John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. If I could ask a followup question, there has been a lot of debate on the floor and a lot of private conversations about whether there is any usefulness associated with simply banning soft money. Let me ask the question again, using the example of this dairy farmer from Wisconsin. Does the Senator think it is important for the Senate to send a message to that farmer in rural Wisconsin that we are trying to do something real and meaningful to clean up campaign finance in this country?

Mr. EDWARDS. Will the Senator agree that even if we are not able in this Congress in this session to pass across-the-board comprehensive reform that it is critically important that we send a message to Americans all over this country that this Senate and this Congress is willing to take a strong and courageous step to do something real and meaningful in terms of cleaning up campaign finance and that one of those steps would be the banning of soft money?

Mr. EDWARDS. Seventy-two counties, and the Senator has been in every one.

Mr. EDWARDS. I know the Senator has spent a great deal of time moving across his home State of Wisconsin. How many counties are in Wisconsin?

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me ask the Senator one last question. I agree. One last question: In the Senator's mind, is this a party issue? Is this a Democratic or Republican issue?

Mr. EDWARDS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin and Senator McCain for their courageous leadership on this critical issue.

Mr. EDWARDS. I wonder what the Senator would think what someone in rural Wisconsin, a farmer in rural Wisconsin, would believe in terms of their influence, vis-a-vis someone who gave $100,000 in soft money to, in our case as fellow Democrats to the Democratic Party, or to the DNCC, whether that rural farmer in Wisconsin would believe that they have the same voice in the Senate that a $100,000 soft money contributor has.

Mr. EDWARDS. How does the Senator think that farmer would feel in his gut about whether this representative democracy is working the way it ought to work in a situation where he or she has at best one vote, and that position vis-a-vis another individual who has given $100,000, when he is working on his farm on a day-to-day basis? Does the Senator think that farmer believes he has the same equal voice that he is supposed to have in his representative democracy as somebody who wrote a $100,000 check.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend, the Senator from Mississippi, and the Senator from Wisconsin for all their hard work on this very difficult bill. I intend to support this bill. Let me talk briefly about what this Agriculture Appropriations bill does for North Carolina and what it will not be able to do for North Carolina. In North Carolina, we talk about things in terms of before and after Hurricane Floyd, unfortunately. Before Hurricane Floyd, our farmers were struggling, having very difficult times, financially and otherwise. Their crop prices were at the lowest levels they have been in many years. And they needed help; they desperately needed help. One of the things this bill does is provide some of that help in the way of direct market assistance for some of the problems they had before Hurricane Floyd. We have about $328 million in this conference report for North Carolina's tobacco farmers. I have to say, for those around the country who are not familiar with North Carolina's farming operations, an awful lot of our farmers are tobacco farmers. They may farm a lot of other crops, but tobacco is often the staple that allows them to farm those other crops. This money was desperately needed. And they needed it now. They needed it even before Hurricane Floyd hit. Having visited with our farmers, including our tobacco farmers, all over the State of North Carolina, we are very pleased and very proud that we were able to get them the assistance which they deserved and which they needed. Sadly, though, I have to also talk about the situation after Floyd. This bill provides $1.2 billion for disaster relief. I have to say, I think this is way short of what we are going to need in North Carolina. We have a real emergency, I think by anybody's standards, in the agricultural farming community in North Carolina as a result of Hurricane Floyd. I have been all over North Carolina and have spent a lot of time in eastern North Carolina, visiting our farms that have been devastated by Hurricane Floyd. The reality is, this is a loss from which it is going to take many years to recover. Of this $1.2 billion, some reasonably sized chunk of that money will go to farmers in North Carolina. It will not ultimately be enough. But it is critically important that we get some of that money to them, and get it to them quickly. I urge the Secretary of Agriculture to do as much as he can to get as much of this money as is possible disbursed in the immediate future because these farmers need help. They already needed help before Hurricane Floyd. And they need help now more than ever. They need it immediately. What this photograph I have represents is what I saw all over eastern North Carolina as a result of Hurricane Floyd and in the wake of Hurricane Floyd. We can see almost the entire farm--except for the farmhouse--is under water. This property, which has been involved in farming for many years, is now under water. And the crop losses have been completely devastating. This scene is repeated over and over and over, all over eastern North Carolina. We are told the best estimates are, at this point, that there is somewhere between $800 million and $1 billion in agricultural losses in North Carolina. Obviously, the money in this bill is not going to be adequate since it is for the entire country. It is not going to be adequate to deal with the loss in North Carolina alone which approaches $1 billion. We are going to have to do more. I want the people of North Carolina, and particularly our farmers in North Carolina, to know that we fully recognize they need help. They need help quickly. They do not need loans. They were already up to their necks in debt and up to their necks in loans before the hurricane hit. They need help. They need direct disaster relief, and they need it immediately. I point out, both for my farmers in North Carolina and to my colleagues, that the money that was recently put in the VA-HUD conference report, the approximately $2.48 billion for FEMA, will not help with the farming problem in North Carolina because that money is not designated and indeed cannot be used specifically for agriculture. We are going to have to have some direct appropriation through some vehicle in this Congress--this session--to help our farmers because if we do not they are going out of business. They are the heart and soul of North Carolina and to our economy in North Carolina, and particularly to our rural economy in North Carolina. We have to be there for them. They have been there for us. We have to step to the plate and provide them with the support they need. Finally, I express my disappointment with the lack of any dairy legislation in this conference report. I supported dairy legislation. I continue to support it. We recognize the plight of dairy farmers in North Carolina. We understand the difficulties and problems they have. We will continue to search and aggressively pursue ways to solve the problems with which they are confronted. Again, I thank the distinguished managers of this measure. I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, on September 14, Hurricane Floyd began making its way up the eastern coast, leaving in its path unprecedented destruction. The hurricane made landfall at the mouth of the Cape Fear River in North Carolina on September 16 and brought with it strong winds and torrential downpours. To date, Hurricane Floyd is responsible for 65 deaths, 45 in North Carolina alone. One week after Hurricane Floyd made landfall, flood waters just beginning to recede and North Carolinians are now starting the grim task of starting over.