation, I have steadfastly supported language that will protect this law from possible federal preemption. The conference report accompanying the legislation indicates that this type of law is not of the sort for which federal preemption would come into play. Specifically, the report noted that ``[t]he House receded on its provision specifically addressing a North Carolina Blue Cross-Blue Shield organization, as the State laws governing those types of entities would not be preempted so long as the State laws do not discriminate . . .''. Because the North Carolina law places a requirement on Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina regardless of any possible affiliation, it treats identically all interested parties seeking to affiliate or acquire. A bank that might want to acquire Blue Cross/Blue Shield must comply with the law in the same way as a car dealership, or any other potential acquirer, would. Therefore, it is impossible to argue that the law is in any way discriminatory. The other critical piece of legislation is a recently passed law that prohibits the financing of products like credit insurance in home mortgages. In recent years, including credit insurance costs in the mortgage was a favorite tactic of some predatory institutions--a tactic that ultimately cost consumers thousands of dollars. North Carolina is a leader in making sure its residents are protected from predatory lending and financing practice, predominant over what may be weaker federal standards or laws. The State of North Carolina enacted this law on July 22, 1999. The law, among other things, regulates mortgage financing and what non- housing products may be included. For example, it bars the lump sum financing of credit insurance premiums in consumer home loans. The law was intended to regulate mortgages and to prevent a potentially misleading form of home lending. It does not prevent credit insurance from being provided for home loans on a monthly basis, but merely cuts off financing the premiums up-front since the state General Assembly determined that such financing is fundamentally unfair. Congress does not intend to preempt this law in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I believe that this North Carolina law regulates mortgage financing and does not target the ability of an insured depository to sell insurance products. The focus of my state's legislature was on mortgages and efforts to shoehorn other products into the cost of the mortgage. The legislature would have acted the same way if mortgage lenders had been attempting to include lump sum financing of moving expenses or a new TV. However, if it were determined that the law concerns insurance sales activities, this Act still would not preempt the North Carolina provision. At most, the North Carolina law regulates how credit insurance is sold--the prohibition on financing credit insurance premiums cuts off one avenue of sale while leaving all other avenues open. As Section 104(d)(2) of the Act states, such laws are not preempted unless they ``prevent or significantly interfere with the activities of depository institutions or their affiliates.'' The North Carolina law does neither. Banks may still sell credit insurance in connection with mortgages, only one sale technique is foreclosed. In addition to the two consumer protection matters I just mentioned, I wanted to say a few words about the privacy provisions in this legislation. A great deal of debate centered on personal financial information and the way banks, securities firms and insurance companies may use that information. Privacy in financial services is an extremely complex issue because what one person may view as an invasion of privacy, another might appreciate as a timely and appropriate offering of a much-needed service. I think it is important to realize that the issue of protecting personal privacy is not limited to the financial services world. In our meetings, we also spoke of privacy of medical information. The news is full of stories of other companies--grocery stores, toy makers, appliance stores, telephone companies and others-- that are creating massive databases of customer information to be used for marketing products and services. In this legislation, we have given customers the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to let their financial institution share their personal information with a third party. We require financial institutions to have a privacy policy--and we require that this policy is explained to all the institution's customers. We also included an important provision that makes it a Federal crime-- punishable by up to 5 years in prison--to obtain customer information through fraudulent or deceptive means. I myself would have supported even more privacy protection. I am confident that in the next few years, we will be forced to deal with this problem more comprehensively. Finally, I would like to say a few things about the Community Reinvestment Act. I struggled long and hard with the CRA provisions included in this law, because CRA is so important to North Carolina and to me personally. I wanted to be able to support this bill, but I would have refused to do so if I believed that CRA was undermined. I have seen first hand the amazing benefits--to banks and to consumers--that have resulted from CRA. North Carolina banks represent some of the biggest and best CRA success stories, and I know from talking to bankers that they work well with community groups to make sure all neighborhoods are served. I spoke with several North Carolina community group leaders about the compromise we worked out, and while I know it wasn't their ideal, I believe that they recognize how much effort went into protecting CRA. Most importantly, I want to make sure that everyone knows that before a bank can even benefit from the new powers under this legislation, it must have at least a ``satisfactory'' CRA record. And, if it doesn't maintain at least a ``satisfactory'' rating, that bank can't buy any other financial firm until it gets its rating back up. What this means for CRA, and for those who actively support its goals, is that the commitments banks make to serving their communities will continue to be of paramount importance to their daily business. However, I do worry about some of the reporting burdens being imposed on CRA groups by this measure. In the last few days, these reporting requirements have been the subject of numerous talks between committee members and the Treasury Department. Because these requirements are a new idea--the provision was added to S. 900 during floor debate--we have been careful to make sure that the language is clear that the provision will not impose undue burdens on community groups. I fear that unless provisions of this bill are narrowly interpreted, they could provoke a kind of regulatory witch hunt. But I am confident that the spirit of this bill is to diminish regulatory burdens and that all provisions in this law must be interpreted in that light. And so we find ourselves at a truly historic moment. We are about to pass legislation that will modernize our nation's financial laws, increase competition, increase options for consumers, decrease costs, protect personal financial information and ensure the continued application of the Community Reinvestment Act. We have a good bill here, and I strongly support it. To elaborate, this is a bill that has been long overdue. There are those who have been toiling in the vineyards with respect to this bill for a very long time. Financial services modernization is well recognized throughout the Senate as something that is desperately needed. If done the right way, which I believe this bill accomplished, it is helpful to consumers. It will provide a more competitive market, greater competition, and one- stop shopping for consumers of financial services. It will also help provide a coherent legal framework for the operation of the financial services industry in this country. A lot of the things we are doing officially and legally through this bill have been done through the back door for years because of the fact that the financial services industry has changed so much in this country over the last 20 to 30 years. The one position we, on my side, felt most strongly about was, while we believed in financial services modernization and supported it--and I wholeheartedly held that belief-- it was critical that we be able to maintain the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, because CRA has done so much good in this country. It has done so much good in my home State of North Carolina to help revitalize chronically economically disadvantaged areas, turned neighborhoods around that were crime infested. It has been an extraordinarily positive thing, something the banks in my State of North