John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is very simple. It is to provide that this bill, which provides many protections to those people who sell computer products for Y2K problems, not apply after January 1 of 1999, after this bill began its process of consideration in the Congress, because it is absolutely obvious that everybody in the country has known about this problem for many years and has been documented. It has actually been known for a period of 40 years and intensely watched over the last few years. Certainly every computer company in the world knew about Y2K before the beginning of January 1, 1999, when we began consideration of this legislation. There is a reason that this amendment is needed and necessary. Let me give an example. There are 800 medical devices that are produced by manufacturers across this country that are date sensitive and critical to the health care of people in this country, because a malfunction can cause injury to people. Approximately 2,000 manufacturers sell these medical devices. About 200 of those manufacturers, 10 percent, have yet to contact the FDA about whether their medical devices are Y2K compliant. After being asked numerous times by the FDA, they have given no response. These are people who have been on notice for a long time about this problem. It is really a very simple amendment. What the amendment says is, beginning in 1999, when everybody on the planet knew that this was a huge problem, if you kept selling non-Y2K-compliant products, you certainly should not have any of the protections of this bill, with one exception: We still keep in place the 90-day cooling off or waiting period because we think it is reasonable for the manufacturer or the seller to have that period of time to look at the problem and work with the purchaser to see if it can be resolved, even if they put a product in commerce unreasonably knowing that this problem existed. The amendment says that folks who kept selling, beginning in 1999, non-Y2K-compliant products, knowing full well that this problem existed, knowing that the Congress was about to consider legislation on this issue and knowing that they were acting irresponsibly, should not have the protection of the McCain bill. That is the purpose and reason for this amendment. The FDA example is a perfect example. We have 200 companies out there who are unwilling to tell the FDA they have even looked to determine whether their medical products that involve the safety and lives of people are Y2K compliant. There is nothing in the McCain bill that prevents companies from continuing--I mean through today--selling non-Y2K-compliant products. I know in the spirit in which this bill was offered and intended that my colleagues would not have intended that we continue to allow, as a nation and as a Congress, people to engage in reckless, irresponsible conduct without holding them accountable for that, even today, knowing full well this problem exists. It simply excises from protection of this bill all those folks who continue, even today, to sell non-Y2K- compliant products unreasonably; that is, knowing that they are selling non-Y2K-compliant products. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. I say to my friend, Senator Dodd, he and I actually agree about the vast majority of what he just said. I think this bill in place, if it passes, will do all the things the computer industry wants to protect them against Y2K problems. Joint and several liability is gone. There is a cap on punitive damages. The duty to mitigate isn't present. There is a 90-day waiting period, cooling off period. We have the 36 months. We have class action limitations. We have specificity and materiality of pleading. This is a very narrow, simple thing that we are trying to accomplish with this first amendment. We will enforce contracts as they exist. That is what these folks have been talking about at great length, and that is exactly what we should do. The problem is with those folks who do not have a contract, which is going to be the vast majority of Americans. When Senator Sessions says that the economic loss rule is a traditional rule, he is right about that. What my amendment says is that traditional rule stays in place exactly as it is. The problem is, the provision in this bill, in the McCain bill, is not the traditional rule. It contains no exceptions of any kind--no exceptions for fraud, no exceptions for reckless conduct, no exceptions for irresponsibility. The result of that is, regular people who buy computers--small businessmen, small businesswomen, consumers, folks who do not have an army of lawyers who went in and crafted contracts on their behalf--have no remedy. They simply have no remedy; they cannot get anything, not even their out-of-pocket loss. That is what the McCain bill does. What I have done in the narrowest conceivable fashion is drawn an amendment that allows those folks to recover only what their State law permits them to recover. It is just that simple. That is on the first amendment. On the second amendment, I just can't imagine what the argument is against this, although I heard the distinguished Senator from Utah argue against it. The very idea that people who are today, in 1999, selling non-Y2K-compliant products irresponsibly--and that is what is required--if they sell it without knowing about it, then they are still covered by the bill. Under my amendment, if they sell it knowingly, if they sell it irresponsibly in 1999, today, it simply says: Surely the Congress of the United States is not going to protect you. You have known about this forever. We are not going to continue to protect you. It is not going to create a flood of litigation. I have to respectfully disagree with my friend, Senator Hatch. That makes no sense at all. If the consumer didn't buy the product in 1999, and they can't show the product was sold and put into the stream of commerce irresponsibly in 1999, then the McCain bill is going to apply to them. Surely my colleagues do not want to provide this Congress's, this Senate's protection, stamp of approval for people to keep selling noncompliant Y2K products, including, in my example, people who sell medical devices that can cause injury and death to people. I just don't believe my colleagues on either side of the aisle want their stamp on allowing people to keep doing this, even though they are fully aware of it. That is simply what my amendment addresses. It says if you are still selling this stuff, and you are selling it non-Y2K compliant, and you know what you are doing, you don't get the benefit of the McCain bill. It couldn't be any simpler than that. I respectfully suggest to my colleagues they do not want to put their stamp on people who have known about this problem forever and are doing nothing about it. Not only that, knowingly continuing to sell non-Y2K-compliant products that can cause injury to business, and, in the medical device fields, can cause injury to people, I just do not believe my colleagues on either side of the aisle would want to support that. This amendment cures that problem. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments.

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, I will.

Mr. EDWARDS. If I can respond briefly to the comments of the distinguished Senator from Utah, first I say to Senator Hatch I am absolutely willing, and the people of North Carolina are willing, to live with the law in North Carolina. What my amendment does is leave all existing law in place in this very narrow area. The problem is that, for example, I know under North Carolina law, if a fraudulent misrepresentation--if a crime--is committed, if somebody makes a fraudulent misrepresentation and as a result somebody is put out of business, they are entitled to recover their economic losses, because there is an exception for intentional fraud, there is an exception for a criminal act. The McCain bill has no such exception. It has no exceptions at all.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. EDWARDS. If I can finish this thought, the bottom line is in many cases--in fact, in the vast majority of cases--the computer company that is responsible for putting a small businessman out of business, for all the losses that the small businessman incurs is not going to have a contract. In fact, the only way the person who is ultimately responsible can be held accountable is through a cause of action for breach of warranty or breach of product warranty and negligence, and this bill eliminates the right of that small businessman to recover any of his losses other than the cost of the computer. The result of this discussion is Senator Wyden now recognizes that, and with all due respect, I do not believe the American people will find that fair.