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. EDWARDS. I want to take a moment to thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri for their very kind comments. I know they will, as they always have, step to the front and help the folks in North Carolina who need help so desperately. I would add to that, I say to Senator Bond, that Senator Helms is working very hard, the senior Senator from North Carolina, on this problem. He and I have talked about it on a couple of occasions already. We will continue to talk about it. He is working very hard on this problem. So is our Governor. We appreciate very much your help and support. I appreciate your thoughts and prayers. This is one of those times where we need all the help and support we can get, I can promise you. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the terrible devastation that has occurred in my State of North Carolina, which most of my colleagues, I know, are aware of, and to give them an update on a report I gave last week. The people of North Carolina are suffering in a way they have never suffered before. This is absolutely the worst disaster that has ever hit the State of North Carolina. There has been tragedy, and there have been acts of heroism. It has been an extraordinarily difficult situation, particularly for the people of eastern North Carolina. Thus far, we have 37 confirmed deaths as a result of the hurricane. We have four additional North Carolinians at this point presumed dead. We expect, as the waters recede, as FEMA officials and other local folks are able to get into houses that have been covered by water, that we will find additional North Carolinians who have lost their lives as a result of this flood. Let me give one example. We have one entire family that was wiped out by this flood--six members of the family. This happened in Pinetops, NC, which is one of the worst hit areas of eastern North Carolina. Ben and Vivian Mayo, Keisha Mayo, and Cabrina and Destiny Flowers were all killed as they tried to escape in a small boat but the boat capsized. Yesterday, rescue team members who were working in the area discovered another member of the family, Teshika, who was 50 feet from her grandparents' home at the time of her death. She was 5 years old. That is six members of this family who died in the course of this hurricane. This is a terrible tragedy. I ask all of my colleagues and the American people as a whole to please give their thoughts and prayers to these families as they go through an extraordinarily difficult time. We had business losses that we have never had in the history of North Carolina. An example is Jamie Milliken's family who operated an electric supply company in Brunswick County. As a result of the flood, they have lost $2 million worth of merchandise. They had no flood insurance. Some of the hardest hit businesspeople in eastern North Carolina are the farmers. The bottom line is--and I will talk in a little more detail about this in a few minutes--there are many farmers in eastern North Carolina who will be put out of business. They were already struggling, already having a very difficult time making ends meet. This has been a year where they have been hit and hit again: Hit by drought, hit by low crop prices, hit by low livestock prices. And then, when they are teetering on the edge, they get the final nail in the coffin, which is the effect of this hurricane on their businesses and on their farms. The effect has been devastating. We have also had enormous problems with housing and homelessness. The truth is, we have people who are desperate. For example, we got a call in my office from a mother whose daughter is stranded in New Hanover County, where Wilmington is located. She lost everything: Her home, her car, all of her possessions, and her job. Her mother says her daughter has absolutely no idea how she will go about rebuilding her life and she can't stop crying. Every time she calls her, she is crying. She has no idea how she will deal with the situation. We have about 10,000 people in eastern North Carolina who still remain in shelters, who cannot get to their homes because of the floodwaters, and they have nowhere to go except the shelters. Mr. President, 50,000 homes have been affected by this hurricane. We expect that number actually to go up as we have more time to go in and see what damage has been caused. I might add, I spoke with the Director of FEMA, James Lee Witt, a bit ago. He pointed out to me something that the people in North Carolina have already thought about. When the floodwaters recede, because the water has been contaminated by a variety of things, including wastewater treatment plants being flooded, including dead livestock, including any of a variety of things, the water is contaminated that has gone into people's homes. When that water recedes, folks are going to want to go home. They have been out of their homes for a long time now, living in shelters. They will want to go home. The problem is, their houses will be contaminated. They will have enormous health threats as a result of the contamination caused by the floodwaters. We will be confronted with a situation of trying to decontaminate the houses, and in some cases that may be impossible. It may be required that the houses simply be torn down and rebuilt. I might add, many of these people whose houses have been flooded had no flood insurance. To be fair to them, they had no reason to have flood insurance. They didn't live in a floodplain. They didn't live in an area that had ever been flooded. They had no reason to believe their homes would ever be flooded. They are the victims of this hurricane. Water supplies. We have thousands of people in eastern North Carolina who have no clean water. Many people who had wells as the source of their drinking water, the water they use on their farm, the water they use to bathe--the wells are gone. In Greenville, which is probably the largest city in eastern North Carolina, they are facing an entire shutdown of their water supply due to a break in the water main. If this occurs, every restaurant, every business, will have to close and it will affect every resident in the area. We have about 120 million gallons of hog waste caused by broken and flooded lagoons spilling into floodwaters. Water is