Carolina strongly support, always have supported, and continue to support. The one other issue is that of privacy. We made some positive steps with respect to privacy. Since essentially there was very little regulation of people's personal privacy in existing law, we made a positive step in that direction. But there is probably still additional work to do in that area. Let me talk, again, about the Community Reinvestment Act, which is the foundation for us being able to get a bill. The Community Reinvestment Act has had such an extraordinarily positive impact on areas of our country that desperately needed financial support. The bedrock principle in our negotiations on this legislation was that no bank should be allowed to take advantage of the expanded services available under this bill unless they had a satisfactory CRA rating. As a result of much discussion and negotiation between the parties involved in this bill, we have been able to accomplish that. I believe we have done what needed to be done to maintain the fundamental principle of CRA. In addition, we have been able to provide that no bank can acquire or merge with another institution unless it has at least a satisfactory CRA rating. We worked very hard to make sure that principle remained in place. After much discussion and negotiation, after the bill passed the Senate over the objection of a number of us because we believed it weakened CRA, in the conference committee and in the discussions we were able to get this principle reinstated. We have done the most fundamental thing that had to be done in order to get a bill, which is to make sure CRA was in place, that it remained vibrant and strong, and that no bank could take advantage of the provisions of these expanded services available under this bill unless they had a satisfactory CRA rating. I believe in CRA. I think it is an extraordinarily positive thing for the country. The banks in my State believe in it. They have done a wonderful job complying with the provisions of CRA. We have been able, through hard work and negotiation, to maintain those critical provisions of CRA in this bill. This bill also contains some positive steps in the area of privacy. We had, as I indicated earlier, very little protection for people's personal financial records in banking and financial institutions prior to the enactment of this bill. Assuming we are able to pass this conference report today, there will be some positive steps in that direction. The reality is, though, there are a number of us, myself included, who believe we need to go further, that there is more that needs to be done to protect people's privacy. Folks have a fundamental right to know what is happening with their personal financial information and to know it is not being used in inappropriate ways. This bill takes a positive step in that direction. I think for that reason it makes sense to support the bill. However, I believe there is more work that needs to be done in this area. Many of us on our side, including the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, believe there is more to be done in this area. Financial modernization, as contained in this bill, will also help ensure continued economic growth in this country. The reason for that is that now our banks, our financial institutions in this country, will be able to compete in the global marketplace because our financial institutions have operated for many years now under rules that were antiquated, which in this environment and marketplace made no sense, and with which foreign competitors, who also do business in the United States, didn't have to comply. With continued prosperity and growth so important in our country, it was important that we be able to have modernization in the financial services industry. This bill accomplishes that. It will be good, as I indicated, not only for domestic competition, to allow banks to compete with one another and, as a result, lower costs for consumers, but it also allows our banks to compete internationally, which is critically important. Finally, I thank those who worked so long and hard on this bill. There are many who worked long and tirelessly on this bill: First, Senator Sarbanes, our ranking member, who has been one of my mentors in my 10 months here in the Senate, who is a remarkable leader; he has shown remarkable leadership and guidance on this bill. Also, Senator Sarbanes' extraordinary staff, Steve Harris and Marty Gruenberg, who are both wonderful, have worked with us throughout this process. This could not have been done without their work and guidance. Also, my friends, Senator Dodd, Senator Schumer, and Senator Reid, who, along with Senator Sarbanes, were in that small room with me late into the evening negotiating the provisions of the CRA, which eventually were contained in this legislation and without which there would be no bill. They all worked tirelessly--Senators Dodd, Schumer, Reid, and Sarbanes--late into the evening, and we were able, finally, to reach a reasonable compromise. But it could not have been done without the leadership of all of those Senators. Senators Shelby and Bryan worked very hard on the issue of privacy. Philosophically, and in my heart, I am with them on that issue. I think we have made positive steps in the area of privacy. Senators Shelby and Bryan are fundamentally right that the American people deserve and believe they deserve the right to have their personal financial information protected. They showed great leadership in that area. Senators Johnson, Kerrey, and Bayh, throughout this process, have worked with us very long and hard, and without their support this legislation would not have been possible. Finally, I mention our chairman, Senator Gramm, beside whom I had occasion to sit for many hours on that Thursday night and Friday morning when we were able to finally reach agreement on this bill. Without his hard work and leadership and willingness to compromise and negotiate, ultimately, this bill would not exist. The majority leader is right in that respect. So I applaud him for his work on this bill, and I applaud him particularly for his willingness to compromise, to negotiate, and to have a back-and-forth discussion with those of us who had somewhat different views on issues such as CRA privacy. Finally, to Chairmen Leach and Bliley and ranking members LaFalce and Dingell, who did great work throughout this process, including that late-evening meeting that went to 2:30 or 3 o'clock in the morning; and Secretary Summers and members of the Treasury Department who were in that room working tirelessly with us, particularly to iron out some of the details associated with the compromises that were reached that night. I do believe this is a historic piece of legislation. I think it is a piece of legislation that benefits consumers; it will increase competition in this country; it will lower prices. I believe it will allow for one-stop shopping for folks who want to go to one place and have all their financial services provided, and it makes positive steps in the area of privacy, although there is still work left to be done. Also, most fundamentally, it protects the critical principles of the Community Reinvestment Act, which has been such a positive law in this country and has had such an extraordinarily positive impact on my home State. I have seen neighborhoods that have literally been turned around by CRA, the Community Reinvestment Act. Because of the work and negotiation that went into this legislation, I believe we have satisfied the fundamental principles of CRA. Mr. President, I urge colleagues to support and vote for this conference report. It is the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of people and a lot of compromises. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about privacy and about how we can regain some control over our personal information. Privacy is an increasing concern for all Americans. And the public rightly believes that their control over some of their most personal information is being slowly but surely eroded. Today I introduce legislation that would help end that erosion. The ``Telephone Call Privacy Act of 1999,'' would prevent telecommunications companies from using an individual's personal phone call records without their consent, in order to sell that individual products or services. 