Mr. EDWARDS. I appreciate the work of the Senator from Oregon. We have talked about this matter a good deal. I appreciate the time spent doing that. We do have a fundamental disagreement. My reading of Section 12 says that people cannot recover economic losses. I think if you can't recover economic losses as a result of the negligence or intentional acts or misrepresentations by a defendant, then essentially that means all you can ever get is the cost of the computer--even if you have been put out of business. I don't think anybody in America would think that is right, fair, or just. My first question is if, in fact, all the remedies for recovery of economic loss--that is lost profits, et cetera--are left in place under Federal and State law, why do we need a section, Section 12, on that matter at all in this bill?

Mr. EDWARDS. If the Senator will yield, the problem I have, if it is true that all State and Federal remedies for economic loss are left in place, it seems we would need to say nothing about that in this bill. We could say absolutely nothing and they would remain in place as they are under existing law, or we could have one sentence and that sentence would say ``economic losses are permitted as presently exist under applicable Federal or State law.'' Instead, I have a 2\1/2\ page section on economic loss, and before it ever gets to mentioning Federal or State remedies for economic loss, it sets forth a long description of requirements that have to be met-- requirements that don't exist in any State or Federal law. The reality is this bill sets up requirements that are far more draconian than exist across this country. Then the amendment says if you can meet all of those requirements, and the recovery of these economic losses are permitted under State and Federal law, then you can recover economic losses. The truth of the matter is, if it were true that economic losses as they presently exist in the law and as they exist across this country-- which means people can recover, in my example, more than the cost of their computer; they can recover for lost profits, their overhead, and all the costs associated with that, things that most Americans would consider completely fair, reasonable, and just--if that were true, we do not need a provision about this at all. We sure do not need 2\1/2\ pages about it. Or we could do it in one sentence: Existing recoveries for economic losses are permitted under applicable Federal or State law. Instead, we have 2\1/2\ pages. We have a provision that essentially eliminates the right to recover economic losses, even in the case of someone who has had a fraudulent representations made to them about the product they are purchasing. Can the Senator show me the specific language that simply says all Federal and State law remains in place, without any other requirements?

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will speak briefly to the McCain bill and to Senator Kerry's amendment, which I think should be recognized as a real effort by Senator Kerry to cure some of the problems that exist with the McCain bill. From my perspective, I think what we are trying to accomplish here is to find a reasonable, moderate approach that both protects the rights and interests of consumers while at the same time ensuring that computer company manufacturers have the protection that they need and deserve. There has been a lot of talk today about frivolous lawsuits. The McCain bill has very little, if anything, to do with frivolous lawsuits. The two provisions in that bill that all of the Senators have spent a great deal of time on and that have caused the most controversy are joint and several liability and economic loss. Those two provisions have absolutely nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits. Speaking for myself, and, I think, speaking for Senator Kerry, both of us are opposed to any kind of frivolous lawsuit. I would be willing to support any provision that would provide protection against frivolous lawsuits. The two provisions that we are talking about, the elimination of joint and several liability and the elimination, from my perspective, of the right to recover economic loss, are both things that occur after a defendant has been found responsible. In other words, before you ever get to those two provisions, you have to first determine that there has been some irresponsible behavior on behalf of a defendant. The idea that those provisions, which are really the most controversial provisions in this bill, have anything to do with frivolous lawsuits just doesn't make any sense. They have absolutely nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits. For example, joint and several liability has to do with who you can recover against and what percentage or proportion of your damages you can recover, once a jury has determined that the defendant acted irresponsibly or in violation of a contract. The economic loss provision has to do with whether the small business owner or the consumer is allowed to recover for lost profits, lost overhead, out-of-pocket costs, once it has been determined that, in fact, the defendant is at fault. So the idea that this has anything to do with frivolous lawsuits is just misleading. The bill has very little, if anything, to do with frivolous lawsuits. If what we are concerned about is getting these cases resolved, creating incentives for consumers, small business people, people who have purchased computers, people who have a Y2K problem, to work with the computer manufacturers, with the people who manufacture the component parts of computers, I think that makes a great deal of sense. But this bill doesn't do that. Instead, what this bill doesn't do, in contrast to Senator Kerry's amendment, is strike a proper balance between providing reasonable protections for computer companies, while at the same time making sure we protect consumers. There has been an awful lot of discussion on the floor today about lawyers and the interests of lawyers. The reality is that lawyers and the discussion about frivolous lawsuits have little or nothing to do with this bill. Lawyers didn't make these computers; lawyers didn't have anything to do with the manufacture of these computer chips. And it is not lawyers who are going to be injured as a result of this bill. The people who are going to be hurt are consumers, the people who have purchased these computers. I think it is really important that we as Senators focus on the people who are most likely to be injured as a result of the passage of this bill. Now, there are two provisions in the McCain bill that I think Senator Kerry's amendment addresses that are critically important. The first, and the one I want to focus most of my attention on, is a provision about economic losses. This is under section 12 of the bill entitled ``Damages and Tort Claims.'' What this provision does--and this is a provision of the McCain-Dodd- Wyden bill--is it eliminates the right to recover economic losses by a small businessman if a computer or a computer chip manufacturer irresponsibly creates a Y2K problem. Let me give you an example, and I think this example is very important. A small businessman in Murfreesboro, NC, is in his business establishment one day and a computer salesman comes in the door and says: I have this great computer system I want to sell you that will make your operation more efficient. It will help you operate your cash registers. It will help with your accounting. It will help with your collections. The businessman heard about all these Y2K problems, but he was told by the salesman this system is totally Y2K compliant. This small businessman, believing what he was told, buys the computer system. Well, come the year 2000, he begins to have problems, and the problems shut down his cash registers, shut down his accounting system, shut down his ability to collect; and this business, which he and his family have been involved in all their lives, all of a sudden has no cash-flow. So they lose profit and they continue to incur overhead, and over a period of 2 or 3 months they essentially lose everything they have spent their lives working on--all as a result of a Y2K problem that, in my example, the computer salesman knew existed when he sold them the computer. In other words, when he made the statement to this businessman that this system was totally Y2K compliant, he knew full well what he was saying was not true. In fact, the evidence available to him indicated it was not Y2K compliant. So he made a fraudulent misrepresentation, a misstatement to this businessman. Under that example, under the terms of the McCain bill, this is what that businessman who has been put out of business for the rest of his life--a family business they spent their entire lives building up--is entitled to recover: The cost of his computer. So if he spent $3,000 on the computer as a result of this misrepresentation by the computer salesman, and he has been put out of business forever, under this bill--which will, by the way, control all of these cases regardless of what State law provides, and I want to talk about that in just a moment--this small businessman is out of business and what he can get back is the cost of his computer. So what the bill does, in essence, is it provides absolute immunity, with the exception of the cost of