John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the School Service Act of 2003. Across our Nation, as more and more people participate in national service programs, young people, too, are making real contributions to their communities. These students are learning lessons that are more valuable than any taught in the classroom, lessons about what it means to be a part of a community and what it means to be an American. In my home State, schools and communities have seen the benefit of student service. High school kids have built community centers in run- down neighborhoods. They've cleaned up polluted ponds. They've helped small children learn to read, and offered comfort to the elderly and sick. And the students have learned that their efforts matter, a lesson that they'll carry with then their whole lives. The research shows this. In one study, adults who had completed service projects more than 15 years earlier were still more likely to be volunteers and voters than adults who hadn't. In another program, kids who served had a 60 percent lower drop-out rate and 18 percent lower rate of school suspension than kids who didn't. I applaud these students' dedication, as well as the dedication of the teachers, parents and administrators who support them. But we should do more than simply applaud these efforts--we should provide the resources to support and expand them. That is why I am introducing, together with Senator Gordon Smith and Senator Clinton, the School Service Act of 2003. The proposal is very simple: We say to a limited number of States and cities, if you have schools that will make sure students engage in high-quality service before graduation, we will support those schools' efforts. All that we ask is that you ensure that students are engaging in meaningful service with real benefits to communities. We want kids seeing these experiences not as another chore, but as an exciting initiation into long lives of active citizenship. Here in Congress, it is our responsibility to give opportunities for service to our young people. We do not want to create a new national mandate, and we will not require any State or city to do anything. But for those State and school districts with schools that are ready, we ought to make sure every child has the opportunity and the responsibility to engage in service. When we do, our country will be richly rewarded in the years and decades to come.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the School Service Act of 2003. Across our Nation, as more and more people participate in national service programs, young people, too, are making real contributions to their communities. These students are learning lessons that are more valuable than any taught in the classroom, lessons about what it means to be a part of a community and what it means to be an American. In my home State, schools and communities have seen the benefit of student service. High school kids have built community centers in run- down neighborhoods. They've cleaned up polluted ponds. They've helped small children learn to read, and offered comfort to the elderly and sick. And the students have learned that their efforts matter, a lesson that they'll carry with then their whole lives. The research shows this. In one study, adults who had completed service projects more than 15 years earlier were still more likely to be volunteers and voters than adults who hadn't. In another program, kids who served had a 60 percent lower drop-out rate and 18 percent lower rate of school suspension than kids who didn't. I applaud these students' dedication, as well as the dedication of the teachers, parents and administrators who support them. But we should do more than simply applaud these efforts--we should provide the resources to support and expand them. That is why I am introducing, together with Senator Gordon Smith and Senator Clinton, the School Service Act of 2003. The proposal is very simple: We say to a limited number of States and cities, if you have schools that will make sure students engage in high-quality service before graduation, we will support those schools' efforts. All that we ask is that you ensure that students are engaging in meaningful service with real benefits to communities. We want kids seeing these experiences not as another chore, but as an exciting initiation into long lives of active citizenship. Here in Congress, it is our responsibility to give opportunities for service to our young people. We do not want to create a new national mandate, and we will not require any State or city to do anything. But for those State and school districts with schools that are ready, we ought to make sure every child has the opportunity and the responsibility to engage in service. When we do, our country will be richly rewarded in the years and decades to come.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express pride and thanks for the excellent police work done by North Carolina law enforcement over the weekend, work that led to the capture of Eric Robert Rudolph, the alleged terrorist who had eluded capture for more than 5 years. I am particularly proud of the fact that two of North Carolina's finest--Jeff Postell, a rookie officer in the Murphy Police Department and Cherokee County Sheriff's Deputy Sean Matthews--were responsible for brining Rudolph in. I can't say enough about these exemplary lawmen, who represent the best that North Carolina and America have to offer--dedicated public servants risking their lives to make us safer. I will never forget the pride I felt as I watched Officer Postell, squinting in the glare of unasked for limelight, modestly dismiss praise for his actions by stating, ``It was my job.'' His job, indeed. As it is the job of thousands and thousands of other first responders in North Carolina and throughout the country. Men and women who day in and day out put their lives on the line to ensure our safety and ask so little in return. The least we can do for these brave public servants is to show our support for their efforts in meaningful ways. One of the most meaningful ways we can do this is to do more than just pay lip service to their efforts while cutting programs, funding, and benefits they so desperately need. That is why it makes no sense that, instead of bolstering the efforts of our first responders, the administration is slashing the very programs that we need to help ensure a strong homeland defense. Just look at the COPS program--a program that has directly benefited the Murphy Police Department and Cherokee County law enforcement. Since it was created as part of a 1994 crime bill, the COPS program has helped communities hire more than 116,000 police officers nationwide. We all know how important and effective the COPS program is. So why is President Bush proposing only $164 million for the COPS program next year, an 85 percent cut from the $1.1 billion that was spent in 2002? It is just plain wrong to, on the one hand, praise, take credit for, the fine work done by our local law enforcement day in and day out while, with the other hand, snatch away the funding that makes their work possible. Yes, Officer Postell was just doing his job. And thanks to him, we can sleep a little easier. but not it is time for us to do our jobs. Let's give Officer Postell and his colleagues the tools they need to keep doing the work we need and appreciate so much.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the decisions we are making in the Senate today say a lot about our values, who we are, what we care about. Earlier today, the Vice President cast the tie-breaking vote that enabled wealthy investors to cut their taxes by tens of billions of dollars. It does virtually nothing for ordinary Americans. If you look at this bill, for the next 5 years, the very little help working people get gets smaller and smaller, while the help for people who live off of their wealth gets bigger and bigger. So this bill values wealth over work. It is just that simple. Now we have an amendment from the Senator from Massachusetts that is about helping people who are hurting today. This is not an abstraction. I have been all over this country. Anywhere you go in America, you meet people who are looking for work, and they cannot find it. These are good, salt-of-the-earth people. They want to work. They have worked all their lives. There is no job available for them. They are trying to feed their families, trying to pay the rent. These are people who cannot find a job because this administration--President Bush's administration--has killed over 2 million jobs. They are going from factory to factory and store to store trying to find work--whether it is at a textile mill, drycleaner, or McDonald's. They cannot find work. They have been looking for months. So the question for the Senate is very simple: Will we help a million people who are unemployed, through absolutely no fault of their own-- good, working people who have worked all their lives? The Senate has already proven today that it cares about the wealthy. Now the question is, Do we care about people who have spent months looking for work, who have worked all their lives, who want to take care of their families, put food on the table, pay the rent but they cannot find a job? That is the question presented by this amendment. The response will show the values of the Senate.