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 individual's permission. Mr. President, 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 other countries. Current events can be broadcast around the world as they happen. And companies have streamlined their processes for providing goods and services. But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and financial records, and buying habits. And in turn, our ability to keep our personal information private is being eroded. I have to say there are times when it feels like companies know more about me than I know myself. The list of ways our privacy is being eroded is growing longer and longer. And sadly telephone call privacy got added to the list this August when the 10th Circuit struck down FCC regulations aimed at protecting privacy and implementing congressional intent. The decision was the result of a suit filed by U.S. West against the FCC arguing that its regulations restrict the ability of carriers to engage in commercial speech with customers. In August, the Tenth Circuit issued its decision in the case and agreed with U.S. West. The court stated that ``privacy is not an absolute good because it imposes real costs on society.'' I believe the court was terribly wrong. Individuals have a reasonable expectation that their calling habits are not being shared with third parties without their knowledge or permission. And when I weigh the right of people to control who has access to their personal information against the ability of companies to use only one of many marketing methods, there is no question that the right of people to privacy is overriding. Surely people have a right to control some of their most private information. And surely they have the right to prevent harassing and unwanted solicitations. I for one cannot believe that expanding the variety of marketing techniques at a company's disposal is more important than a person's privacy right. Mr. President, let me describe how my legislation would address the problem. Current law defines information about who we call, how often, and how long we talk to them as ``customer proprietary network information,'' or ``CPNI.'' It is possible for telephone companies to track an individual's CPNI and use it to market various products and services to that person. My legislation requires that consumers be notified about potential disclosures of their private calling information and allows them to have some measure of control over how their information can be used. Specifically, my bill would do two things. First, if a telecommunications carrier wishes to use CPNI in order to market its own products or services to them, it must provide each customer with a clear and conspicuous notice stating the type of calling information that may be used and the purpose for which it will be used. The customer may contact the carrier to deny permission to use their information within 15 days of the notice. If the customer does not contact the carrier in that time, the carrier can use the customer's CPNI to market its products and services to that customer. In other words, customers are provided with a limited opportunity to ``opt-out'' of the sharing of their information under these circumstances. The second part of my bill addresses situations where a carrier wishes to share a customer's CPNI with a third party, such as a telemarketer. In these situations, in addition to providing the customer with notice, the carrier must also receive prior written approval from the customer. My bill clearly spells out that customers must affirmatively ``opt-in'' before a carrier can sell calling information to any third party. The ``Telephone Call Privacy Act'' also allows for some reasonable and common sense exceptions. If a telecommunications carrier uses a customer's CPNI to provide the customer with the very services the carrier used to obtain the calling information, or if law enforcement or the courts require CPNI for certain reasons, the carrier does not need to provide the customer with notice and the opportunity to opt-out or opt-in. Mr. President, consumers are very worried about how their personal information is being used. In 1994, a Harris Survey assessed Americans' views about privacy. It found that eighty-two percent of people surveyed are concerned about threats to their personal privacy. And more specifically, more than half the people surveyed also stated they would be concerned if an interactive service engaged in ``subscriber profiling'' or using an individual's purchasing patterns to determine what types of goods and services to market to them. The survey also showed that people are less concerned about subscriber profiling if they are provided with notice that a profile would be created and how it would be used, and also if they are given access to the information in the profile. Something must be done to empower consumers to prevent their private calling information from being used without their consent. The Telephone Call Privacy Act is an important step towards this goal. I believe the principles set forth in my legislation are a reasonable way to protect privacy and do not unduly burden the ability of businesses to market their products and services. As Justice Brandeis said in his famous dissent in Olmstead v. U.S., ``the right to be let alone [is] the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.'' The government must not only refrain from violating this right, but it must also ensure its preservation. I believe the Telephone Call Privacy Act is a sensible means to achieving this goal. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about privacy and about how we can regain some control over our personal information. Privacy is an increasing concern for all Americans. And the public rightly believes that their control over some of their most personal information is being slowly but surely eroded. Today I introduce legislation that would help end that erosion. The ``Telephone Call Privacy Act of 1999,'' would prevent telecommunications companies from using an individual's personal phone call records without their consent, in order to sell that individual products or services. 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 individual's permission. Mr. President, 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 other countries. Current events can be broadcast around the world as they happen. And companies have streamlined their processes for providing goods and services. But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and financial records, and buying habits. And in turn, our ability to keep our personal information private is being eroded. I have to say there are times when it feels like companies know more about me than I know myself. The list of ways our privacy is being eroded is growing longer and longer. And sadly telephone call privacy got added to the list this August when the 10th Circuit struck down FCC regulations aimed at protecting privacy and implementing congressional intent. The decision was the result of a suit filed by U.S. West against the FCC arguing that its regulations restrict the ability of carriers to engage in commercial speech with customers. In August, the Tenth Circuit issued its decision in the case and agreed with U.S. West. The court stated that ``privacy is not an absolute good because it imposes real costs on society.'' I believe the court was terribly wrong. Individuals have a reasonable expectation that their calling habits are not being shared with third parties without their knowledge or permission. And when I weigh the right of people to control who has access to their personal information against the ability of companies to use only one of many marketing methods, there is no question that the right of people to privacy is overriding. Surely people have a right to control some of their most private information. And surely they have the right to prevent harassing and unwanted solicitations. I for one cannot believe that expanding the variety of marketing techniques at a company's disposal is more important than a person's privacy right. Mr. President, let me describe how my legislation would address the problem. Current law defines information about who we call, how often, and how long we talk to them as ``customer proprietary network information,'' or ``CPNI.'' It is possible for telephone companies to track an individual's CPNI and use it to market various products and services to that person. My legislation requires that consumers be notified about potential disclosures of their private calling information and allows them to have some measure of control over how their information can be used. Specifically, my bill would do two things. First, if a telecommunications carrier wishes to use CPNI in order to market its own products or services to them, it must provide each customer with a clear and conspicuous notice stating the type of calling information that may be used and the purpose for which it will be used. The customer may contact the carrier to deny permission to use their information within 15 days of the notice. If the customer does not contact the carrier in that time, the carrier can use the customer's CPNI to market its products and services to that customer. In other words, customers