the computer. I want to be clear about one other thing. There has been a lot of discussion about punitive damages on the Senate floor. Punitive damages are damages that are awarded to punish a defendant for highly egregious conduct. But punitive damages have nothing whatsoever to do with what I am talking about now. We are now talking about a small businessperson being able to recover lost profits, having to shut down his or her business, having to continue to pay overhead in connection with the operation of that business. These are normal damages to be recovered without reference to punitive damages. What I am saying is a very simple thing. If this bill passes, then a negligent computer chip manufacturer, a computer salesman, or computer company that sells computers, that outright lies--I am talking about engages in a fraudulent misrepresentation in their sales--can only be held responsible for the cost of the computer. That is exactly what this bill provides. I respectfully disagree with what my colleague, Senator Wyden, said earlier today, that all Federal and State remedies for economic loss are left in place. I think exactly the opposite is true. In fact, what this bill does is eliminate, to the extent that a cause of action exists under State law, the ability to recover for economic losses. So what we have is a huge, huge problem. We have a provision in the bill where, prospectively, we are going to say to small and large businessmen and women around this country that if somebody has made a misrepresentation to you about the computer system you were buying, No. 1, and No. 2, if they irresponsibly and recklessly sold you a computer system that was not Y2K compliant, i.e., they didn't act with reasonable care or they acted negligently, what we are going to let you recover is the cost of your computer; and you cannot recover any of the costs associated with the operation of your business, your lost profits, and all of the costs associated with the day-to-day running of the business. I don't believe there is an American out there listening to this who would believe that is fair. It is not fair. Now, I might add, for Senators Wyden, McCain and Dodd, that there are provisions in this bill that I have absolutely no problem with. I think we want to create incentives for people to work together. We want to create incentives for manufacturers to solve this problem. I think a 90-day cooling off period is a good idea. I think the idea of having an alternative dispute resolution so that folks have a mechanism outside having to file a lawsuit and go to court is a very good idea. These are all very positive things. The problem is that, ultimately, there are going to be people across this country who, because of somebody acting irresponsibly or somebody misrepresenting something to them, are going to have problems with their business that will cause lost profits, lost overhead, which could ultimately lead to a shutdown of their business. And they will be able to recover absolutely nothing but the cost of their computer. I might add that later I intend to offer an amendment that specifically addresses this problem. I just don't believe that is what the American people would support. It is fundamentally unfair because what you have is a small businessperson who acted in good faith, innocently, in purchasing a computer system, and as a result of a law passed in this Congress, that person would be out of business, through no fault of his own. But the person who is at fault and is totally responsible for what happened to him is only responsible for paying for the cost of the computer. The bottom line is, if this guy gets hurt and they get caught, what they have to pay is the money they originally got from these folks, which is the cost of the computer. That is fundamentally unfair. It violates every principle of fairness and equity that exists in the law of this country and has existed for over 200 years. That alone is clearly enough that this bill should not be supported. Senator Kerry's amendment addresses that problem. It also addresses another problem that exists with this bill, which is the issue of joint and several liability. I have talked about this once before on the floor, but I think it is really important for the American people to understand what joint and several liability is. Essentially, it has existed in the law of this country for a couple hundred years now. It says that where you have an innocent--as in my example--small businessman and you have multiple parties on the other side who may be responsible for what happened, under joint and several liability the innocent party never has to pay for the loss, that the loss is shared in some way among the parties who are responsible for that loss. In this case, it may be the computer chip manufacturers; it may be the computer company that actually sold the entire system--a whole multitude of defendants. It is for them to resolve who pays what among themselves. In my case, the small businessman is innocent. And, as a result of the current law on joint and several liability, this innocent party is relieved of having to share the loss with guilty parties. That is the reason joint and several liability exists. It is the reason it has existed in law in this country for a long time. Senator Kerry's amendment sets up what I consider to be a very moderate, thoughtful approach--that responds to the computer industry and the high-tech industry's request for some protection against joint and several liability. What Senator Kerry says is basically, if you come in and show you have acted responsibly as a good citizen, you get proportionate liability; that is, you can never be held responsible for anything more than your fair share of the damages. It seems to me, although that is not the law in a great number of States in this country, that is a reasonable approach. It is a compromise. There is no question about that. We all recognize that, while I personally believe joint and several liability makes a great deal of sense, because it essentially says as a matter of policy we are going to always make people who are responsible for the loss share that loss, and never the innocent small businessman pay for the loss. Senator Kerry has attempted to fashion a compromise that provides protection for what I believe to be the great bulk of computer companies that are out there doing business, who have acted responsibly, who can show that they have been good corporate citizens, and when they do that, then they get proportionate liability, which is what they want. But there is still, I have to say, the most fundamental problem in the McCain-Wyden-Dodd bill, which is the provision about economic losses. Ultimately what it means is, if you can't recover anything but the cost of your computer, we are giving prospective absolute immunity to an industry, not knowing at this point what the losses are going to be for anything except the cost of the computer. It is something we have never done in the history of this country. It would be a remarkable thing to do now. I have to say in response to some remarks I heard from Senator Dodd earlier, whom I greatly admire and respect, that he talks at great length about this being a 36-month or a 3-year loss, that there is not some dramatic change in the law, that it is just 3 years. Here is the problem. That 3-year period is going to cover every Y2K loss that occurs because of the nature of this problem. These losses are going to come up quickly, and they are going to occur starting in January of the year 2000, or before. By the end of that 3-year period, the problems will have shown themselves, or they will be gone, or they won't exist at all. When Senator Dodd says it is just a 3-year provision, it is a 3-year provision that covers every single Y2K loss that is going to occur. It covers them all. We just have to recognize that when he talks about this being just a 3-year period of time that is being covered, that is what it is. It covers every Y2K loss that may occur. The bottom line is this: I think it makes great sense to have a bill that provides some reasonable protection for the computer industry. I think Senator Kerry's amendment works very hard at doing that. I think there are at least two huge problems with the McCain bill, the most dramatic of which, to me, is that no businessman, no matter what has been done to him, whether he has been lied to, whether he has been the victim of irresponsible conduct, whatever it is, all he or she can ever recover is the cost of the computer, even if he or she has been put out of business. I don't believe the American people would think that is fair. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I don't have any problem at all with the idea of protecting existing contracts. I think Senator Kerry's amendment does exactly that. I think the problem we are confronted with--and I have asked this question a couple of times--this 2\1/2\ pages on economic loss does not say that State remedies prevail. I might add, I believe your home State of Oregon allows the recovery of economic losses under the circumstances that I am describing where someone has acted irresponsibly. So we have a bill that will change laws not only in other places around the country but in your home State. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.