flowing directly from our sewage systems into these floodwaters, which are contaminating homes, contaminating businesses, contaminating farms. We also have a problem with our roads. We have more than 900 roads that have been washed out where floods have been recorded. One example of this is Interstate 95. You can just see the extent to which Interstate 95 has been flooded. It is totally impassable. We still have, I might add, many sections of Interstate 95 and Interstate 40 which are still impassable. We have 10 bridges that have been destroyed during the course of this. I mentioned earlier our farms and our agriculture in eastern North Carolina. These folks have been devastated. They have been through extraordinarily difficult times. Now the bottom line is their farms are underwater. Just some examples of the crop losses we expect to be incurred: Cotton, we expect to lose 80 percent of the cotton crop in North Carolina; soybeans, 75 to 80 percent; peanuts, 75 to 80 percent; sweet potatoes, to date, about 25 percent of that crop has been harvested. We expect to lose anywhere from 75 to 80 percent and possibly greater of the sweet potato crop. Mr. President, 50 percent of the tobacco crop, which we all know is an enormously important economic crop in North Carolina, has been lost. Livestock: I just finished meeting a few minutes ago with livestock farmers, hog farmers from eastern North Carolina, and they have been totally devastated. They have virtually no insurance. A lot of these farms have lost many thousands of dollars. In fact, the average amount of equipment that is located on these farms is worth $500,000. That equipment is not insured and it has been largely destroyed because the people had to leave their farms so quickly when the water started to rise. There have been more than 100,000 hogs that have been drowned so far; about 3 million poultry. Widespread starvation is facing many of the animals that still are in eastern North Carolina because they are cut off from feed sites and they are cut off from rescue efforts. The fishing industry has suffered a great deal so far, and they are going to continue to suffer. Many fishermen have lost their boats, and we expect many of the environmental results of this hurricane's devastation in eastern North Carolina to cause problems with our fishing reserves for many years to come. Finally, debris and contaminated water has done enormous damage to the soil of eastern North Carolina, of which our farmers are so proud and have relied upon for so long. I can show just a couple of other examples of the flooding that exists in eastern North Carolina. Many folks have seen these photographs from some of the television stories. But here is an example of the level of the flooding in a rural area in eastern North Carolina. These are people who never had water on their property. They never had any notion they had to be worried about that. Here is an example of what I saw when I traveled this past weekend over eastern North Carolina. What is shown in this photograph I saw all over eastern North Carolina. You can see that it is not just flooding. The flooding is up to the roofs of these houses and it is extensive and you see it over and over and over. It is all over the areas of eastern North Carolina. Can you imagine the folks who spent their lives living in these homes and the devastation this has created for them? Everything they own and spent their lives putting together is in these homes that have been flooded. Finally, I made mention of the farming operations. Here is a farm in eastern North Carolina. Everything we see underwater in these sections is all farmland; all had crops on them, all a total loss, 100 percent total loss. This scene is repeated over and over. I spent hours in a helicopter going over eastern North Carolina and landing in various places. I can't tell you the human tragedy associated with this for people who have spent their lives here. For these folks who farm this land and who live in eastern North Carolina, this is not just a place they live. This is a way of life for them, and they have now lost it. This is something that is going to be difficult, if not impossible, for the people of eastern North Carolina to ever recover from. Having said all of this, there are a number of people we need to thank because the reality is there have been and there will continue to be acts of heroism as a result of this catastrophe in eastern North Carolina. First, FEMA; FEMA has done an extraordinary job so far. I expect them to continue to do an extraordinary job. Their Director, James Lee Witt, has been on top of this problem. He has been in regular contact with all the people who are involved, including myself and Governor Hunt. The American Red Cross has been omnipresent in eastern North Carolina and will continue to be so. They have done a wonderful job. The Salvation Army and the Marine Corps have done a wonderful job. The Army, the troops who are located in eastern North Carolina, the Coast Guard, the Navy, the National Guard have all worked extraordinarily hard to deal with this problem. I might add, our mayors and our State and local officials have done a wonderful job. I include in that group our Governor, Jim Hunt, who has been on top of this situation from the very beginning. I am proud of the job he has done. I am also proud of the job that has been done by many of the folks in eastern North Carolina. The bottom line is North Carolina has been devastated in a way that we have never been devastated before. We have people who are struggling, who are confronting situations they never in their lifetimes thought they would have to confront. People's lives have been lost, people's futures have been lost, and their businesses have been lost. There are farmers who spent their lives farming this land who will have a very difficult time getting back to the place where they can farm their land again. What we ask is simply for the prayers and support of my colleagues in the Senate and of the American people because the reality is we are in a difficult situation. We need their help. We know the American people will respond in the way they always have to this kind of tragedy, which is to support us.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to honor the life of a remarkable North Carolinian. Judge Sam Ervin III died last Saturday, September 18, 1999 at the age of 73. His passing has left a void--his family and friends have lost a wonderful, caring man, North Carolina has lost one of its finest citizens, and our nation has lost an honorable and respected jurist. Judge Ervin devoted his life to public service. Born March 2, 1926 in Morganton, North Carolina to the late Senator Sam Ervin, Jr. and Margaret Bruce Ervin, Judge Ervin studied at Davidson College. He interrupted his undergraduate education for two years to serve in the U.S. Army during World War II. After attending Harvard Law School, he returned to the Army, attaining the rank of colonel while serving in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. In 1952, Judge Ervin returned to practice law in Morganton, where he would remain for the better part of the rest of his life. Judge Ervin served in the North Carolina General Assembly between 1965 and 1967, when Governor Dan Moore appointed Judge Ervin to the North Carolina Superior Court bench. Judge Ervin was considered among the ablest Superior Court Judges of his time. Lawyers trusted that Judge Ervin would afford all litigants a full and impartial hearing and would ground his decision in the law. He was often selected by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court to preside over controversial trials from which local judges recused themselves. After thirteen years as a trial judge, Judge Ervin was sworn in on May 25, 1980 as a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. When he was elevated to the chief judgeship of the Fourth Circuit in 1989, he became only the second North Carolinian to occupy this important position. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. once described Judge Ervin as ``the very model of what a judge, especially the presiding judge of a great court, should be.'' Judge Ervin left his mark in hundreds of decisions. He always was fair and principled. He approached cases with a deep understanding of the law, but never forgetting the common sense he developed growing up in Morganton. Just last year, he participated in two important decisions affecting elections in North Carolina. In the middle of the election year, the district court issued an opinion striking down North Carolina's campaign finance statute. Judge Ervin issued a stay on the decision until the election season ended to prevent the election from devolving into confusion. Similarly, he participated in a decision to keep the primary election on May 5, 1998 for all offices except for the U.S. House, which was subject to a redistricting lawsuit, to minimize disruption for the other candidates and the electorate. Judge Ervin had the courage to stand up for his beliefs, which he always did in his typical gracious manner. In February 1997, as a witness in a congressional hearing about proposed legislation to reduce the number of judgeships on the Fourth Circuit, he politely took issue with the Chairman of the hearing. He believed that the court's ability to render swift and certain justice would be enhanced by the filling of two long vacant positions, not by eliminating them. He stated that the degree of delegation by circuit court judges was greater than ideal and that he would like to be able to devote greater personal attention to the matters that came before him. Because he was such a remarkable person and a dedicated jurist, he earned the lifelong admiration of dozens of young people who clerked for him over the years. He also earned the respect of his peers in the legal profession, as well as many honors over the years. Just this year, the North Carolina Bar Association accorded him its Liberty Bell Award for ``strengthening the American system of freedom under law'' and the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers presented him its Outstanding Appellate Judge Award. The Judge cherished his family, which is nothing they do not already know. What he knew about the important, everlasting things in life, he said that he learned from his parents, his wife Elisabeth, his two sons, Jim and Robert, and his two daughters, Betsy and Margaret. I send my heartfelt condolences to Elisabeth and their children. Please know that you are in my prayers. In his commencement speech at Campbell University this past spring, he told the graduates, ``[I]f you seek truth, if you keep faith, and have courage, life will release you from the little things and give you peace of mind and heart.'' Judge Ervin left this world released of the little things with peace of mind and peace of heart because throughout his life, he never stopped searching for truth, he kept faith in God, and he repeatedly demonstrated courage.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment today about the hurricane and report to my colleagues on what we have learned about the damage Hurricane Floyd has done in North Carolina. As most folks know, North Carolina, unfortunately, has borne the brunt of hurricanes over the last few years. I think this is the fifth major hurricane to hit North Carolina since 1996. What we know thus far is that four people have died in traffic-related accidents as a result of the hurricane. First, of course, our thoughts and prayers go to the families of those folks who have lost loved ones. Secondly, we have had enormous flooding. That flooding will continue, and there will be some period of time before that flooding recedes. Wilmington has received over 18 inches of rain in the last approximately 48 hours, and other areas of eastern North Carolina have received enormous amounts of rain during the same period of time. We have also had enormous problems with crop damage and injury and damage to our farms, particularly in eastern North Carolina. These farmers are already struggling and suffering and having a difficult time making ends meet. Now they have received a blow, which may very well be a death blow, to the crops they still have in the fields. As I said, these are people who are already teetering on the edge. Now these farmers and their families must deal with the damage that Hurricane Floyd has caused their farms. We have also had roads washed out in eastern North Carolina. We know we have power outages all over eastern North Carolina, and we have and will continue to have enormous problems with increased erosion as a result of this hurricane hitting the coast of North Carolina. Let me say, first, that I have been in regular contact with Governor Jim Hunt, the Governor of North Carolina, since this hurricane began to approach the southeastern coast of the United States in order to help prepare for what we knew was inevitable--that this would do great damage for our State. In addition, I have been in constant contact with mayors from eastern North Carolina whose counties have been hit the hardest by this hurricane. Yesterday afternoon, I spent some time at the FEMA headquarters with James Lee Witt looking at the FEMA operation--looking at what they were doing to prepare for the onslaught of this hurricane and their preparations for going in after the hurricane and dealing with destruction created by the hurricane. I have to say, first of all, it was an incredibly impressive operation. James Lee Witt has done an extraordinary job of turning FEMA around. They are well prepared and well organized. I strongly suspect they will respond quickly and efficiently to the destruction this particular storm creates. In addition to that, I talked to the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Slater, about the problems with roads and roads being washed out, keeping in mind that North Carolina has just recently been hit with Hurricane Dennis, which washed out Highway 12 up on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, and now it has been hit again by a larger, more serious hurricane. We are going to have enormous problems with our roads in eastern North Carolina. I have also spoken with Secretary Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, because of our concern for the farmers in North Carolina. The tobacco farmers and the farmers of all kinds in eastern North Carolina are going to suffer enormous crop damage as a result of the devastation created by this hurricane. As I mentioned earlier, these are folks who are already struggling, already suffering, and already under enormous financial stress. And now here comes Hurricane Floyd putting what for many of them, I am afraid, will be the final nail in the coffin. These folks are going to need our help. The bottom line is that while this hurricane has now moved out of North Carolina, it has created enormous damage. I think the devastation will be extraordinary once we have had a chance to go in and assess exactly what the damage has been. As we go through the process of passing these various appropriations bills that the Senate is working very diligently on, I have asked my colleagues to keep in mind that the people of North Carolina, including the farmers of North Carolina, are desperately going to need help. They need help quickly, and they need that help getting to them in time to respond to the devastation that Hurricane Floyd has created. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to keep that in mind. We will be in regular touch with the folks involved in appropriations in order to make them aware of the specific problems that we have in North Carolina. I also add that this injury and this damage is not limited to North Carolina. I am absolutely certain there is damage in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. As the storm moves north through Virginia and Maryland, I anticipate there will also be damage in those States. I ask my colleagues not only from those States but all of my colleagues in the Senate to be prepared to respond and respond quickly to a devastating blow that has been dealt to my State of North Carolina and to the surrounding States that have been hit by Hurricane Floyd. Finally, I would like to say just a word about the people of North Carolina and their response to this hurricane. The people of North Carolina, fortunately, are very experienced in dealing with hurricanes. They have been hit time and time again. I have to say we have gotten way more than our fair share of hurricanes and hurricane damage. The response of folks in eastern North Carolina has been heroic. It was absolutely extraordinary to watch their discipline and preparation when they saw the storm coming, their organized and coordinated effort to evacuate the coast when those evacuations were necessary, and their preparation for what they knew was inevitable, which was that Hurricane Floyd was going to come through eastern North Carolina and wreak havoc and devastation. I am so proud of the people of North Carolina who have responded so heroically and in such a well-organized way to what they knew was coming, and I expect that response will continue over the next weeks and months as we begin the efforts of cleaning up the devastation that has been created by Hurricane Floyd. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to elaborate on my amendment that would provide $200,000 in funding under the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) to a research project in North Carolina to improve early detection of crop diseases. This funding boost is accomplished through an offset in NRI. This funding would go to North Carolina State which will work in conjunction with the University of North Carolina at Greensboro to create an innovative early warning system for crop failure. Mr. President, more than 30% of crop failures could be prevented if farmers had an early warning of disease or insect damage. However, by the time most diseases and insect infestations are visible to the naked eye, they are too far advanced for effective treatment. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro has been conducting a series of experiments that would introduce a color-change gene into crops such as soybeans and cranberries. These crops could be genetically engineered to change color when under stress, insect attack or diseased. A farmer could then shine a black light on the leaves and see the damage long before it is visible to the naked eye. Armed with this early warning, he could begin dealing with the problem long before it becomes fatal to the crop. This is an important project to support. The research will help bring crop management into the 21st century and could help farmers avert needless disasters. And it could yield enormous benefits soon. amendment no. 1557 (Purpose: To ensure timely testing of imports under the President's Food Safety Initiative) At the appropriate place insert the following: Sec. . It is the sense of the Senate that the Food and Drug Administration, to the maximum extent possible, when conducting Food Safety Initiative, ensure timely testing of produce imports by conducting survey tests at the USDA or FDA laboratory closest to the port of entry if testing result are not provided within twenty-four hours of collection.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the sweepstakes legislation, which is S. 335, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. Let me say first, I thank my colleague, Senator Levin--I do not see him on the floor right now--also, my colleague, Senator Collins. They worked so hard and so long on this remarkably important piece of legislation. Let me start by telling a story. It is a story I have told before, but I think it goes to the very heart of what this legislation is about. There is an elderly man in North Carolina who lives in Raleigh, NC, I believe--right outside of Raleigh--named Bobby Bagwell. Bobby Bagwell is an elderly man who was watched over by his family, his daughter-in- law. Although he lived alone, he had a difficult time living alone. His daughter-in-law went over to his house one day. When going through his various belongings, she discovered boxes and boxes of sweepstakes mailings. She came to discover in addition to that, in response to these sweepstakes mailings, Mr. Bagwell had purchased thousands and thousands of dollars of devices--goods that were basically useless. They were of no value to him at all. When she questioned her father-in-law about why he had bought these goods, the response was that he believed it would increase his chances of winning the sweepstakes. He had spent, I think, something on the order of $20,000, which was basically his life's savings, on purchasing this useless, worthless material. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Bagwell was an elderly man. For that reason, he was vulnerable. But there is an even worse part to this story. Mr. Bagwell, as it turns out, suffers from dementia. So he could not remember from day to day what he had bought, how much money he had spent, or why he had spent it. His daughter-in-law, doing everything in her power to do something about this very sad situation, contacted the sweepstakes companies, asking them to take him off the mailing lists. She got no response. She then sent a doctor's order to the sweepstakes companies saying, ``My father-in-law suffers from dementia. I ask you, take him off your lists for sweepstakes mailings because he is buying all these goods, he doesn't remember that he is spending his life's savings, and we need to take him off the lists so he does not continue to engage in this kind of behavior.'' For the second time, she got no response. Finally, when they contacted me and I became aware of the situation and I contacted the sweepstakes companies, they responded appropriately and took him off the lists. The sad part of this story is that in this country, in this day and time, it was necessary for a Senator to contact the sweepstakes companies in order to get this accomplished. That goes to the very heart of what this sweepstakes legislation is about. It is the reason Senator Collins has done such a remarkable job in conducting hearings and bringing this matter to the attention of the American people so something can be done about it. It is something for which I believe we have broad bipartisan support, support on both sides of the aisle. Everyone knows and recognizes something needs to be done about this problem. I do want to discuss one specific feature. The bill has many wonderful provisions, including provisions that require the sweepstakes companies, for example, to tell people that buying these goods does not increase their chances of winning. That would save a man such as Bobby Bagwell from being taken advantage of. One specific provision I worked on awfully hard, with Senator Collins and Senator Levin, basically provides that sweepstakes companies be required to provide a vehicle for people to be taken off these mailing lists so someone such as Bobby Bagwell, who has dementia, an elderly person who is being taken advantage of, who is vulnerable, can be protected and can be taken off the lists. In addition to that, it helps every North Carolinian--in my case--and every American who simply does not want to continue to receive these sweepstakes mailings. We all recognized during the course of the hearings there are some reputable, legitimate companies that engage in these sweepstakes techniques as a marketing tool. But people need to have a way to get off these lists if they want to get off the lists. One of the provisions in this legislation specifically provides for that. The bottom line is this. This legislation goes a long way toward eliminating any sort of deceptive, misleading sweepstakes mailings. It allows people who do not want to receive these mailings to no longer receive them. Ultimately, what it does is it empowers American families who want to make sure the elderly members of their families--their parents, their in-laws--are taken care of. It empowers them to make sure they are not taken advantage of with these sweepstakes mailings, and in fact, if they so choose, that they no longer continue to receive these mailings. This is a wonderful piece of legislation. As I mentioned earlier, it has bipartisan support. I am very proud to have worked with Senator Collins and Senator Levin, who have done a tremendous job for the American people in connection with this legislation. Lastly, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Association of Retired Persons be printed in the Record. They specifically provide their strong support for this legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose S. 1429. Passing this bill is like going on a spending spree just because a sweepstakes company tells you ``you might be a winner.'' I support tax cuts. The question for me is, when? I am a fiscal conservative and am happy to vote for tax cuts. Any tax cut, however, needs to be done in a fiscally-responsible manner. This is common sense. But we need to look at the big picture, and we can't engage in wishful thinking. So when we talk about cutting taxes we must do it in the same breath as paying down the national debt and dealing with Social Security and Medicare. We should cut government spending. Working Americans pay taxes to the federal government, and that money buys a lot of great things. But we have a responsibility and obligation to only spend what is absolutely necessary, and I am afraid that we haven't done a very good job of that. The federal government is too big and spends too much, and we need to do something about it. We should pay down the public debt. If we reduce our public debt, we reduce the money the federal government owes to foreign investors and other bondholders. If we reduce our public debt--a debt that has accumulated because of out-of-control government spending in years past--it will lower interest rates, increase investment in America's economy, and help ensure our economy's continued growth and success. That has real benefits for average Americans: lower mortgage interest rates and a booming economy. This isn't inside-the-Beltway stuff. This is important to North Carolinians and all other Americans. And I think all of them can relate to why it is unwise to cut taxes before we are certain there is a surplus and before we are on the road to securing the future of Social Security and Medicare. Look into your crystal ball. How much will you be earning in the year 2008? Will your 10-year-old be going to Duke or UNC, and what will be the tuition? What are you going to pay for health insurance during the next 10 years? And how much can you put away for retirement? I think these questions are important to North Carolinians and all other Americans. I have been thinking about how a family might try to answer these questions, and two things come to mind. First, answers are extremely difficult to find with any degree of certainty. Unforseen expenses can arise. And other factors--career changes, interest rates, or family size--may also affect the answers. It seems to me very likely, given this uncertainty, that a family would be very cautious about their financial planning. Second, if that family had to make a decision now about which one of those items they would forego if they needed extra money to cover unforseen expenses, which one would it be? If making these projections for a family is difficult, what can be said about the difficulty of predicting the federal government's budget 10 years? I'll tell you what I think about it. I think it is extremely difficult. And I am not alone. I had an exchange the day before yesterday with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan during a hearing. I talked to him about his earlier comments about the surplus, the proposed tax cuts and about the problems the federal government has showing restraint. Mr. Greenspan noted that these projections are rarely accurate. His advice, then, is very simple and practical: wait. ``Several years,'' he said. ``In other words, one year, two years.'' Chairman Greenspan said he favors paying down the public debt--not using any surplus for increasing government spending. It is hard to wait. This has been a real struggle. I break with the President, with my party and with the Republican party. But I do so because first and foremost we should not imperil our unprecedented economic prosperity by moving too quickly. To put it simply: look before you leap. A huge tax cut today is like entering the biggest watermelon contest the day after an especially good-looking vine sprouts up. I, myself, just don't have that much confidence that we have a surplus at all or that the economic assumptions underlying the surplus