are provided with a limited opportunity to ``opt-out'' of the sharing of their information under these circumstances. The second part of my bill addresses situations where a carrier wishes to share a customer's CPNI with a third party, such as a telemarketer. In these situations, in addition to providing the customer with notice, the carrier must also receive prior written approval from the customer. My bill clearly spells out that customers must affirmatively ``opt-in'' before a carrier can sell calling information to any third party. The ``Telephone Call Privacy Act'' also allows for some reasonable and common sense exceptions. If a telecommunications carrier uses a customer's CPNI to provide the customer with the very services the carrier used to obtain the calling information, or if law enforcement or the courts require CPNI for certain reasons, the carrier does not need to provide the customer with notice and the opportunity to opt-out or opt-in. Mr. President, consumers are very worried about how their personal information is being used. In 1994, a Harris Survey assessed Americans' views about privacy. It found that eighty-two percent of people surveyed are concerned about threats to their personal privacy. And more specifically, more than half the people surveyed also stated they would be concerned if an interactive service engaged in ``subscriber profiling'' or using an individual's purchasing patterns to determine what types of goods and services to market to them. The survey also showed that people are less concerned about subscriber profiling if they are provided with notice that a profile would be created and how it would be used, and also if they are given access to the information in the profile. Something must be done to empower consumers to prevent their private calling information from being used without their consent. The Telephone Call Privacy Act is an important step towards this goal. I believe the principles set forth in my legislation are a reasonable way to protect privacy and do not unduly burden the ability of businesses to market their products and services. As Justice Brandeis said in his famous dissent in Olmstead v. U.S., ``the right to be let alone [is] the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.'' The government must not only refrain from violating this right, but it must also ensure its preservation. I believe the Telephone Call Privacy Act is a sensible means to achieving this goal. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield 50 minutes allotted to me to the senior Senator from New York so he may yield to the junior Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I want to say a word about my friend and colleague, Senator Chafee. Having had the honor and privilege of being his friend for the 10 months I have been here, the thing that struck me most about Senator Chafee was his kind and gentle nature. It was the sort of thing I am afraid we need more of in government in general and particularly in this body. He was a thoughtful leader who showed exactly the kind of leadership we desperately need in our country today. He was also a thoughtful, nonpartisan voice on issues that were not partisan, issues we ought to be able to work together on, issues that are good for America. It is an extraordinary loss for me personally to lose Senator Chafee. He was someone I looked up to and admired in my brief time here. I don't know anyone here who did not love and adore him. I can certainly add my voice to those who will miss him dearly.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, on the Africa-Caribbean trade bill, let me say first I believe in free trade. This country and my State of North Carolina are part of a global economy. To put our heads in the sand and pretend that is not true is completely unproductive and accomplishes nothing. My concern is that the bills we are addressing this week, the African-Caribbean trade bills, put us in a position of playing with fire. The Senate version of those bills is marginally acceptable but they are significantly different, from my perspective, than the House version of those bills. The Senate version specifically contains provisions for what is called yarn forward and fabric forward, which I will talk about in a few minutes. But both bills are dramatically deficient in one respect; that is, they make it almost impossible, in my judgment, to enforce provisions against transshipment. Transshipment, as my colleagues know, means a country such as China can ship goods to Africa that they otherwise could not ship directly to the United States because of quotas, have a button sewn onto a garment or a piece of apparel, and then have it shipped to the United States and otherwise circumvent existing tariffs and quota requirements. The problem is the enforcement mechanisms against transshipment. In the House bill, in my judgment, they are virtually nonexistent. In the Senate bill, while somewhat better, still we rely heavily on African countries to develop and enforce rules against transshipment. That is simply not a bet worth taking. Unfortunately, transshipment has the potential of putting an enormous number of folks out of work in North Carolina and having a dramatic impact on the textile and apparel industry in my State of North Carolina. The second problem with these bills is the issue of yarn and fabric forward. The Senate bill provides for yarn and fabric forward, which essentially means African countries operating under the Senate bill, if it were passed, would be required to use American yarn, American fabric, which theoretically would help protect American manufacturers in those two areas. The problem is those provisions are not in the African trade bill on the House side. Unfortunately, if this bill passes the Senate, once it gets to conference, there would be enormous pressure to drop out the fabric forward and yarn forward provisions. Without those provisions, the textile and apparel industry in the United States and in my State of North Carolina would be dramatically affected. I said when I began that I believe in free trade, and I do believe in free trade. But I think there are certain fundamental principles with which every free trade agreement should comply. First, the agreements must be negotiated and must be multilateral. The countries with which we are entering into these agreements have to give something up. As I will discuss in a few minutes, that is not true with respect to this bill. All the trade laws have to be fair and enforceable. As I indicated a few minutes ago, there is at least one major area, transshipment, that in my judgment is not enforceable in this bill. Third, the trade bill must have adequate labor and environmental protections overseas. That is common sense. If our businesses and workers in this country are going to compete, as they should, with businesses and workers overseas, these bills must have adequate labor and environmental protections. Finally, the trade bills must have tangible and provable benefits for U.S. companies and U.S. workers. Those four criteria must be present for a free trade bill to make sense for our country and for my State of North Carolina. I am going to talk about some of these principles and how they apply to this specific bill. First, I just mentioned tangible benefits for U.S. workers. Let me tell you a little bit about what is happening with textile and apparel industry jobs in this country and specifically in my State of North Carolina. We have 177,000 textile jobs in North Carolina. We have 45,000 apparel jobs, 222,000 jobs in total. Almost a quarter of a million workers in my State of North Carolina are dependent on the textile and apparel industry to put food on the table for their families; a quarter of a million families who are going to be impacted if this bill passes and is signed by the President and becomes law. Let's look at what has happened to folks who have worked in that area in North Carolina over the last several years. In the last 5 years, from 1993 to 1998, North Carolina has lost 62,000 jobs in the area of textile and apparel manufacturing. That is 62,000 families who had a breadwinner working in that industry who lost their jobs. I believe the studies have shown that those folks have had a terrible time finding other employment. The reality is that the people who work in these jobs need these jobs. They are critically important to provide them and their families with a livelihood. Oftentimes, there is nowhere else for them to go. I want my colleagues to recognize that when we do pass the kind of legislation we are talking about in these trade bills, it is not just an economic issue. This has real and human consequences on families in my State of North Carolina. We have lost during that same 5-year period in the textile apparel