Mr. EDWARDS. For just a moment, if I could just give an example of what I am referring to, let's suppose a computer has been sold by a computer company that sells a system. They have sold it to a small businessman. There is a Y2K problem and the small business is put out of business. They have lost millions of dollars over the course of several months. What we determine, when the investigation is done, is that what caused the problem is a chip, a computer chip that was sold by a manufacturer with whom this purchaser never had any interaction. Or it was some program that was loaded onto the computer. And the plaintiff never had any relation with the software manufacturer. Of course they would not; they bought the computer at a computer store from some computer salesman. Under the provisions of this bill, the person who was actually responsible, that is the manufacturer of the computer chip or software that was not Y2K compliant--you cannot recover against that responsible person for economic losses under the express provisions of this paragraph in Section 12. In fact, the Senator and I both know in reality that is what is most likely to happen. What most people are going to confront when they have a Y2K problem is some very isolated, discrete part of their computer system that caused the problem. It is not going to be the entire system. My point being there is no contract between the purchaser and that responsible party, that party in my example who is acting irresponsibly. What you are doing in this bill is you are absolutely cutting off the right of this innocent businessman to recover anything more than what he has lost, what he has lost out of his pocket, what he has lost as a result of not being able to make sales. This bill is very clear about that, I say to Senator Wyden. I don't think it can be interpreted in any other way.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, if I can respond just very briefly, there are two fundamental problems I respectfully disagree with Senator Wyden about. The first of those problems is he talks at great length about State contract law. I do not have any problem with State contract law being totally enforced. I believe the law generally ought to be enforced and that includes State contract law. The problem is in the real world, most of the time, as Senator Hollings pointed out, to the extent there is any written contract that contract is drafted by the manufacturers. It is not drafted by a small businessman who is buying a computer. So the Senator knows as well as I do it is a farce to say there is going to be a provision in the contract that provides for economic losses. It is not going to be anywhere in any contract, because the contracts have been written by teams of lawyers who drafted these contracts to protect the seller. They are the people who are in the position of economic power. So the reality is there is not going to be anything in the written contract if there is a written contract. That is one problem. But there is a second problem that is even larger than that, which is in many cases it is not going to be the contracted-with party who is responsible. The contract is between a purchaser and a seller. The seller is selling a computer system and the negligent or irresponsible party is not the seller who has included many computer chips in his computer system.

Mr. EDWARDS. I want to make sure we are clear about this for purposes of our discussion. Does my colleague now concede that for any claim other than under contract, that economic losses are being completely eliminated by this bill? Does he concede that?