projections are reliable. It feels like smoke and mirrors--hocus pocus. And when people waive around numbers like $1 trillion, it's hard not to get swept away. But if we step back and take a look at the facts, we get a more frightening picture. If government spending is 1 percent higher than projected and revenues are 1 percent lower than projected, then the so- called $1 trillion surplus would be off by $170 billion annually. When it comes to government spending, the truth is Congress has not been able to live within its budgets. Federal spending should be cut, but let's not be naive: Congress has bad spending habits. Current projections are based on assumptions about our spending habits that everyone admits have been impossible to live with. This is a fact. I want to remind everyone that this body passed a $12 billion ``emergency'' spending package--raiding the Social Security Trust Fund--earlier this year. I voted against that package because nearly half of it was spending that no honest person would consider an ``emergency.'' We've also been pouring money into defense spending-- something I support--but it's not within the budget we tried to set for the government. We can't stick to our limits now, and yet we are talking about a tax cut based on the assumption that we are going to spend less. This just doesn't make sense to me. Having noted that we never stay within the spending caps, let me say that we should not give up on them. They are important. And, despite our history of breaking them, they have acted to keep our spending lower than it would have been otherwise. This is important because we need to make sure that the federal government doesn't just spend money because taxpayers send it to us. We need to constantly look for ways to cut unnecessary spending and pressure the federal government to operate more efficiently. Even as we propose to dramatically cut taxes based on the fantasy that we will control spending and enjoy unprecedented economic prosperity, we are hiding our head in the sand about a very real and very near fiscal catastrophe. In 2012, we will need to pay more for Medicare than we have. We'll need to dip into a Medicare trust fund. But there is no Medicare trust fund. In 2014, Social Security benefits paid out will exceed receipts, and we will have to start dipping into the trust fund. This tax cut puts the cart before the horse. Cut taxes and then try to figure out how to deal with a looming crisis? No one could call that fiscally responsible. What if there's a real emergency? This bill leaves me worried. Suppose a Class 5 hurricane were to strike North Carolina sometime in the next few years. If we needed emergency relief, this proposal could leave us high and dry--or taking a dip into Social Security. North Carolinians might be excused for thinking that the current tax debate sounds like hocus pocus. And they might be excused for wondering whether people are making promises they can't keep. This government has made a great many promises: Putting more money in your pocket; Saving Social Security; Reserving money for Medicare; Improving Veterans' health care; Funding for the National Institute of Health; Putting 100,000 cops on the street; Aiding America's farmers; Funding for programs like Head Start; Maintaining interstate highways; and Supporting National Missile Defense and other spending to ensure a strong national defense. I don't think we can keep all of these promises. And I can't bring myself to bait the American public with a tax cut only to be forced to cut their legs off on Social Security, Medicare and debt reduction or raise taxes again. If not now, when? I heard this question asked earlier today about tax cuts. My answer is the same as the one Chairman Greenspan gave at the hearing yesterday--he said wait a few years. After a few years we may know a few things. First, are we keeping spending reasonably under control? Second, have we saved Social Security and reformed Medicare? Third, how's the economy doing? Fourth, have we paid down some of our national debt? Our first real test will come this fall--when we will again start the process that will lead to meeting--or breaking--the spending caps. The federal government needs to prove to the American public that it can operate under its own budgetary limits. If we can do this, if we can break the habit of busting the budget caps, we will then be able to tell if we do in fact have a surplus. I want the American people to know this: I am for cutting taxes paid by working Americans. We've got an amazingly successful economy right now. I want to make sure when I cast my vote that I'm voting for something that will ensure, not destroy, the continued growth of our economy. Right now, the projections are too speculative, the assumptions too unrealistic, and to me, the solution is obvious. We should not spend money until we know we have it--and when we do have it, we need to give it back to working Americans.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce with my colleague Kay Bailey Hutchison the Tax Exempt Military Pay Orders (TEMPO) Act. This measure will not only correct an inequity in the way we treat our deployed armed forces, but it also will help let our soldiers know that we recognize and appreciate the sacrifices they and their families make. Our proposal would provide that income received by a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, while receiving special pay, should be tax exempt. Currently, members of the U.S. Armed Forces who serve in a Presidentially designated ``combat zone'' receive special tax exemptions. I think we all recall that this exemption was in effect during Kosovo. During Kosovo, soldiers did not have to pay excise taxes on phone calls that they make from the combat zone. Nor did they have to pay income taxes on the money earned while in that zone. The measure we introduce today provides that these same tax exemptions would be triggered when the Secretary of Defense designates his employees as eligible for ``special pay'' based on hostile conditions. Under current law, members of the Armed Forces receive special pay when: subject to hostile fire; on duty in which he, or others with him, are in imminent danger of such fire; were killed, injured or wounded by hostile fire or were on duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions. In the last few years soldiers in Somalia and Haiti have received special pay. Let me explain why I believe we need to change the tax treatment of special pay. The original tax exemption for combat pay was put in place during the Korean war. From that time until the fall of the Berlin Wall, the employment of U.S. forces almost always was in combat zones. But since the end of the cold war, as we all know, our Armed Forces have been deployed more often, and in a wider variety of circumstances. Today, a soldier with the 82nd Airborne from North Carolina may be sent on a mission that is as dangerous as any combat mission, but because it is not precisely in a combat zone, he cannot receive any tax benefits. Given the current uses of our Armed Forces, I believe the measure we propose today makes a great deal of sense. I also believe that making this change in