industry almost 300,000 jobs nationally, which means 300,000 families in this country have lost their source of income during that same 5- year period. What has happened during the 10-year period from 1989 to 1999? In North Carolina, we have gone from 220,000 to 177,000 textile jobs, almost 43,000 jobs lost, a 20-percent drop in 10 years. We have gone from 83,000 to 45,000 in the apparel industry, which means they have almost been cut in half; half the people in North Carolina who were dependent on the apparel industry to provide income and livelihood for their families have been put out of work; a 45-percent drop, almost half. The reality is, these families have been devastated by the loss of these jobs. The bill we are talking about today, the African-Caribbean trade bill, could very easily have exactly the same impact because it ensures these jobs we are trying to hold on to in the United States are very likely to be exported to the Caribbean and to African countries. The average apparel wage in the United States is $8 an hour. Let's see how that compares with these other countries. In Mexico, the average wage is 85 cents an hour. In the Dominican Republic, it is 69 cents an hour; El Salvador, 59 cents an hour; Guatemala, 65 cents an hour; and Honduras, 43 cents an hour--$8 an hour to, in all these countries, well under $1 an hour that companies will have to pay in wages. It does not take a mathematical wizard to figure out what is going to happen to these jobs and to all these folks in my State who are completely dependent on the textile and apparel industry to provide for their families, many of whom have been working in this industry for many years. On a personal note, I grew up in the textile business. My dad worked in the textile business for 37 years before his retirement from that business. I have seen firsthand, having worked in mills in North Carolina when I was in high school and in college, how heavily folks depend on these jobs. They have nowhere else to go. The bottom line is, it is all they know, and it is all well and good to talk abstractly about retraining, but when you are talking about retraining somebody who does not have a high school education and who has spent the last 30 or 40 years of their life working in a cotton mill, they have no idea what to do and they have no realistic prospect of going to some other field of employment. These people need these jobs. This is a human tragedy that is created oftentimes by these trade bills. I want folks to realize this is real, and it has a real and devastating effect on people's lives in my State of North Carolina and all over this country. Let me talk briefly about the jobs we know have been lost and the plants that have been closed over the last few years in North Carolina. In September of this year, Pluma Inc. closed a plant in Eden, NC, a small community in North Carolina, 500 jobs lost; 500 families lost their breadwinner. The company of Jasper closed a plant in Whiteville, NC, in September of this year; 191 jobs lost. Whiteville Apparel in Whiteville, NC, in eastern North Carolina, closed a plant in August of this year; 396 jobs lost. Stonecutter Mills in Rutherford and Polk in western North Carolina closed a plant in June of this year; 800 jobs lost. Dyersburg, in Hamilton, NC, closed a plant in May of this year; 422 jobs lost. Unifi in Raeford and Sanford closed a plant in March of this year; 257 jobs lost. Levi Strauss closed a plant in Murphy; 382 jobs lost. Burlington Industries in January of this year closed plants in Cramerton, Forest City, Mooresville, Raeford, Oxford, and Statesville; 2,600 jobs lost. Cone Mills at the end of last year, in December, closed a plant in Salisbury; 625 jobs lost. In a period of less than a year, 6,173 jobs have been lost in my home State of North Carolina. Just imagine what impact the passage of this piece of legislation will have. It will accelerate those numbers. It will not retard them. It will accelerate them, so more and more workers who have spent their lives working in textiles will have nowhere to go, no way to feed their families, and their families are just out of luck. I want to read from a news story that appeared in the Arizona Republic. It appeared on October 23 of this year--just recently. It is entitled ``Textile Industry Unravels Workers Idled By Cheap Labor.'' It does a terrific job of telling the story of what is happening to workers and families all over North Carolina who are being impacted by these trade bills: It was the only work she'd ever done, the only work she'd ever wanted to do. And a contented Lorie Coleman spent a decade and a half inspecting stitch lines, examining cloth and making sure everything that came out of the Ithaca Industries textile mill here met her ``high standards''-- never mind the company's. A $6-an-hour job it may have been, but it was hers. Then it was gone. ``To think you could work somewhere,'' Coleman . . . said recently, her voice still tinged with disbelief . . .'' and the next thing you know, you're gone, just like that.'' Just like that, a livelihood for the Lorie Colemans of North Carolina and thousands of others in the Piedmont area is disappearing. Since 1995, according to state labor statistics, more than 160 textile and apparel mills have closed in North Carolina, leaving nearly-- Listen to this, Mr. President-- leaving nearly 30,000 people out of work [since 1995]. Those losses are reflected throughout the Southeast, which, according to federal figures, lost more than 85,000 such jobs, even as the country was experiencing its fabled economic expansion. During a period of booming prosperity for this Nation's economy, when everyone else is taking advantage of investment in Wall Street, great earnings on Wall Street, companies are doing terrifically well, 85,000 people in the Southeast lost their jobs, 30,000 in my State of North Carolina. To be sure, North Carolina is still the leading state in the leading region for U.S. production of textiles and apparel. Nevertheless, the State is hemorrhaging. Few places in the State have felt the sting of such losses as much as Lorie Coleman's native Columbus County. Home to nine mills just three years ago, the county now has 3 mills, and two of those are scheduled to close this fall. They will have one mill left. It's a corner of North Carolina that was spared from the worst of Hurricane Floyd's floods last month, but it is bearing the brunt of an industry's decline. After Jasper Textiles and Whiteville Apparel close their gates, the number of textile jobs in this county [Columbus County in eastern North Carolina] will have fallen to 50 from 2,100. In other words, they have gone from 2,100 jobs to 50. There is nowhere for these people to go to work. They have no comparable jobs. There is nowhere else for them to go. Those figures also bear witness to the decline of a distinctly Southern way of life. Lorie Coleman said it best. She spent her life working in this mill and all of a sudden it was gone. Everything she spent her life learning to do has disappeared. There is another fundamental problem with this bill. These bills are unilateral. They are not multilateral. Every Member of the Senate should require, in order to vote for a trade bill, that it be multilateral. What does that mean? First, in the Caribbean, the Dominican Republic charges a 30 to 35 percent tariff on apparel imports. Honduras charges 25 percent. Nicaragua charges 20 percent. We are lowering our tariffs in this bill. Do we have a corresponding lowering of tariffs in those countries? The answer is no. We are unilaterally lowering our tariffs and expecting nothing from the countries that are part of this trade agreement. Their tariffs remain exactly the same. Where is the fairness in this agreement? In Africa, the average tariff on apparel is 27 percent. Exactly the same tariff is charged on home textiles. This simply makes no sense. Why should we as a nation unilaterally lower our tariffs and have our companies in this country subjected to tariffs in the countries we are entering into contracts or agreements with, where they can charge any tariff they want? That is exactly what is happening in this agreement. There is no lowering of trade barriers in Africa, no lowering of trade barriers in the Caribbean. Instead, we have decided unilaterally we will lower trade barriers. I have heard a lot of my colleagues talk about the poverty that reigns in Africa and in the Caribbean. My heart goes out to those people. They are suffering; they are struggling. The fact that they are working for anywhere from 35 to 85 cents an hour bears witness to the terrible lives with which they and their families are confronted. But we, in my State of North Carolina, have an awful lot of people who are struggling to make ends meet, too. We have an awful lot of people and families who have spent their lives going into those mills every day, 5, sometimes 6 days a week, 8 to 10 hours a day, to learn to do a job, to build up seniority, to provide for their families. When we enter into these kind of trade agreements, particularly when we can't enforce provisions against transshipment, where there is a real likelihood that yarn and fabric forward will go out when this bill goes to conference and, as a result, there is a devastating economic impact on North Carolina's textile business and on North Carolina's textile workers, those people lose everything. This is not just an abstract economic proposition we are debating. We are talking about human lives. We are talking about an enormous impact on the families I represent in North Carolina. I want my colleagues, when they come to vote, either on cloture or on the passage of this bill ultimately, if we reach that stage, to understand every single one of them has a dramatic effect on real human beings' lives across this country and in my home State of North Carolina.