Mr. EDWARDS. Can I ask Senator Wyden one last question?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate 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 ``combat zone'' receive special tax exemptions. For example, they do not have to pay excise taxes on phone calls that they make from the combat zone. Nor do they have to pay income taxes on the money earned while in that zone. My amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that the tax exemptions should be triggered when the Secretary of Defense designates his employees as eligible for ``special pay'' based on hostile conditions. Members of the Armed Forces receive special pay under Title 37, United States Code, Section 310 when: (a) subject to hostile fire; (b) on duty in which he, or others with him, are in imminent danger of such fire; (c) were killed, injured or wounded by hostile fire or (d) 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. The original tax exemption for combat pay was put in place during the Korean War. But given the current uses of our Armed Forces, it makes sense to update the provision for soldiers in hostile zones. And I also believe that making this change in the Tax Code would correct an inequity. I think it is only right that soldiers in the Kosovo engagement are receiving the 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 Haiti and in Somalia. I have to say that I agreed with them. Indeed, I will introduce legislation after Memorial Day to implement this Sense of the Senate. This Sense of the Senate addresses the new realities of the post-cold war world that repeatedly affects the members of our armed forces and their families. 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 and a withdrawal 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, the U.S. Army was deployed 10 times. In the less than 10 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Army has been deployed 33 times. The Navy's responses have doubled in the 90's. The Air Force has seen its deployed forces rise 400 percent while its active duty personnel dropped 33 percent. 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. Again, as the Senate well knows these demands are contributing 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 Sense of the Senate recognizes that we need to bring our Tax Code up to date so that it too acknowledges these new realities. As we approach Memorial Day, I ask the Senate to approve this amendment as a means of acknowledging the sacrifices demanded of our service members and their families. amendment no. 515 (Purpose: To increase the funding for the Formerly Used Defense Sites account) (1) On page 56, line 16, add ``$40,000,000''. (2) On page 55, line 15, reduce ``$40,000,000''.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Hagel, to introduce the Fragile X Research Breakthrough Act of 1999. Most of my colleagues have probably never heard of Fragile X. But it is the leading known cause of mental retardation. And the measure we introduce today could help put us on the path to treat and ultimately, we hope, cure the disorder. This measure will launch a concerted and aggressive federal effort to deal with Fragile X. Fragile X--which is a genetic defect that results in mental retardation--was only recently discovered. Given its prevalence, it's surprising that it took us so long to discover this problem. 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 affect one racial or ethnic group more than another. Scientists have only known exactly what causes Fragile X since 1991. Fragile X occurs when a specific gene, which should hold a string of molecules that repeat six to fifty times, over-expands. It causes 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 add up to over $2 million on average over their lifetime. Because it is inherited, many families have more than one child with Fragile X. But although Fragile X is now known in the scientific community, it is still neither widely studied by scientists nor known by the public at large. That's shocking, considering its devastating effect. Let me give you an example. In 1989 Katie Clapp gave birth to her first child, Andy. She and her husband, Dr. Michael Tranfaglia were thrilled. There were some concerns initially because Andy was missing one kidney and had some other medical problems. But they were quickly remedied, and Michael knew from his training as a medical doctor that Andy could do fine with one kidney. Testing did not reveal any other problems, so the couple breathed easy. But soon Andy started showing other signs of problems. He had difficulty feeding and was inconsolable except when held by his mother. He was not as responsive as other children his age, except to scream when put down. Over the first year of life, he began to miss achievement milestones, such as sitting up and walking. Michael was in his residency training at the University of North Carolina hospital, so a wealth of medical resources were within his reach. Andy was seen by neurologists and geneticists, but there were no answers. When Andy was two years old, Katie became pregnant with a second child. She wanted to be sure that her next baby would be born free of Andy's problems. So Andy was tested some more for genetics abnormalities, but nothing showed up. Yet Andy's problems were becoming more and more apparent, and causing greater difficulties for the family. Finally, when he was three and a half years old, Andy went to a new physician, a developmental pediatrician. During the initial visit with the doctor, Michael and Katie got their first indication that there might be a name for the problem they had been living with. The doctor suggested that Andy be tested for something called Fragile X. The test was performed, and came back positive. Katie Clapp and Michael Tranfaglia soon learned that not only did Andy have this inherited genetic disorder, but that their baby daughter Laura was also afflicted. 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. But there is good news. Because 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, my proposal seeks to capitalize on the good news. It would: Expand and coordinate research into Fragile X under the direction of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development--a division of the National Institutes of Health; Establish at least three Fragile X centers, which would receive grants for research and development aimed at improving the diagnosis and treatment of, and finding a cure for, Fragile X; Allow patients with Fragile X to participate in clinical trials; Coordinate activities and exchange of information between the centers for better understanding of the disorder, and Encourage wide scale research into Fragile X by allowing qualified health professionals who conduct research into the disorder to be repaid for principal and interest on educational loans under the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program. Today, in our country, thousands of children have Fragile X, but their parent 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. Like Katie and Michael, they may know their child has a disability, 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.'' This summer in North Carolina, we are hosting a very special gathering of very special people. The Special Olympics World games will begin with an opening ceremony in Raleigh on June 26th, and the Games will run through July 4th. Among the participants will be many athletes who have Fragile X. Some of them know it, but many others, along with their families, do not even know that their particular disorder has a name. And with a name comes knowledge, and with knowledge comes hope for a better future--even for a cure. The job of these extraordinary athletes this summer is to make the most of their abilities and to achieve personal goals and triumphs. Our role in the games is to support their efforts, and to cheer them on. But our responsibility does not end there. It is our responsibility to make the most of the knowledge we now have, to expand that knowledge, and to give these folks the best chance possible. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important research. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Hagel, to introduce the Fragile X Research Breakthrough Act of 1999. Most of my colleagues have probably never heard of Fragile X. But it is the leading known cause of mental retardation. And the measure we introduce today could help put us on the path to treat and ultimately, we hope, cure the disorder. This measure will launch a concerted and aggressive federal effort to deal with Fragile X. Fragile X--which is a genetic defect that results in mental retardation--was only recently discovered. Given its prevalence, it's surprising that it took us so long to discover this problem. 