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge the accomplishments of Mr. James C. McAllister III of Chapel Hill, NC. Mr. McAllister has been a leader in pharmaceutical management for decades. June 3, 2003, he will receive the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists' 2003 Harvey A.K. Whitney Lecture Award. As director of pharmacy at the University of North Carolina, Mr. McAllister established a Pre-residency program for pharmacy students to work at local hospitals. This provides students with hands-on experience and gives hospitals extra resources to better assist patients. Prior to his successes at the University of North Carolina, Mr. McAllister worked at Duke University, where he served as associate chief operating officer overseeing the pharmacy. Mr. McAllister is well known for his expertise dealing with many pharmaceutical issues, particularly pharmacy practice and medication safety. He is also widely respected for his knowledge of pharmaceutical efficiencies such as automation and information technology, which save money and save lives by reducing medical errors. Mr. McAllister is the first American pharmacist to implement an operating room pharmacy and a medication dispensing robot. Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the contributions of James C. McAllister III.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Over a month ago, our military achieved an impressive victory in Iraq--a victory earned by the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, and a victory that serves as a testament to the bipartisan commitment to ensuring that our military remains the best in the world. Through these efforts, we removed a brutal regime and helped liberate a people. This victory also brought an enormous responsibility upon the United States: to help the Iraqi people rebuild their lives in peace and prosperity. Meeting this challenge is a test of our leadership, a test of our commitment and resolve, and a test of our willingness to engage with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has put us on a course to fail these tests. Since that statue of Saddam Hussein came crashing down, America's postwar policy has been confused and chaotic. The American- led civil administration is understaffed, underequipped and unprepared. Already many of its senior leaders have come and gone. The international community has expressed a willingness to help, but has been kept on the sidelines. Baghdad and other key cities remain unsafe. There has been widespread looting of hospitals, businesses, museums, and homes. Mass gravesites have not been protected. Refugees are fleeing to neighboring countries like Jordan. Radical clerics have begun to fill the power vacuum. Saddam Hussein and many of his senior henchmen are still at large. And most disturbing, nuclear, chemical and biological facilities have been left unprotected and have been ransacked--not only destroying possible evidence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, but presenting a real threat that such materials will end up in the hands of terrorists. Continuing on this path not only hurts the Iraqi people, who have suffered enough and deserve better, but it squanders all that our military achieved in Iraq, threatens our security, and undermines our standing in the world. I am concerned that we are about to repeat the same mistakes we have made in Afghanistan, where this administration's efforts to win the peace have been ineffective and weak. The lack of American leadership has left Afghanistan dangerously unstable. We cannot make the same mistake in Iraq. Last fall, many of us who supported the use of military force in Iraq warned President Bush about this problem. We argued that the United States needed to put the same amount of energy, effort, and creativity into planning for what to do after Saddam was gone. We supported the use of force to ensure that Iraq complied with its commitments to the international community. But we also called on the President to carefully plan for a new Iraq--a prosperous democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors. The President obviously did not heed our advice. The administration did not make adequate plans for the situation which now threatens the success of our mission in Iraq--and in some instances, it apparently did not plan at all. It now tries to explain away its failures as the ``untidy'' realities of postwar Iraq. Rather than make excuses, the administration must act before it undermines all that we have accomplished. Because the administration failed to anticipate the consequences of victory, we now face the prospect of an Iraq that descends into chaos. We must take action now to stop this. Almost 6 weeks ago, the day after Baghdad fell to U.S. forces, I outlined four clear and simple principles to guide U.S. policy in postwar Iraq. First, the U.S. must bring other countries into this effort, as well as institutions like the United Nations and NATO. Including others will not just increase the likelihood of success. It will help create a free Iraqi government with legitimacy and authority in the region and the rest of the world. And by sharing the costs of this massive effort, including others will ease the burdens on the American people. Second, the U.S. must do more to ensure the safety and security of the Iraqi people. It makes no sense that we did not have enough military forces on the ground to protect critical weapons sites or stop looting from spinning out of control. Clearly, we should have had more forces ready to meet these challenges. It is good that reinforcements are on the way, but I believe that the best way to deal with this problem now would be to create a multinational peacekeeping force, led by NATO. We all know that many NATO members were deeply divided over the issue of what to do about Iraq. But now that the war is over, I believe that we have an opportunity to reaffirm NATO's importance and relevance--as well as America's commitment to the alliance--by looking for ways to include NATO in providing security today in Iraq. Third, we have to do better at ensuring that the Iraqi people, not some puppet government, will shape Iraq's future. So far, our efforts to support an open political process have been unimpressive, raising doubts about our commitment to giving the Iraqi people a voice in the process and a government that reflects their diversity. The administration has not articulated a clear path to help the Iraqi people achieve self-government, preserve basic freedoms, and uphold the rule of law. This process must be seen as legitimate. Therefore we should act now to give the broader international community a role. Fourth, we have to ensure that the Iraqi people can build a prosperous economy that is theirs alone. Iraq has enormous economic potential, and we have to help the Iraqi people tap into that potential and make clear that the oil is theirs and not for the U.S. or others to exploit. Many of the recent decisions about which companies will help rebuild Iraq have raised doubts around the world about our motives. We need a transparent and open process to guarantee that the awarding of contracts is fair. While our national interest requires that we make this commitment to help rebuild Iraq, the American people deserve to know how much this is going to cost. This administration has consistently been unclear about the duration and costs of our commitment in a post-Saddam Iraq. We must have a better accounting. How much will it cost the American taxpayer? How much will other countries contribute? What are the signposts for measuring success in a transition to an independent, democratic Iraqi government? It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant, and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. A free Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world. And if done right--with humility, patience, and cooperation--this effort to rebuild Iraq will bring the world together and return America to a place where it is respected and admired.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I call up amendment No. 662.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act and the budget resolution for purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, this is a simple proposal from Senator McCain, Senator Graham of South Carolina, and myself. What we are trying to do is eliminate one of the worst tax scams in the Tax Code today. What we have is companies getting billions of dollars in tax breaks for buying life insurance policies on janitors, secretaries, and other working people. The companies get billions for this. They are also the beneficiaries of the policies when these working people die. So the janitors themselves, the secretaries themselves, the workers themselves get absolutely nothing--not a dime. Officials in the Reagan administration tried to eliminate this tax scam. Officials in the Clinton administration tried to eliminate it. It is time for us to bring it to an end. We have specifically excluded key employees from this amendment, so this amendment just eliminates the fraudulent portion of this tax break. I ask my colleagues to support it. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of NATO's expansion and the ratification of the Treaty before us. For more than 50 years, the alliance has been the cornerstone of the U.S.-European relationship, and I believe that NATO remains our most important alliance. NATO's enlargement is critical to ensuring its continuing relevance in the 21st century. With the inclusion of 7 new members--Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia--NATO shows its commitment to establishing partnerships with its former adversaries and expanding the zone of freedom and security from Europe's West to Europe's East. Enlargement enables these countries to complete the journey they began with the end of Soviet communism, a journey that will make them part of a Europe that is whole, free and at peace. With this step, we also come closer to completing the vision outlined by President Bill Clinton nearly a decade ago. In January 1994, President Clinton first described the enlargement of NATO as one of not ``whether but when.'' Thanks to his strong leadership, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined the alliance in 1999, and NATO developed a new relationship with Russia. President George W. Bush deserves credit for continuing his predecessor's policies. I am deeply committed to NATO. A year ago, I voted in favor of the Freedom Consolidation Act, which stressed the importance of NATO and endorsed taking the step of enlargement. And last December, I went to NATO headquarters in Brussels and met with senior alliance officials, including Lord George Robertson, the superb NATO Secretary General; General Joe Ralston, then-NATO's military commander; our excellent U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Nick Burns; and several of his fellow NATO Ambassadors. I also visited London, where I met with the leader of one of our closest NATO allies, the United Kingdom's Tony Blair. In all of these discussions, we agreed that bringing these deserving countries into NATO was critical to making the alliance stronger. But we also agreed that enlargement was only the first step--and in some ways, that it might prove to be the easiest. This is remarkable, especially when considering how contentious the issue of NATO enlargement was less than half a decade ago, not only here in the Senate, but around the world. For NATO to continue to be a strong alliance, its members must meet at least two challenges. First, NATO members must close the gap in their military capabilities, and second, we must work to orient NATO toward new missions. The Europeans understand that in terms of military spending and modernization, they are just not keeping up. A big part of the problem is budgetary. Last year the U.S. spent twice as much on defense than every other NATO member combined. The $48 billion increase in military spending that Congress appropriated after the September 11, 2001, attacks was itself twice as much as Germany's entire defense budget. Everyone at NATO understands the problem. Lord Robertson repeatedly warns about it, but the question is whether our European partners can muster up the creativity and political will to get the job done. Since I believe that it is in the U.S. security interest to work more, not less, with our European partners, it is obvious that our partners need to be strong and capable of working with the United States. Beyond the issue of capabilities, NATO's members face an even more fundamental question: What is NATO's purpose? My answer is this: If NATO's cold war mission was to keep the peace in Europe, the real point of the Transatlantic security relationship in the 21st century is what we can do together outside of Europe. This includes addressing threats like terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and pandemics like HIV/AIDS. And it includes acting in places that NATO planners have considered ``out of area'': the Middle East, South and Central Asia, and Africa. The bottom line is that neither the United States nor Europe can tackle any of these problems alone. We need each other, and to neglect natural building blocks like NATO simply does not make any sense. Over the past 2 years, NATO has made historic strides in addressing these new threats. Following the September 11 attacks, NATO Allies came together and, for the first time, invoked the alliance's self defense clause. NATO partners are on the ground today in Afghanistan. Later this year, the alliance itself will assume command of the international security force in Afghanistan. I also believe that NATO can and should play a central role in providing security in a postwar Iraq. We all know that many NATO members were deeply divided over the issue of what to do about Iraq. But now that the war is over, I believe that we have an opportunity to reaffirm NATO's importance and relevance--as well as America's commitment to the Alliance--by looking for ways to include NATO in providing security today in Iraq. Doing so would not only lend credibility to America's efforts in Iraq, but over the coming months and years ease the burden on the American people. This is a test, a test not just for NATO but for American leadership in NATO. This is not the first time America's leadership in NATO has been tested. In fact, the question of whether or not to enlarge NATO was a test of American leadership, and with our vote today, we will have met that test. Now, I believe we have to show the same sense of commitment and resolve to help NATO meet the new challenges we face in Iraq and elsewhere.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today is a new beginning for the people of free Iraq. The central authority in Baghdad has collapsed. Saddam Hussein's regime has lost control. But we know that there will be hard days ahead, days that will test our leadership, and test our willingness to engage with the rest of the world. In the coming months and years, America faces the enormous challenge of helping the Iraqi people rebuild their lives in peace and prosperity. This challenge presents an extraordinary opportunity for the United States as well. If we do this right, we have a chance to ensure that the United States occupies a place of respect and admiration in the world. We must take advantage of this opportunity to strengthen relationships with our core allies, to revitalize the United Nations, and to demonstrate American leadership through respectful engagement with the rest of the world. Today, in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, America's military forces are still in harm's way, and our thoughts and prayers are with them. Over the past 3 weeks, I have visited with some of our troops and their families in North Carolina at Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, and with the National Guard. These young men and women inspire us all. They are performing brilliantly, and they will bring us to a great military victory. I support our troops, and I support the cause for which they are fighting. I have long argued that disarming Saddam, even if it meant the use of military force, was necessary to defend America's national interests. Last fall, I cosponsored and voted for the resolution authorizing force to disarm Saddam. As I argued then, lasting victory will require more than removing Saddam from power and disarming Iraq once and for all. Victory means winning the peace. We have proved that we have firepower. Now we must show that we have staying power. We must make a major commitment to help rebuild Iraq. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world. If done right--with humility, patience and cooperation--this effort to rebuild Iraq will bring the world together and return America to a place where it is respected and admired. The President has spoken about his commitment to Iraq's future and pledged that America will be there to help. We must hold him to these commitments, especially because in Afghanistan the President's rhetoric about winning the peace looks more and more like an empty promise. In order to succeed, our actions to help Iraq must be based on four clear and simple principles. First, the United States cannot do this alone. It would be a huge mistake if the reconstruction of Iraq were an ``American-only'' effort. The United Nations must play a central role, not just through passive endorsement, but through active engagement in reconstruction, humanitarian relief, and civil administration. In addition, we should be working with our NATO allies to find ways the alliance could be involved in providing security assistance, and we should seek help from our friends in the European Union. Finally, we need to work with regional partners such as Turkey and Jordan to support these efforts. A robust multilateral approach to this problem will not just increase the likelihood of success. It also will allow us to share the burden of the reconstruction costs with the rest of the international community. And it will help create a free Iraqi Government with legitimacy and authority in the region and the world. Second, we must ensure the immediate security and safety of the Iraqi people, and help them achieve stability over the long-term. In the beginning, most of this security will have to come from American and British military forces. While our forces should be there as long as it takes, and not be restricted by artificial deadlines, an American military presence in Iraq cannot be indefinite. We should support creating a multinational force to follow our efforts, including a central role for NATO. There are many other urgent security needs as well, such as eliminating the instruments of Iraq's system of repression and securing Iraq's borders and oil facilities. The Iraqi people will only be able to emerge from the shadow of Saddam Hussein's tyranny if they are freed from the threat of violence and lawlessness. Third, the Iraqi people must be able to shape their own future, not have it imposed on them by outsiders. We can help create an environment for this to happen. This means, most fundamentally, a civil administration that protects three basic freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of movement. Iraq also must develop the rule of law. Its people need the international community's help in capturing and trying war criminals, developing legal institutions, educating judges and lawyers, and developing a legitimate police force. The reconstruction effort must also begin to restore the basic elements of everyday life, from ensuring that they have adequate electricity and clean water to helping them at tasks life rebuilding their roads and schools. All Iraqis must have confidence that they will have a voice in their future and that they will have a government that reflects their diversity. A free and democratic Iraq will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated society that has suffered under repression for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis--including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds--deserve to be represented. Fourth, the Iraqi people must have the tools to build a prosperous economy that is theirs alone. Iraqi has enormous natural resources and it has great potential. While we should help the Iraqi people tap into that potential, we have to make clear to the Iraqi people that the oil is theirs, and not for the U.S. or others to exploit. We also will have to explore all possibilities for debt restructuring and relief. Yet doing what it takes to succeed in Iraq is only one of the challenges we face. We have to develop a new kind of leadership throughout the world. In the Middle East, it is time to engage to achieve a real peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I think this administration's disengagement in this crisis for the past 2 years has been a mistake. With the end of the conflict in Iraq, we have an opportunity to bring hope to this troubled region. We must seize it. We also have to do far more to support democracy and freedom throughout the Middle East. No region of the world is more vital to our interests; yet no region is as undemocratic. Ultimately, there is no greater force for peace and prosperity--and against terrorism--than the promotion of democratic regimes that respect human rights and the rule of law, both within and beyond their borders. Showing a new kind of leadership in the Middle East will also help begin to bridge the gap that has grown between America and many of our best friends in the world. The most powerful country in the world can afford to heed the concerns of its friends. We cannot afford to lose them. Yet I am concerned that some would move us in the opposite direction, attempting to punish allies that disagreed with us on Iraq. This is wrong. We also have to take action to revitalize institutions like NATO and the United Nations. At times these institutions can be frustrating, but we must remember that it was America's vision and leadership that created these institutions. American leadership will be indispensable to helping them act to tackle today's challenges. Make no mistake, America's families are safer in a world where America is looked up and respected, not isolated and resented. America's interests are best served when we lead in a way that brings others to our side, not drives them away. Like the generation of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, we have a chance to define how America uses its power--whether it is defending against threats, promoting prosperity and freedom or giving help to those who need it. We have a chance to strengthen international institutions and alliances to help us meet these challenges. And we have a chance to ensure America's place of respect in the world. This is what we can achieve with the right kind of leadership.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two important pieces of legislation that offer a helping hand to the members and families of the National Guard, the Reserves, and the regular active- duty military. The National Guard and Reserves used to be called ``forces of last resort,'' but they have become much more. Between 1945 and 1989, the Guard and Reserves were activated four times. Only four times in 45 years. Between 1990 and the present, in less than 15 years, the Guard and Reserves were activated six times. They have become a central element of our national defense. We've come to rely on them to fight side-by-side with full-time active duty soldiers. Each time our Nation has needed them, the Guard and Reserves members have left their jobs, their homes, and their families to serve this nation with pride and distinction. They view activation as an opportunity for service, but the truth is that activation does cause challenges at home. We should do right by them. Over the past few weeks, this body has considered a number of important measures for the Guard, the Reserves, and our entire military. I was pleased to support Senator Landrieu's amendment to raise combat and family separation pay and to modernize equipment. I also supported Senator Lincoln's effort to make sure that all members of the National Guard and Reserves can participate in the same health program that's available to full-time soldiers and their families. It's hard to believe, but 20 percent of the men and women in the Guard and Reserves don't even have health insurance. Today, I am introducing two new pieces of legislation to address unique difficulties facing Guard and Reserve members and, in fact, members of the regular military as well. I've traveled around the bases in my State and, time and time again, soldiers and their families have told me they need help. My first proposal is for child care. A few weeks ago, I outlined my ideas for addressing the growing challenges facing working families. Parents are working longer hours, earning less, and spending less time with their kids. One idea I offered was expanding afterschool programs for kids of working parents. The child care crunch is enormously exacerbated for military families. When one parent is called away, the other must take on all the responsibilities around the home. And at the same time, many members of the Guard and Reserves take a pay cut, making it more difficult to hire help. Families can get child care on a military base, which is great for some families. But members of the Guard in North Wilkesboro, for example, live 173 miles away from the nearest military installation. Those families are totally left out. My National Guard and Reserves Child Care Relief Act would give families financial help for child care in their hometown. We would help families with a mom or dad called away on active duty. This is a concrete, practical way to make a difference in people's lives. I also have a bill to provide some help paying for education for the men and women who serve our country in the military. Nearly a quarter of Guardsmen and Reservists are college students, and many more are graduates with student loans. While these patriots are fighting for their country overseas, we charge them interest on their student loans here at home. This happens even if they're serving on the frontlines in Iraq; even if they took a huge pay cut because they're in the Guard or Reserves; even if they have a very low income to begin with. For somebody with an average size loan of $17,000, this can add up to as much as $1,400 in interest a year. That's not right. No one should return to civilian life deeper in debt because they took time off to serve their country. We should waive the interest on these Federal loans. The Secretary of Education has the authority to waive interest under the HEROES Act of 2001, but he has chosen not to exercise it. My Fairness for America's Soldiers in Higher Education Act would require him to do just that. It would also permanently end an Education Department policy- suspended during the current conflict--that makes many guardsmen and reservists who have to drop college courses when they are activated pay back student aid. As we consider trillion-dollar budgets, these are modest ideas, but they would make a real difference in the lives of Americans serving their country and signal our appreciation for their sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to support these important bills. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two important pieces of legislation that offer a helping hand to the members and families of the National Guard, the Reserves, and the regular active- duty military. The National Guard and Reserves used to be called ``forces of last resort,'' but they have become much more. Between 1945 and 1989, the Guard and Reserves were activated four times. Only four times in 45 years. Between 1990 and the present, in less than 15 years, the Guard and Reserves were activated six times. They have become a central element of our national defense. We've come to rely on them to fight side-by-side with full-time active duty soldiers. Each time our Nation has needed them, the Guard and Reserves members have left their jobs, their homes, and their families to serve this nation with pride and distinction. They view activation as an opportunity for service, but the truth is that activation does cause challenges at home. We should do right by them. Over the past few weeks, this body has considered a number of important measures for the Guard, the Reserves, and our entire military. I was pleased to support Senator Landrieu's amendment to raise combat and family separation pay and to modernize equipment. I also supported Senator Lincoln's effort to make sure that all members of the National Guard and Reserves can participate in the same health program that's available to full-time soldiers and their families. It's hard to believe, but 20 percent of the men and women in the Guard and Reserves don't even have health insurance. Today, I am introducing two new pieces of legislation to address unique difficulties facing Guard and Reserve members and, in fact, members of the regular military as well. I've traveled around the bases in my State and, time and time again, soldiers and their families have told me they need help. My first proposal is for child care. A few weeks ago, I outlined my ideas for addressing the growing challenges facing working families. Parents are working longer hours, earning less, and spending less time with their kids. One idea I offered was expanding afterschool programs for kids of working parents. The child care crunch is enormously exacerbated for military families. When one parent is called away, the other must take on all the responsibilities around the home. And at the same time, many members of the Guard and Reserves take a pay cut, making it more difficult to hire help. Families can get child care on a military base, which is great for some families. But members of the Guard in North Wilkesboro, for example, live 173 miles away from the nearest military installation. Those families are totally left out. My National Guard and Reserves Child Care Relief Act would give families financial help for child care in their hometown. We would help families with a mom or dad called away on active duty. This is a concrete, practical way to make a difference in people's lives. I also have a bill to provide some help paying for education for the men and women who serve our country in the military. Nearly a quarter of Guardsmen and Reservists are college students, and many more are graduates with student loans. While these patriots are fighting for their country overseas, we charge them interest on their student loans here at home. This happens even if they're serving on the frontlines in Iraq; even if they took a huge pay cut because they're in the Guard or Reserves; even if they have a very low income to begin with. For somebody with an average size loan of $17,000, this can add up to as much as $1,400 in interest a year. That's not right. No one should return to civilian life deeper in debt because they took time off to serve their country. We should waive the interest on these Federal loans. The Secretary of Education has the authority to waive interest under the HEROES Act of 2001, but he has chosen not to exercise it. My Fairness for America's Soldiers in Higher Education Act would require him to do just that. It would also permanently end an Education Department policy- suspended during the current conflict--that makes many guardsmen and reservists who have to drop college courses when they are activated pay back student aid. As we consider trillion-dollar budgets, these are modest ideas, but they would make a real difference in the lives of Americans serving their country and signal our appreciation for their sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to support these important bills. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment I have offered to provide funding for the All Hazards Emergency Warning Network. If we are truly going to improve homeland defense, we must prepare Americans to respond in time of attack. And the first step towards that goal is updating our emergency warning system. We must ensure that warnings reach all Americans at risk as quickly as possible. In the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster, Americans must know how to respond. Unfortunately, for everything that has happened since September 11, if an attack happened again, many of us still would not know what to do. Today, our emergency alert system depends heavily on television and radio, and doesn't reach millions of Americans who aren't near a TV and radio at a given moment. In addition, the system doesn't provide all the information we need. Right now, the All Hazards Warning Network cannot effectively broadcast information about all types of emergencies, particularly terrorist attacks. That must change. We need to ensure that NOAA has the funds it needs to begin incorporating new warnings and new technologies within the national weather radio immediately. I have proposed providing NOAA with $10 million right now for incorporating additional technologies for disseminating terrorism warnings within the All Hazards Warning Network. There are a lot of ways that NOAA weather radio could be broadcast using existing technology. For example, cell phones could receive emergency warnings for users in a certain area even if those folks are just passing through. Pagers and beepers can achieve the same result. Televisions can be programmed to come on automatically and provide alerts in the event of a disaster. We need to encourage the development and implementation of these new technologies. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, NOAA needs to have full communication with emergency managers at the local level--the men and women who will be on the front lines of any emergency. The All Hazards Warning Network needs to allow emergency managers to transmit warnings about all types of disasters, including terrorism, to citizens in their area without the delays currently in place. This is an idea I have been working on for some time. This first bill I introduced this session, together with Mr. Hollings, would require the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Commerce to make sure that comprehensive, easily understood emergency warnings get to every American at risk. Today's amendment will go a long way towards reaching that goal.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I rise today to talk about an amendment Senator Corzine and I plan to offer later during debate. At the outset, I thank Senator Corzine for his leadership and say he is far and away the Senate's greatest champion on this particular issue. The issue is simple. Will we protect our chemical plants from terrorist attacks? The answer to that question has to be yes. All Americans are praying for our soldiers overseas today. Their courage, patriotism, and dedication is an inspiration to every one of us. Today it is time for folks here in this Chamber to summon a little bit of courage to make sure we do our part to protect America. Folks have been talking about chemical security for months. Everyone knows the vulnerability of these plants is a major problem, but nobody is acting. The time for talk is past. It is time for us to put the security of the American people ahead of special-interest lobbyists and pass this bill now. Our chemical plants remain dangerously at risk for terrorist attack. According to the EPA, there are 123 chemical plants that would endanger a million people each if they were attacked, and those are just the chemical plants that are located near big cities. The U.S. Army Surgeon General found the No. 2 threat to the American public, second only to a major biological attack, is a terrorist attack on a chemical plant. And the terrorists know it. Government officials at the National Infrastructure Protection Center have warned that al-Qaida operatives may plan to launch attacks on our chemical and nuclear infrastructure, ``to cause contamination, disruption, and terror.'' Based on their information, chemical plants remain viable targets for terrorists. Despite these enormous and serious threats, our Nation's chemical plants remain unprotected. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued a report just a few weeks ago that found the security at chemical plants ranged from fair--which is the best--to very poor. Last fall, on the anniversary of September 11, Newsweek gave the chemical industry an F for failing to beef up its security--an F. Newsweek described the threat to chemical plants as 1,000 points of vulnerability, risk that has remained largely below the radar. One blown-up plant, truck, or train, and the press will be calling for the scalps of those who let it happen. We have a chance to stop it. We cannot let this happen. That is our responsibility. Senator Corzine has been on top of this issue from day one. He has taken the lead on getting an effective chemical plant safety bill through the Senate and signed into law. He introduced his bill, the Chemical Security Act, back in October of 2001, more than a year and a half ago. It passed unanimously out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Back then, everyone agreed we needed to protect our chemical plants and keep all the American people safe. Unfortunately, since then, some of our colleagues have changed their minds. In fact, some of the Members who voted for the Chemical Safety Act in committee later reversed themselves and attacked it when it was considered in legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. Senator Corzine has reintroduced the bill, but now it is stalled in committee. Why is it a bill that was so popular to Congress has now become so controversial? I will tell you one thing that has happened. The industry lobbyists have gotten the word out that they are against this bill. They do not like it. They say they don't want Government telling them what to do. They want voluntary standards, not mandatory standards. Now it is beginning to look as if the administration is going to take the same line. I have a few questions for these lobbyists. Do we have voluntary standards for whether the air our family breathes is going to be clean? Do we let each powerplant decide how much it is going to pollute? That may be what some people want, but I don't think it is a good idea. Do we let sewage plants decide how much toxic waste they are going to send into the water our kids drink? Of course not. When it comes to physical security, do we have voluntary standards for security at airports, standards where each airport gets to decide whether they are going to check bags and how? Of course we don't. When thousands of Americans lives are on the line, we set minimum standards. We have to do exactly the same thing here. Let me go into what this amendment would do. First, it would require minimum standards for improving security and reducing potential hazards at chemical plants and other industrial facilities that store large quantities of hazardous materials. Specifically, the bill would require identification of high-priority chemical facilities within 1 year of enactment. These high-priority facilities are the very dangerous ones, the plants that have significant quantities of toxic or flammable chemicals and the ones located near major population centers. This amendment would not affect facilities located in remote areas, including the vast majority of agricultural facilities.

Mr. EDWARDS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. EDWARDS. The Senator from Arizona should know, having been a candidate for higher office himself. I appreciate his courtesy. For the high-priority plants, the amendment would create a process where the plants are required to figure out what their vulnerabilities are and then address them. It is that simple. Senator Corzine has been extremely reasonable in accommodating legitimate concerns. For example, we heard from some farm groups that they wanted the Department of Homeland Security taking on key tasks under the bill, not EPA. Therefore, we have made those changes. But let me mention one thing in this bill that has not changed and that has become controversial for reasons I do not understand. This bill requires what is called hazard reduction. It says to chemical plants: If you can use a safer chemical, you have to use a safer chemical. This should not be a controversial idea. We all try to practice hazard reduction every single day. We put our kids in car seats when we are driving, and we cover up electric outlets. We wear seatbelts. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about individual lives. Here we are talking about thousands and thousands of lives. We have to reduce these hazards. Terrorists want to attack targets where they can hurt as many people as possible. If we can make chemical plants less dangerous, the terrorists are less likely to attack them. This works in the real world. Right near Washington, DC, the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant has completely eliminated its use of chlorine gas. Before, if it had been attacked, the chlorine gas could have been released and blanketed this city in a deadly cloud. Now they use a less dangerous substance that gives them the same results. We need to make sure that every plant takes the same approach. A GAO report, issued last month, found that neither the EPA nor other Federal agencies have gone far enough to gather information about plants' vulnerabilities and to reduce their level of risk. The report recommended legislation that would: require these chemical facilities to expeditiously assess their vulnerability to terrorist attack and, where necessary, require these facilities to take corrective action. This should not be a partisan issue. Let me quote a recent statement by former Senator Warren Rudman, a Republican, and one of the country's acknowledged experts on homeland security. Here's what he said about chemical security: The federal role needs to be able to set standards and make sure those standards are observed just as we do with clear air and clean water and workplace standards. I think we have to have security standards, and people are going to have to meet those standards. When hundreds of thousands of Americans' lives could be at risk, it is not enough to hope that chemical plants will change their ways. It is not enough to ask. We have to make certain they are doing what needs to be done to make the American people safe. I thank Senator Corzine for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I want to say just a few words in support of the amendment, No. 275, offered by my friend Senator Rockefeller on behalf of Senators Collins, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Clinton, Senator Schumer, myself and others. This amendment is extraordinarily important for our homeland security, our families, and our entire economy. This amendment says that any economic growth package has got to include at least $30 billion for State fiscal relief. I think that is exactly right. I have offered a bill that would provide $50 billion in relief. At this time, in the context of the budget resolution, this amendment--at least $30 billion--is the most important thing we can do. With our troops at war today, their security is first on everybody's minds today. Our thoughts and prayers are with these men and women who are risking their lives for our freedom and safety even as we speak. At the same time, we are also thinking about security here at home. We know there is a real risk of an attack now that we are at war. Just as we must always make sure our troops on the frontlines abroad have what they need, we also need to make sure our troops on the frontlines at home have what they need. And the troops on the frontlines at home are our police and our firefighters. They need the best protective gear, the best bomb detection equipment, the best emergency training, and the best communications systems in the world. They aren't getting that right now. And one reason they aren't getting it is that States can't afford to provide aid because of their deficits. We are seeing the largest State fiscal crisis since World War II--deficits of over $100 billion. And with those shortfalls, States just cannot afford to hire more first responders or give them the training and equipment they need. And that is a huge mistake. So we need fiscal relief so States and local governments can provide for first responders. My bill would set aside $10 billion for that. But fiscal relief is about more than homeland security. It is about our entire economy. Virtually every American has felt this economic downturn. They have felt it from North Carolina to Nevada, from the biggest cities to the smallest towns. They have felt it in convenience stores, in factories, in hospitals--they have felt it everywhere. Two million jobs lost, wages down, stock market down--and the list goes on. All Americans deserve a better economy than we have got right now. Now, the state fiscal crisis is seriously hurting our economy. Here is what is happening. Let's say you are a governor, and you are facing a massive deficit. In North Carolina, we have a deficit of close to $1.7 billion. What do you do? You can't print money like a President can. You can't borrow like a President can. You have only two choices. You can raise taxes--property taxes or income taxes or sales taxes. Or else you can cut spending on priorities like homeland security, education, and health care. Or you can do a little of both. States are already calling for $14 billion in tax increases. Portland, OR, will likely cut 5 weeks from its school year. Hundreds of California nursing homes may go bankrupt. In Florida, 26,000 low-income people may lose medical coverage. So this economic downturn hurts our families. They pay more in taxes, or they get less from their schools, their hospitals, their police forces. Or both--they pay more and get less. At the same time, our whole economy gets hurt. At a time when we should be investing more, tax hikes and education cuts mean we end up investing less. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the state spending cuts and tax increases now likely will make our economy 1 percent smaller. That is 1 percent of our economy, gone because of the fiscal crisis. And according to the Center on Budget, ``The only way this blow to the economy can be mitigated is through federal fiscal relief for the states.'' Now, it is unthinkable to offer nothing for the States right now. This fiscal crisis was caused by the current economic downturn, and now this fiscal crisis is making the current economic downturn even worse. The only way out is to stop the crisis with fiscal relief. As I have said before, I believe we can and must pay for this fiscal relief over the long term. It would be irresponsible not to do that. And the way to pay for it over the long run is to cut wasteful spending, close needless loopholes, and roll back some of the tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. This relief is hugely important, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I have actually offered a State fiscal relief package that provides $50 billion in aid to States, and I am hopeful that we can get some action on that package. Passing this amendment is the first and most important step we can take to ending a fiscal crisis that benefits nobody.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to pay tribute to a remarkable North Carolinian, Talbert O. Shaw. Dr. Shaw is retiring this year as president of Shaw University after a groundbreaking 15 years in which he helped this noble institution regain its footing and once again become a beacon of knowledge, opportunity and service for the people of North Carolina and beyond. Dr. Shaw was born in Jamaica, the ninth of 10 children. He served as a minister in Jamaica and the Bahamas before moving to the U.S. in the 1950s. After earning his master's degree and doctorate in ethics from the University of Chicago, Dr. Shaw taught religion and ethics for 10 years before becoming interim dean of the Howard University Divinity School in Washington D.C. He then served as dean of arts and sciences at Morgan State University for 11 years. Dr. Shaw left his comfortable position at Morgan to heed an urgent call from Shaw University, the oldest historically black university in the South. The University had fallen on hard times and was in dire financial trouble. The school had no endowment, there was not enough money to pay day-to-day expenses. Enrollment was down. No one would have blamed him if he had passed up this challenge. But he didn't pass it up--he took it on. Rallying students, faculty, and the community with his slogan ``Strides to Excellence: Why Not the Best,'' Dr. Shaw worked tirelessly to turn around the school's fortunes. And thanks to his leadership, Shaw University is once again a shining light. Enrollment is up, debts are paid and the endowment is now $15 million. Seventy percent of the faculty have Ph.Ds. Because of his belief that ``education of the heart is just as important as the education of the heads and hands,'' he has incorporated values and ethics into the Shaw curriculum. Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Shaw and his outstanding faculty and staff, Shaw students are receiving an education second to none. Dr. Shaw has also found time to contribute to the community. Among other things, he serves on the board of the Wade Edwards Learning Laboratory, an after-school program that my wife and I started and has offered invaluable service to the young people we serve. We are sorry to see Dr. Shaw leave but we in North Carolina wish him and his wife, Marlene, many, many years of happiness and health as they take on future challenges together. In striving for excellence, Dr. Shaw asked, ``why not the best?'' Fortunately, that's just what he gave us. Thank you, Dr. Shaw, for a job well done. You are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues Mr. Lautenburg and Mr. Levin to re-introduce the College Fire Prevention Act. This measure would provide Federal matching grants for the installation of fire sprinkler systems in college and university dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. I believe the time is now to address the sad situation of deadly fires that occur in our children's college living facilities. The tragic fire that occurred at Seton Hall University on Wednesday, January 19th, 2000, will not be forgotten. Three freshmen, all 18 years old, died. Fifty-four students, two South Orange firefighters and two South Orange police officers were injured. The dormitory, Boland Hall, was a six-story, 350-room structure built in 1952 that housed approximately 600 students. Astonishingly, the fire was contained to the third floor lounge of Boland Hall. This dormitory was equipped with smoke alarms but no sprinkler system. Unfortunately, the Boland Hall fire was not the first of its kind. And it reminded many people in North Carolina of their own tragic experience with dorm fires. In 1996, on Mother's Day and Graduation Day, a fire in the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill killed five college juniors and injured three others. The three-story fraternity house was 70 years old. The National Fire Protection Association identified several factors that contributed to the tragic fire, including the lack of fire sprinkler protection. Sadly, dorm fires are not rare. On December 9, 1997, a student died in a dormitory fire at Greenville College in Greenville, IL. The dormitory, Kinney Hall, was built in the 1960s and had no fire sprinkler system. On January 10, 1997, a student died at the University of Tennessee at Martin. The dormitory, Ellington Hall, had no fire sprinkler system. On January 3, 1997, a student died in a dormitory fire at Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg, MO. On October 21, 1994, five students died in a fraternity house fire in Bloomsburg, PA. The list goes on and on. In a typical year between 1980 and 1998, the National Fire Protection Association estimates there were an average of 1,800 fires at dormitories, fraternities, and sororities, involving one death, 70 injuries, and $8 million in property damage. So now we must ask, what can be done? What can we do to curtail these tragic fires from taking the lives of our children, our young adults? We should focus our attention on the lack of fire sprinklers in college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. Sprinklers save lives. Despite the clear benefits of sprinklers, many college dorms do not have them. New dormitories are generally required to have advanced safety systems such as fire sprinklers. But such requirements are rarely imposed retroactively on existing buildings. In 1998, 93 percent of the campus building fires reported to fire departments occurred in buildings where there were smoke alarms present. However, only 34 percent of them had fire sprinklers present. At my State's flagship university at Chapel Hill, for example, only 14 of the 33 residence halls have sprinklers. Only 3 of 9 dorms at North Carolina Central University are equipped with the life-saving devices, and there are sprinklers in 4 of the 18 dorms at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. The legislation I introduce today authorizes the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the United States Fire Administration, to award grants to States, private or public colleges or universities, fraternities, or sororities to assist them in providing fire sprinkler systems for their student housing and dormitories. These entities would be required to produce matching funds equal to one-half of the cost of the project. This legislation authorizes $80 million for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. In