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 21st Century Community Policing Initiative Act. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation, introduced by Senators Biden and Schumer, that I believe is crucial to our efforts to fight crime. This important bill would re-authorize the successful Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program through the year 2005. Because of the COPS program, there are over 100,000 more police officers on the beat than there were before this program was implemented in 1994. This represents a nearly 20 percent increase in police presence nationwide. By extending the COPS program, the 21st Century Community Policing Initiative Act will help put up to 50,000 more police on the streets over the next five years. It will also provide $350 million a year in grants to law enforcement agencies to assist them in acquiring new technology to enhance crime fighting efforts. This means better communications systems so cops in different jurisdictions can talk to each other; state of the art investigative tools like DNA analysis; and the means to target crime hot spots. This legislation would also provide $200 million per year in grants for community-wide prosecutors. This aspect of the bill would expand the community policing concept to engage the whole community in preventing and fighting crime. The cops have been so successful in their jobs that the next step is to provide more prosecutors to help get criminals off the streets. Mr. President, one of the best ways to fight crime is to have more well-trained police officers on our streets and in our schools, and to provide them with the latest equipment and technology. The COPS program has helped achieve these goals, and has in turn helped to make our communities safer places for our children, families, and businesses. The COPS program has been a tremendous asset to my state of North Carolina. As of October 20th, the COPS program had provided North Carolina with grants of over $135 million. From Alexander Mills to Zebulon, North Carolina communities have received COPS funding to help law enforcement agencies hire an additional 2,602 police officers to patrol neighborhoods and protect our schools. In August, I met with police officers and sheriffs from across North Carolina to learn more about how the COPS program is helping to keep local communities safe. I heard from law enforcement officers from the larger cities such as Raleigh and Charlotte. I also spoke with officers from smaller, rural areas like North Wilkesboro and Randolph County. The one clear message that I got from all of these officers is that the COPS program is working and should be continued. Mr. President, crime rates in big cities are generally higher than they are in smaller towns. An increased police presence can help deter crime in these urban areas. However, officers I met with from less populated regions of North Carolina emphasized to me that even one more cop can make a world of difference to a community that lacks its own resources to hire more police officers. In these situations, the COPS program can step in and provide these communities with the additional help they need. One of the most interesting and persuasive arguments to renew the COPS program was also one that I heard during these conversations with North Carolina police officers. They told me that when people think of the COPS program, they immediately think of more officers policing the streets. However, one of the most important roles that the COPS program has played is to provide funds for law enforcement agencies to work in partnership with education officials to solve problems of crime in and around schools. Officers are not just placed in the schools to instill discipline. They act as counselors, coaches and mentors for children. And they are reaching out to students by offering safe after-school activities. North Carolina officers told me that these efforts are some of the best kinds of crime prevention measures that we can take. By connecting with at-risk youth, these school-based officers have become trusted adult authority figures that kids will run to in times of trouble, instead of running away from them. Many police chiefs and sheriffs credit community policing and COPS support with dramatic drops in crime rates around the nation. Since the inception of the COPS program, violent crime in North Carolina is down 7% and aggravated assault has fallen by 8%. According to a report issued by the State Bureau of Investigation, the state's murder rate fell 3% from 1997 to 1998. And, the country's crime rate is at its lowest in 25 years. These statistics are encouraging, but now is not the time to eliminate a program that has substantially contributed to declining crime rates. We still have a long way to go to insuring that people are walking crime-free streets and children are attending crime-free schools. Continuation of the COPS program is one significant way that we can continue to make progress towards these goals. Mr. President, during debate on the juvenile crime bill, Senator Biden offered an amendment that would have re-authorized the COPS program through 2005. I voted for this amendment which was endorsed by many law enforcement organizations including the National Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Unfortunately, the amendment failed by the slimmest of margins (48-50). However, I am confident that upon reconsideration of the question whether it is necessary to renew the COPS program, my colleagues will realize how effective and valuable the program has been, not only to their individual states, but to the nation as a whole. I want to thank Senators Biden and Schumer for their efforts to re- authorize the COPS program and I urge all of my colleagues to support the 21st Century Community Policing Initiative Act.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 21st Century Community Policing Initiative Act. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation, introduced by Senators Biden and Schumer, that I believe is crucial to our efforts to fight crime. This important bill would re-authorize the successful Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program through the year 2005. Because of the COPS program, there are over 100,000 more police officers on the beat than there were before this program was implemented in 1994. This represents a nearly 20 percent increase in police presence nationwide. By extending the COPS program, the 21st Century Community Policing Initiative Act will help put up to 50,000 more police on the streets over the next five years. It will also provide $350 million a year in grants to law enforcement agencies to assist them in acquiring new technology to enhance crime fighting efforts. This means better communications systems so cops in different jurisdictions can talk to each other; state of the art investigative tools like DNA analysis; and the means to target crime hot spots. This legislation would also provide $200 million per year in grants for community-wide prosecutors. This aspect of the bill would expand the community policing concept to engage the whole community in preventing and fighting crime. The cops have been so successful in their jobs that the next step is to provide more prosecutors to help get criminals off the streets. Mr. President, one of the best ways to fight crime is to have more well-trained police officers on our streets and in our schools, and to provide them with the latest equipment and technology. The COPS program has helped achieve these goals, and has in turn helped to make our communities safer places for our children, families, and businesses. The COPS program has been a tremendous asset to my state of North Carolina. As of