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 affect one racial or ethnic group more than another. Scientists have only known exactly what causes Fragile X since 1991. Fragile X occurs when a specific gene, which should hold a string of molecules that repeat six to fifty times, over-expands. It causes 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 add up to over $2 million on average over their lifetime. Because it is inherited, many families have more than one child with Fragile X. But although Fragile X is now known in the scientific community, it is still neither widely studied by scientists nor known by the public at large. That's shocking, considering its devastating effect. Let me give you an example. In 1989 Katie Clapp gave birth to her first child, Andy. She and her husband, Dr. Michael Tranfaglia were thrilled. There were some concerns initially because Andy was missing one kidney and had some other medical problems. But they were quickly remedied, and Michael knew from his training as a medical doctor that Andy could do fine with one kidney. Testing did not reveal any other problems, so the couple breathed easy. But soon Andy started showing other signs of problems. He had difficulty feeding and was inconsolable except when held by his mother. He was not as responsive as other children his age, except to scream when put down. Over the first year of life, he began to miss achievement milestones, such as sitting up and walking. Michael was in his residency training at the University of North Carolina hospital, so a wealth of medical resources were within his reach. Andy was seen by neurologists and geneticists, but there were no answers. When Andy was two years old, Katie became pregnant with a second child. She wanted to be sure that her next baby would be born free of Andy's problems. So Andy was tested some more for genetics abnormalities, but nothing showed up. Yet Andy's problems were becoming more and more apparent, and causing greater difficulties for the family. Finally, when he was three and a half years old, Andy went to a new physician, a developmental pediatrician. During the initial visit with the doctor, Michael and Katie got their first indication that there might be a name for the problem they had been living with. The doctor suggested that Andy be tested for something called Fragile X. The test was performed, and came back positive. Katie Clapp and Michael Tranfaglia soon learned that not only did Andy have this inherited genetic disorder, but that their baby daughter Laura was also afflicted. 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. But there is good news. Because 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, my proposal seeks to capitalize on the good news. It would: Expand and coordinate research into Fragile X under the direction of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development--a division of the National Institutes of Health; Establish at least three Fragile X centers, which would receive grants for research and development aimed at improving the diagnosis and treatment of, and finding a cure for, Fragile X; Allow patients with Fragile X to participate in clinical trials; Coordinate activities and exchange of information between the centers for better understanding of the disorder, and Encourage wide scale research into Fragile X by allowing qualified health professionals who conduct research into the disorder to be repaid for principal and interest on educational loans under the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program. Today, in our country, thousands of children have Fragile X, but their parent 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. Like Katie and Michael, they may know their child has a disability, 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.'' This summer in North Carolina, we are hosting a very special gathering of very special people. The Special Olympics World games will begin with an opening ceremony in Raleigh on June 26th, and the Games will run through July 4th. Among the participants will be many athletes who have Fragile X. Some of them know it, but many others, along with their families, do not even know that their particular disorder has a name. And with a name comes knowledge, and with knowledge comes hope for a better future--even for a cure. The job of these extraordinary athletes this summer is to make the most of their abilities and to achieve personal goals and triumphs. Our role in the games is to support their efforts, and to cheer them on. But our responsibility does not end there. It is our responsibility to make the most of the knowledge we now have, to expand that knowledge, and to give these folks the best chance possible. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important research. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. On rollcall vote No. 137, I voted ``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. This would in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Senator Helms, for allowing me to speak today in a tribute to an extraordinary North Carolinian, Adm. Bud Nance. I found Senator McCain's poem very moving and very touching. I know Bud Nance was an extraordinary friend to my senior Senator, who has been an extraordinary friend to me since I have been here in the Senate. They grew up together. I think they were born a couple of blocks away from each other, over in Monroe, NC, and even a couple of months apart, if I am not mistaken. The things that Bud Nance did with his life are the things we would strive for all of our children to do. He spent his life in service of this country. Having attended the Naval Academy, having gone on to rise to prominence as an admiral in the Navy, having served on the U.S.S. North Carolina, and then, after retirement, when most people would go on to spend time with their family and children, he went to his second career, which was working for his great lifelong friend, Senator Helms, on the Foreign Relations Committee. While I did not know Bud Nance intimately the way the Senators who have spoken knew him, I have to say, whenever I went to Senator Helms for advice--which seemed to be often--on issues of foreign relations, the very first thing he would say to me is, you need to talk to Bud Nance. I know how much he relied and depended on Bud Nance. I might add, aside from the fact that I am so proud of Bud Nance as a North Carolinian, I have another connection with him, which is that my father-in-law, Vince Anania, who was a captain in the Navy, went to the Naval Academy and was a classmate of Bud Nance at the Naval Academy. My father-in-law was a career naval aviator, a man for whom I have great love, admiration, and respect, and he held Bud Nance in enormous esteem and friendship, having gone to school with him, having known him over the years. I have to say, this man's career speaks for itself. The fact that he is held in such high esteem by Capt. Vince Anania, whom I love, admire and respect, just about says it all. I think this man was an extraordinary man who gave extraordinary service to his country. We have lost a great American. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Justice for Western North Carolina Act--legislation that will create an additional permanent district court judgeship and an additional temporary district court judgeship in the Western District of North Carolina. The Western District of North Carolina is one of the most overworked districts in the United States. And it is strained almost to the breaking point. The statistics tell the tale: its judges have the heaviest caseload of all the district courts in the Fourth Circuit. That means of all the district court judges working in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina--no other judges have a more crushing workload. Indeed, they deal with a caseload almost twice that recommended for any federal judge. The nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States, the principal policymaking body for the federal court system, believes that no judge should handle more than 430 weighted case filings. Well, the judges in the Western District have a weighted filing per judge of 703. The people of western North Carolina feel the impact of this burden. Criminal felony cases take longer to deal with in western North Carolina than any other district in the country but two. And businesses have to wait almost two years to have their lawsuits heard before a jury. Business disputes, Social Security claims, civil rights disputes--all of them are needlessly delayed when we in the Senate fail to fulfill our responsibility to ensure the prompt administration of justice. Three able Western District Court judges are doing their utmost to deal with this deluge. But they need our help. And we have failed to address the need sooner. It has been more than twenty years since Congress authorized the Western District's third judgeship. In 1978, there were 775 raw case filings. Last year, there were more than 7,000. It is folly to think that three judges should be able to handle the nearly tenfold increase in case filings in the Western District. Nor is there any relief from a growing caseload in sight. North Carolina is in the midst of a population boom. Since the 1990 census, the state's population grew by 12%. The Charlotte metropolitan area, which is in the western district of North Carolina, grew by 19 percent since 