the tax code would correct an inequity. Now, I think it is only right that soldiers in the Kosovo engagement are receiving tax exemptions. But during a recent visit to Fort Bragg, many soldiers and their families commented that the same benefits should have been extended to the soldiers who served in Somalia and Haiti. I have to say that I agreed with them. And so, this bill addresses the new realities of the post-code-war world. As the Senate knows all too well, the end of the cold war brought with it a significant drawdown in the size of our armed forces. Additionally, we shifted from an overseas-based force to one based primarily in the United States. Almost concurrently, our national security strategy has lead us into an era of seemingly continuous deployments. In the 40 years between 1950 and 1990, elements of the U.S. Army were deployed 10 times. In the less than 10 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, elements of the Army have been deployed 34 times. The Navy's responses have doubled in the 90's. The Air Force has seen its deployed forces rise 400% while its active duty personnel dropped 33%. Some of these deployments are a few months in duration; some are part of a continuous presence--such as our forces in the Sinai. All work hardship on both the members deployed and their families, particularly when there are repeated or back-to-back deployments. These demands contribute to both recruitment and retention problems. In recognition of these demands and of the likelihood that we will continue to see more of these deployments, this bill recognizes that we need to bring our tax code up to date so that it acknowledges these new realities. Mr. President, let me tell you more about what this proposal would do. As I previously said, members of the military who receive combat pay get certain tax exemptions. For example: The income of the soldier while in the combat zone is tax exempt. So is the income of a soldier while hospitalized for injuries received in the combat zone and that portion of a pension or retirement acquired while in a combat zone. In addition, pay received while a prisoner of war as a result of service in the combat zone is tax exempt. Special tax rates apply for the surviving spouse of a soldier who is missing in action (or presumed dead) in a combat zone. All taxes are eliminated for the years the soldier served in the combat zone if he is killed in the combat zone. There are other exemptions, and I ask unanimous consent that this copy of the relevant exemptions be printed in the Record. My bill would give those exact same exemptions to soldiers who receive special pay. Mr. President, as we close out this century and address the realities of the new century, I ask the Senate approve this measure as a means of acknowledging the sacrifices being demanded of our service members and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Since this child suffers from a severe injury as a direct result of an incentive that the HMO, the health insurance company, provided to the doctor, since this child suffers this severe injury and will have millions of dollars of medical problems over the course of his life, the question is, Who pays for this cost? The HMO is not going to pay for it. Who is going to pay for it is the taxpayers of America, through Medicaid. So the financial burden of what happened as a result of this financial incentives clause, a clause which is absolutely fundamentally wrong and should not be allowed, is that every American taxpayer is responsible for carrying the burden of these millions of dollars in medical costs. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. EDWARDS. The bottom line is this: What we have is a provision that does not cure the problem. There is a simple cure, and if we are doing this in good faith, I ask my colleagues to join me in that cure, which is a simple provision which says that any right created in these amendments, in these patient protections we are attempting to debate and pass on the floor, is appealable. It is that simple, that straightforward. If we want to enforce these laws against the insurance companies, that is what we ought to be doing. It is simple and straightforward and it will work. I thank the Chair.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, actually for almost 20 years before I came to the Senate, I had an opportunity to see firsthand what insurance companies do to people because of the type of work I did. What I saw was they take people's money. They deny them coverage when they need it, and when they need them the worst, they are never there. What I have seen on the floor of the Senate for the last week is what insurance companies do in Washington. What they do is this: They make certain that the power in the health care industry in this country remains with them. They have done that in a remarkably effective way. It has been extraordinary to watch what has happened over the course of the last week. It boils down to--at least, to me as a first-time observer of this--a very simple fact. On the floor of the Senate this week, insurance companies have won and the American family has lost. The children, parents, and members of American families have lost and the insurance companies have won. This is what has happened. No. 1, insurance companies cannot be held accountable. They absolutely cannot be held accountable. They have done everything they can do to make sure that occurs. The reason for that is very simple. I have listened to my colleagues on the other side argue with great emotion that we want to turn health care over to lawyers. Exactly the opposite is true. This is why. What happens, in every amendment, in every single bill--including the underlying bill offered by the other side--this language appears: ``when medically necessary and appropriate under the terms and conditions of the plan.'' That language is the killer language. It is the language the insurance companies need, that they desperately want, and that they have gotten. It is the language that is going to remove any power from any patient or any family or any doctor in America as a result of what is passed on the floor. The reason they are wrong about lawyers is because the plans control. Under what has passed during the course of this week, the plans always control. They control what benefit patients receive to begin with; they control what patients can appeal; they control what happens on appeal. I ask the American people: Who do you believe writes these plans for the big HMO companies of America? Who do you think writes these plans? Lawyers. Their teams of lawyers write these plans. When we leave the floor tonight, starting tomorrow, everything that is passed will be handed to the HMOs; the very first thing they will do is get in their cars and drive down to their big law firms and hand these over to the lawyers and the lawyers will go to work. What the lawyers are going to do is write health care plans that make absolutely certain the insurance companies have total control over what happens, they have control over the initial benefit, they have control over the appeals process, and that they cannot, under any circumstances, be held accountable.