October 20th, the COPS program had provided North Carolina with grants of over $135 million. From Alexander Mills to Zebulon, North Carolina communities have received COPS funding to help law enforcement agencies hire an additional 2,602 police officers to patrol neighborhoods and protect our schools. In August, I met with police officers and sheriffs from across North Carolina to learn more about how the COPS program is helping to keep local communities safe. I heard from law enforcement officers from the larger cities such as Raleigh and Charlotte. I also spoke with officers from smaller, rural areas like North Wilkesboro and Randolph County. The one clear message that I got from all of these officers is that the COPS program is working and should be continued. Mr. President, crime rates in big cities are generally higher than they are in smaller towns. An increased police presence can help deter crime in these urban areas. However, officers I met with from less populated regions of North Carolina emphasized to me that even one more cop can make a world of difference to a community that lacks its own resources to hire more police officers. In these situations, the COPS program can step in and provide these communities with the additional help they need. One of the most interesting and persuasive arguments to renew the COPS program was also one that I heard during these conversations with North Carolina police officers. They told me that when people think of the COPS program, they immediately think of more officers policing the streets. However, one of the most important roles that the COPS program has played is to provide funds for law enforcement agencies to work in partnership with education officials to solve problems of crime in and around schools. Officers are not just placed in the schools to instill discipline. They act as counselors, coaches and mentors for children. And they are reaching out to students by offering safe after-school activities. North Carolina officers told me that these efforts are some of the best kinds of crime prevention measures that we can take. By connecting with at-risk youth, these school-based officers have become trusted adult authority figures that kids will run to in times of trouble, instead of running away from them. Many police chiefs and sheriffs credit community policing and COPS support with dramatic drops in crime rates around the nation. Since the inception of the COPS program, violent crime in North Carolina is down 7% and aggravated assault has fallen by 8%. According to a report issued by the State Bureau of Investigation, the state's murder rate fell 3% from 1997 to 1998. And, the country's crime rate is at its lowest in 25 years. These statistics are encouraging, but now is not the time to eliminate a program that has substantially contributed to declining crime rates. We still have a long way to go to insuring that people are walking crime-free streets and children are attending crime-free schools. Continuation of the COPS program is one significant way that we can continue to make progress towards these goals. Mr. President, during debate on the juvenile crime bill, Senator Biden offered an amendment that would have re-authorized the COPS program through 2005. I voted for this amendment which was endorsed by many law enforcement organizations including the National Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Unfortunately, the amendment failed by the slimmest of margins (48-50). However, I am confident that upon reconsideration of the question whether it is necessary to renew the COPS program, my colleagues will realize how effective and valuable the program has been, not only to their individual states, but to the nation as a whole. I want to thank Senators Biden and Schumer for their efforts to re- authorize the COPS program and I urge all of my colleagues to support the 21st Century Community Policing Initiative Act.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I enter this debate sad that partisan politics has obstructed the effort of many of us to address this problem in a meaningful way. Put simply, I oppose partial-birth abortions. Indeed, I oppose all late-term abortions unless they are necessary to save the life of the mother or to avert grievous damage to the physical health of the mother. I have voted for the Durbin amendment and will vote against the Santorum measure. One, the Durbin proposal, has failed. The other will pass the Senate but accomplish nothing. The Santorum bill suffers from a number of serious flaws. First, it is clearly unconstitutional. The vast majority of federal courts dealing with this issue have held so, and no amount of wishful thinking can alter that fact. Second, even if it were constitutional, it would not stop a single abortion. Let me reiterate that: it would not stop a single abortion. It would simply spur doctors and women to seek other methods to achieve the same goal. Before explaining why the Santorum measure is unconstitutional, let me elaborate on why it is ineffective. Long before the procedure of partial-birth abortion was developed, late-term, postviability abortions were available through alternative methods. Under the Santorum bill, which only prevents one particular procedure, physicians can simply revert to the use of other more dangerous procedures if partial-birth abortion is banned. This bill will not end late-term abortions. It will simply force doctors to fall back on antiquated medical interventions that will further endanger the lives and health of women. Is that really what we want? In addition, 19 recent court rulings have determined that similar proposals are unconstitutional. There is a strong likelihood that this bill, if passed, will be struck down as unconstitutional according to the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. As drafted this legislation is unconstitutionally vague and violates the clear dictates of the Supreme Court. Our objective should not be to pass divisive legislation that has no chance of ever becoming law. And so I support the Durbin amendment. I believe it achieves a rare balance in the debate about abortion. It is constitutional. It limits government interference in a woman's most personal and important decisions. And it provides a framework for dealing with the late-term abortions--including partial birth abortions--that the so many of us struggle to find sense in. I have spoken with women who have had late-term abortions. They struggled mightily with their God and their consciences. They made their decisions with their husbands, their families and their doctors. And they alone confronted the awful moment when hope for a new life collided with terror about the fate of their own life. I can never understand that conflict. But I believe that the Durbin amendment offers a bridge between those women and all of us who try to understand how or why a woman might choose to have a late-term abortion. I simply do not believe that Senators or any government representative has the authority or expertise to determine that a partial-birth or late-term abortion will never be necessary to prevent severe injury to a woman's physical health or a threat to her life. But I do believe that we do have the authority to ask that before a late- term abortion is performed it be determined that the woman's life or physical health are truly at stake. The Durbin amendment would accomplish this goal. It would bar, except in narrow circumstances and under the advice and consent of two physicians, all late-term abortions. On balance, I believe that the difficult question of abortion should be left for a woman to decide in consultation with her family, her physician and her faith. However, once the fetus has reached viability, I believe that we do have a responsibility, and a constitutional ability, to protect the unborn child. I believe that the Durbin amendment was the piece of legislation before us that would have most effectively accomplish that goal. And so I have voted in its favor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, our political process is diseased. The virus causing that disease is money. The worst virus of all is what is known as soft money. The people of America, including folks I grew up with in a small town in North Carolina, no longer believe their vote matters. As a result, they do not go to the polls; they do not participate. They have completely disengaged with their Government and the political process. We have to do something in the Senate to bring those people back, to make the people all over this country believe again that this is their Government. We have to make people believe again that their Government up in Washington is not some foreign thing that has nothing to do with them and nothing to do with their lives, but, in fact, they