1990, making it the tenth fastest growing region in the country during this period. This growth in population, business, and industry translates into more commercial, corporate, and criminal law cases. Mr. President, more than any other justice system in the world, ours provides fair and equal administration of justice. We put this at risk when we do not have enough judges. When judges are overworked, they may be unable to give each case the attention it deserves. The maxim that ``justice delayed is justice denied'' is absolutely true. Slow justice does not just affect the litigants. With commercial cases involving major corporations, it can also hurt employees and consumers, as well. Moreover, we cheapen the Constitution when we fail to authorize the resources necessary for the federal judiciary--one of the three, coequal branches of government--to adequately serve society. Congress must respect the principle of an independent federal judiciary by ensuring that federal judges are not so consumed by the backlog of cases that they are not able to give the cases that come before them the attention they deserve. The legislation I propose puts into effect the recent recommendation made by the Judicial Conference. The Judicial Conference works to ensure that the federal judiciary delivers equal justice under law. On March 16 of this year, it recommended that we add one permanent and one temporary judgeship in the Western District of North Carolina. The Chief Justice serves as the presiding officer of the nonpartisan Judicial Conference. The membership of the Conference includes the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade. No one, at least no one I know, disagrees that the Western District is overworked. But some people have proposed the misguided solution of eliminating a judgeship from the Eastern District of North Carolina and transferring it to the Western District. I think that eliminating a judge from the Eastern District would be a real mistake, as big a mistake as not creating new judgeships in the Western District. The proposal is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. Eliminating a judgeship from the Eastern District would leave it in the same painful position that the Western District is in now. Last year, the Eastern District had 2056 weighted filings, or 514 for each of its four judgeships, easily above the national average of 484. Taking away a judgeship from the Eastern District would result in a weighted caseload per judge of 685. Transferring a judgeship from the Eastern to the Western District would do no more than switch the problem from the west to the east. I am also very concerned about the effect this elimination would have on Raleigh and the many people and companies who are based there and depend on the federal judiciary. For the last twenty years, at least one Eastern District judgeship has been filled by a judge presiding in Raleigh. Today, however, the three active judges in the Eastern District reside in Elizabeth City, Greenville, and Wilmington, and most of the Eastern District's court sessions are held in those cities. It is important that those areas have judges, but it is also important that there be a judge in Raleigh. If we transfer the unfilled judgeship to the west, we will do serious harm to our state capital. Raleigh is the home of the main offices of the U.S. Attorney, the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District, the Clerk of Court, the United States Probation Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the Eastern District, and the North Carolina Department of Justice. In addition, many private lawyers who handle civil and criminal cases in the Eastern District come from Raleigh. Finally, the Raleigh metropolitan area, which has more than one million people, is the fifth fastest growing urban area in the nation--swelling by 26 percent since 1990. Eliminating a judgeship based in Raleigh would create unnecessary obstacles to the pursuit of fair administration of justice in that city. Mr. President, the marble facade on the Supreme Court building says, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' We in the Congress must not jeopardize this principle by failing to provide the judiciary the resources it needs to do its work. Therefore, I urge your support of the Justice for Western North Carolina Act. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Justice for Western North Carolina Act--legislation that will create an additional permanent district court judgeship and an additional temporary district court judgeship in the Western District of North Carolina. The Western District of North Carolina is one of the most overworked districts in the United States. And it is strained almost to the breaking point. The statistics tell the tale: its judges have the heaviest caseload of all the district courts in the Fourth Circuit. That means of all the district court judges working in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina--no other judges have a more crushing workload. Indeed, they deal with a caseload almost twice that recommended for any federal judge. The nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States, the principal policymaking body for the federal court system, believes that no judge should handle more than 430 weighted case filings. Well, the judges in the Western District have a weighted filing per judge of 703. The people of western North Carolina feel the impact of this burden. Criminal felony cases take longer to deal with in western North Carolina than any other district in the country but two. And businesses have to wait almost two years to have their lawsuits heard before a jury. Business disputes, Social Security claims, civil rights disputes--all of them are needlessly delayed when we in the Senate fail to fulfill our responsibility to ensure the prompt administration of justice. Three able Western District Court judges are doing their utmost to deal with this deluge. But they need our help. And we have failed to address the need sooner. It has been more than twenty years since Congress authorized the Western District's third judgeship. In 1978, there were 775 raw case filings. Last year, there were more than 7,000. It is folly to think that three judges should be able to handle the nearly tenfold increase in case filings in the Western District. Nor is there any relief from a growing caseload in sight. North Carolina is in the midst of a population boom. Since the 1990 census, the state's population grew by 12%. The Charlotte metropolitan area, which is in the western district of North Carolina, grew by 19 percent since 1990, making it the tenth fastest growing region in the country during this period. This growth in population, business, and industry translates into more commercial, corporate, and criminal law cases. Mr. President, more than any other justice system in the world, ours provides fair and equal administration of justice. We put this at risk when we do not have enough judges. When judges are overworked, they may be unable to give each case the attention it deserves. The maxim that ``justice delayed is justice denied'' is absolutely true. Slow justice does not just affect the litigants. With commercial cases involving major corporations, it can also hurt employees and consumers, as well. Moreover, we cheapen the Constitution when we fail to authorize the resources necessary for the federal judiciary--one of the three, coequal branches of government--to adequately serve society. Congress must respect the principle of an independent federal judiciary by ensuring that federal judges are not so consumed by the backlog of cases that they are not able to give the cases that come before them the attention they deserve. The legislation I propose puts into effect the recent recommendation made by the Judicial Conference. The Judicial Conference works to ensure that the federal judiciary delivers equal justice under law. On March 16 of this year, it recommended that we add one permanent and one temporary judgeship in the Western District of North Carolina. The Chief Justice serves as the presiding officer of the nonpartisan Judicial Conference. The membership of the Conference includes the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade. No one, at least no one I know, disagrees that the Western District is overworked. But some people have proposed the misguided solution of eliminating a judgeship from the Eastern District of North Carolina and transferring it to the Western District. I think that eliminating a judge from the Eastern District would be a real mistake, as big a mistake as not creating new judgeships in the Western District. The proposal is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. Eliminating a judgeship from the Eastern District would leave it in the same painful position that the Western District is in now. Last year, the Eastern District had 2056 weighted filings, or 514 for each of its four judgeships, easily above the national average of 484. Taking away a judgeship from the Eastern District would result in a weighted caseload per judge of 685. Transferring a judgeship from the Eastern to the Western District would do no more than switch the problem from the west to the east. I am also very concerned about the effect this elimination would have on Raleigh and the many people and companies who are based there and depend on the federal judiciary. For the last twenty years, at least one Eastern District judgeship has been filled by a judge presiding in Raleigh. Today, however, the three active judges in the Eastern District reside in Elizabeth City, Greenville, and Wilmington, and most of the Eastern District's court sessions are held in those cities. It is important that those areas have judges, but it is also important that there be a judge in Raleigh. If we transfer the unfilled judgeship to the west, we will do serious harm to our state capital. Raleigh is the home of the main offices of the U.S. Attorney, the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District, the Clerk of Court, the United States Probation Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the Eastern District, and the North Carolina Department of Justice. In addition, many private lawyers who handle civil and criminal cases in the Eastern District come from Raleigh. Finally, the Raleigh metropolitan area, which has more than one million people, is the fifth fastest growing urban area in the nation--swelling by 26 percent since 1990. Eliminating a judgeship based in Raleigh would create unnecessary obstacles to the pursuit of fair administration of justice in that city. Mr. President, the marble facade on the Supreme Court building says, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' We in the Congress must not jeopardize this principle by failing to provide the judiciary the resources it needs to do its work. Therefore, I urge your support of the Justice for Western North Carolina Act. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I have a particular situation in my State of North Carolina that I want to make sure is not going to be affected by some of the insurance language in this bill. A few years ago, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina was considering converting from non-profit status to for profit. The North Carolina legislature looked into the plan, and decided that if Blue Cross were to convert to for-profit, it should be required to set up a charitable foundation as part of the process. It did so in order to make sure that funding for medical expenses would be available to many North Carolinians who had benefited from the services of the non-profit Blue Cross. During the Banking Committee's consideration of the bill, I was concerned that the earlier insurance language would have preempted the North Carolina law if a bank wanted to affiliate or purchase Blue Cross after the conversion. As a result of the Senator's amendment during the committee markup, the insurance language in the bill now is quite different. But I want to make sure that my concern about the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina conversion law is addressed by the new language in S. 900.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sweepstakes Toll-Free Option Protection Act of 1999, the ``STOP Act.'' I hope this measure will help put a stop to a practice I find extremely troublesome: the flooding of consumers' mailboxes with unwanted and misleading sweepstakes mailings. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations recently held hearings on deceptive mailings and sweepstakes promotions. I'd like to thank Senators Collins and Levin for bringing this important issue to light. Mr. President, during the course of these hearings, it became clear to me that strong measures must be taken to curb the use of misleading sweepstakes promotions. Too many people are getting swamped with solicitations. And too many people are spending their life savings trying to win prizes. The primary victims are our nation's elderly who are led to believe that if they purchase magazine subscriptions or other products, they will increase their chances of winning. Well, purchases do not increase the chances of winning. But often times, what purchases actually do is increase the number of solicitations sweepstakes companies send out to people, encouraging them to buy even more products. With each new purchase, consumers are led to believe that they are coming closer and closer to winning a prize. The sad truth is they are not getting closer, but the cycle of deception keeps going. The legislation I am introducing today would require sweepstakes companies to set up a uniform toll-free telephone number that consumers can call to have their names and addresses removed from all sweepstakes mailing lists. People will no longer have to contact each and every sweepstakes promoter to stop these misleading mailings. My legislation is a sensible approach to helping regular people who want to stop the flood of sweepstakes mailings and protect themselves from misleading solicitations. Let me tell you the story of Bobby Bagwell to help illustrate the need for this measure. One day, Pamela Bagwell went to visit her elderly father-in-law, Bobby. When she arrived at Bobby's home, Pamela found stacks and stacks of solicitations from sweepstakes companies. She asked Bobby about them and found out that he had made numerous purchases thinking that buying products would increase his chances of winning a prize. He was so convinced he would win a prize that he even invited his neighbors to his house on the day that the Publishers Clearing House prize patrol was supposed to deliver the grand prize check. Pamela estimates that Bobby spent more than $20,000 in 10 months on products he thought would help his chance of winning. Now as I mentioned before, Bobby is an elderly man. But this is not the worst part of this story. Bobby also has dementia. Pamela, who has power of attorney for Bobby, contacted Publishers Clearing House at least 6 times in October last year to demand that the company stop sending Bobby solicitations. She even went so far as to send the company a doctor's certification that Bobby has dementia. And yet, the sweepstakes mailings continued to flood Bobby's mailbox. Pamela said that sometimes Bobby was receiving up to twenty per day, from many different companies. During the hearings, I asked representatives from the four major sweepstakes companies, Publishers Clearing House, Time, American Family Enterprises and Reader's Digest, to check their records and remove Bobby's name and address from their mailing lists. All of the companies agreed to do so. However, I find it unacceptable that the only recourse someone like Pamela has is to hope that a United States Senator makes such a request for her. Pamela and Bobby Bagwell's situation is not unique. Since the hearings, my office has received numerous calls and letters, not just from North Carolinians, but from people all over the country who tell similar, disturbing stories about their experiences with sweepstakes companies. Mr. President, my proposal is a reasonable way to help them. I believe that people should have the right to easily put a stop to these mailings. And sweepstakes promoters should be legally required to honor such a request. Now let me tell you how my legislation would work. First, as I have already mentioned, it requires that sweepstakes companies set up a uniform toll-free number that individuals or people with power of attorney for such individuals, can call to get their name and address removed from all sweepstakes mailing lists. After a person places that one phone call, they will receive a removal request form to fill out and send in to the notification system. After the system receives that form, the person's name will be removed from all sweepstakes mailing lists. The form will serve as written evidence that the person made a request to have their name removed. Second, the sweepstakes companies must include a statement in their mailings that people have the option of having their names removed from sweepstakes mailing lists and that they can initiate this process by calling the specific toll-free number that has been established. The statement must be clear and conspicuous, which is important in order to effectively alert people about their right to stop the mailings. Finally, my bill requires that if an individual makes a request to have their name removed from sweepstakes mailings lists, the sweepstakes companies must comply with this request. If the companies continue to send mailings against the wishes of the caller, each mailing will subject the company to a $10,000 civil penalty. Mr. President, in closing, I should mention that the American Association of Retired Persons participated in the sweepstakes hearings and testified as to ``the severe effects'' deceptive sweepstakes mailings have on AARP members. AARP supports my idea of a toll-free uniform notification system. My legislation is a common sense solution to a growing problem, and I am confident that it will indeed go a long way toward stopping harrassing, deceptive sweepstakes mailings. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.