have ownership of this Government; this is their Government. It doesn't belong to the Senators who participate in this body; it belongs to the people, every single one of them. We must make them believe again that when they go to the polls and vote, their vote counts every bit as much as anybody else's vote and that their voice in the process is as loud and clear as anybody else's. The reality is, people have disengaged for a two major reasons. One is the influx of big money. I don't think it is an accident that during the widening of the soft money loophole and the boom of big soft money contributions over the last several years that allows people to write checks for $100,000, $200,000, $500,000, completely unregulated, unmonitored--that during this same period of time voter turnout has steadily declined. The simple reason for that is, average Americans, average North Carolinians, believe their voice is being drowned out by big money. These people, who have good sense, their gut tells them that when somebody else writes a check for $100,000--first of all, most of them can't afford to write a check for $25 for a political candidate, much less $100,000--that there is no way in their life experience they are going to be listened to, that they are going to have the access to their Senator or to their Congressman that the person who writes these big money checks has. It is just that simple. They are not on a first- name basis with their Senator, they are not on a first-name basis with their Congressman, but these people who write $100,000 checks are. We have to do something about that. That problem--that cynicism, the distrust, the belief that Government up in Washington has nothing to do with them--is what keeps them from going to the poll. Unfortunately, this problem of the influence of big money is compounded when they turn on their television sets in October before an election, and what do they see on television? They see hateful negative personal attacks, many of which are funded with big money, soft money, unregulated money contributions. These negative political ads are the second major reason people are not engaged in the political process. It is the reason that they don't vote and that they are cynical about government and cynical about politics. It is also the reason they don't encourage their kids to get involved in government. It is the reason they themselves don't participate, because they believe in their hearts that the process has been corrupted. The result of that corruption is, they want nothing to do with it. They don't want their family to have anything to do with it. They don't want their kids to have anything to do with it. It used to be that public service was a very noble calling, before this extraordinary influx of big money and these spiteful advertisements we have seen over the last few years. We have to do everything in our power to return power in this Government where it started and where it belongs, which is with average Americans going to the polls. One of my constituents wrote to me. I think he said it very well. I am quoting Jason McNutt. He said: Our democracy is threatened by the amounts that wealthy special interests are spending on politics. Ordinary citizens like myself have very little influence. . . The American democracy has been corrupted by big money. He is exactly right. Mr. McNutt is expressing a feeling that, at a gut level, people all over this country have. And that feeling of disenchantment is what we have to address. I heard an extended debate last week between Senator McCain, who has shown great and courageous leadership on this issue, and another Senator. Basically the interchange was, point out to us what Senators have been corrupted. A large part of the debate had to do with questions and answers about which Senators had been corrupted. I have been in the Senate for about 9 months. The men and women I serve with here are far from corrupt. They are hard-working people who do what they think is right and, even when we disagree, I have enormous respect for my colleagues in this body. That respect has done nothing but grow during the time I have been here. The problem with the debate, though, is it is not about what Senators are corrupt. That focus is wrong. That is about us. This debate is not about us. This debate is about the folks who have quit voting. It is about parents who don't want their kids involved in politics, who don't want their kids involved in Government. They have this feeling in their stomach that there is something wrong. They could not articulate to you with great specificity what is wrong, but they know something is wrong. There is no place I would put greater confidence than in the gut understanding of the American people. It is the reason they are not voting anymore and not participating. The single biggest loophole that we have today is soft money. I strongly support comprehensive, across-the-board campaign finance reform, to return power to regular people. But the reality is that what we have a chance of passing in this Congress is a ban on soft money. That doesn't solve the problem, there is no question about that; we will continue to have other problems in other areas. But if we keep putting this off, not addressing the issue and voting it down on a procedural basis, even though a majority of the Senators voted in favor of campaign finance reform, we have not sent the right signal to the American people. We have a responsibility--I believe I have a personal responsibility to the people that I represent all over North Carolina-- to say that we are going to do what we can do. We are going to send you a powerful signal that we are starting the process of solving this huge problem. The simplest way to send that signal is to ban soft money--to ban it tomorrow. Let's put a stop to this unregulated flow of huge sums of money that are coming into our political system. This ban alone won't solve the problems facing our political system. Nobody believes it will. But it will send a powerful message across this country that we care, that the people in this Senate care about how average Americans feel about the process. Because if we don't ban soft money, we send the signal that we don't care, that all we care about is ourselves, our own elections, and we don't care about the people out there across this country who are no longer going to the polls. We have to do something about that. They need to hear a loud and powerful message from us. We can address the other issues as we go forward. But, first, we have to make it clear to the people of America that we are willing to do something and that we are focused on them, their concerns, and their worries and not just ourselves and our elections. That is what we need to do, Mr. President. The bottom line is, we ultimately have to return power in this Government to where it started, which is with regular people going to the polls. We have to return democracy to its roots, because that is how this country began. Over the course of the last 200 years-- particularly over the course of the last 10 years--that has changed. Folks back home know in their hearts and souls, without seeing it, that these powerful people who write big checks, the big special interests, are having an enormous influence over what happens up here. It bothers them. You know, it ought to bother them, because they are right. We have to say something back to these people who are worried, who aren't voting anymore and don't want their kids involved in Government and politics. I, myself, in my last campaign, made a decision not to accept contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists, which is nothing but a small step along this road. But we as a body have to send a message, and that message should be loud, clear, and unequivocal. The message is that we are returning power in your democracy to you.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring Senator Leahy on casting his 10,000th vote in the United States Senate. Given that I have just cast my 328th vote, I am humbled and impressed by the senior Senator from Vermont's accomplishment. This feat is a true measure of Senator Leahy's dedication to the people of the United States and his commitment to the state of Vermont. Senator Leahy made a lasting impression on me early in my tenure as he oversaw the Democratic Senators who attended the impeachment depositions. In very difficult circumstances, Senator Leahy set a tone of fairness and collegiality. His example during the depositions is one that I will always value as I continue my public service. I am truly grateful for and humbled by the service that Senator Leahy has given to this nation, and I also thank him for his enduring leadership, selflessness and influence in the U.S. Senate. I look forward to his next 10,000 votes.