North Carolina, we decided to initiate a drive to install sprinklers in our public college and university dorms. The overall cost is estimated at $57.5 million. Given how much it is going to cost North Carolina's public colleges and universities to install sprinklers, I think it's clear that the $100 million that this measure authorizes is just a drop in the bucket. But my hope is that by providing this small incentive we can encourage more colleges to institute a comprehensive review of their dorm's fire safety and to install sprinklers. All they need is a helping hand. With this modest measure of prevention, we can help prevent the needless and tragic loss of young lives. Parents should not have to worry about their children living in fire traps. When we send our children away to college, we are sending them to a home away from home where hundreds of other students eat, sleep, burn candles, use electric appliances and smoke. We must not compromise on their safety. As the Fire Chief from Chapel Hill wrote me: ``Every year, parents send their children off to college seeking an education unaware that one of the greatest dangers facing their children is the fire hazards associated with dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses and other forms of student housing . . . The only complete answer to making student-housing safe is to install fire sprinkler systems.'' In short, the best way to ensure the protection of our college students is to install fire sprinklers in our college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. My proposal has been endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation and the letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues Mr. Lautenburg and Mr. Levin to re-introduce the College Fire Prevention Act. This measure would provide Federal matching grants for the installation of fire sprinkler systems in college and university dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. I believe the time is now to address the sad situation of deadly fires that occur in our children's college living facilities. The tragic fire that occurred at Seton Hall University on Wednesday, January 19th, 2000, will not be forgotten. Three freshmen, all 18 years old, died. Fifty-four students, two South Orange firefighters and two South Orange police officers were injured. The dormitory, Boland Hall, was a six-story, 350-room structure built in 1952 that housed approximately 600 students. Astonishingly, the fire was contained to the third floor lounge of Boland Hall. This dormitory was equipped with smoke alarms but no sprinkler system. Unfortunately, the Boland Hall fire was not the first of its kind. And it reminded many people in North Carolina of their own tragic experience with dorm fires. In 1996, on Mother's Day and Graduation Day, a fire in the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill killed five college juniors and injured three others. The three-story fraternity house was 70 years old. The National Fire Protection Association identified several factors that contributed to the tragic fire, including the lack of fire sprinkler protection. Sadly, dorm fires are not rare. On December 9, 1997, a student died in a dormitory fire at Greenville College in Greenville, IL. The dormitory, Kinney Hall, was built in the 1960s and had no fire sprinkler system. On January 10, 1997, a student died at the University of Tennessee at Martin. The dormitory, Ellington Hall, had no fire sprinkler system. On January 3, 1997, a student died in a dormitory fire at Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg, MO. On October 21, 1994, five students died in a fraternity house fire in Bloomsburg, PA. The list goes on and on. In a typical year between 1980 and 1998, the National Fire Protection Association estimates there were an average of 1,800 fires at dormitories, fraternities, and sororities, involving one death, 70 injuries, and $8 million in property damage. So now we must ask, what can be done? What can we do to curtail these tragic fires from taking the lives of our children, our young adults? We should focus our attention on the lack of fire sprinklers in college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. Sprinklers save lives. Despite the clear benefits of sprinklers, many college dorms do not have them. New dormitories are generally required to have advanced safety systems such as fire sprinklers. But such requirements are rarely imposed retroactively on existing buildings. In 1998, 93 percent of the campus building fires reported to fire departments occurred in buildings where there were smoke alarms present. However, only 34 percent of them had fire sprinklers present. At my State's flagship university at Chapel Hill, for example, only 14 of the 33 residence halls have sprinklers. Only 3 of 9 dorms at North Carolina Central University are equipped with the life-saving devices, and there are sprinklers in 4 of the 18 dorms at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. The legislation I introduce today authorizes the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the United States Fire Administration, to award grants to States, private or public colleges or universities, fraternities, or sororities to assist them in providing fire sprinkler systems for their student housing and dormitories. These entities would be required to produce matching funds equal to one-half of the cost of the project. This legislation authorizes $80 million for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. In North Carolina, we decided to initiate a drive to install sprinklers in our public college and university dorms. The overall cost is estimated at $57.5 million. Given how much it is going to cost North Carolina's public colleges and universities to install sprinklers, I think it's clear that the $100 million that this measure authorizes is just a drop in the bucket. But my hope is that by providing this small incentive we can encourage more colleges to institute a comprehensive review of their dorm's fire safety and to install sprinklers. All they need is a helping hand. With this modest measure of prevention, we can help prevent the needless and tragic loss of young lives. Parents should not have to worry about their children living in fire traps. When we send our children away to college, we are sending them to a home away from home where hundreds of other students eat, sleep, burn candles, use electric appliances and smoke. We must not compromise on their safety. As the Fire Chief from Chapel Hill wrote me: ``Every year, parents send their children off to college seeking an education unaware that one of the greatest dangers facing their children is the fire hazards associated with dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses and other forms of student housing . . . The only complete answer to making student-housing safe is to install fire sprinkler systems.'' In short, the best way to ensure the protection of our college students is to install fire sprinklers in our college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. My proposal has been endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation and the letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Protection and Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2003. As I speak, State governments face a budget gap of $80 billion in 2004, according to the National Governors Association. My own State of North Carolina must close a $2 billion deficit this year, the third year in a row that we have faced a deficit of $1 billion or more. There is an additional $30 billion deficit in 2003 that, for most States, must be closed before the fiscal year ends in June. Cities and towns face a similar budget pinch. The likely result in many States will be steep tax increases and budget cuts. Because most States have seen two or three lean years in a row, the easiest cuts and sources of revenue have already been tapped. States already closed nearly $50 billion in deficits for 2003. According to Standard and Poor's, ``With rainy day funds having been depleted rapidly over the past three years, few options remain other than tough cuts or revenue increases.'' The State and local budget crisis is a serious threat to our economy. State spending cuts and tax increases equaling $100 billion would directly lower GDP growth by one percentage point, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. According to the Center, ``The only way this blow to the economy can be mitigated is through federal fiscal relief for the states.'' Millions of Americans across the Nation will be directly affected by State tax increases and budget cuts. For example, Kansas is considering new taxes on hair stylists, theaters, and doctors. Missouri is now taxing pharmacies. In fact, policymakers in 15 States are already calling for tax increases of approximately $14 billion in 2004. New York budget proposals would raise class sizes and cut 43,000 early education slots in New York City. Florida may take away medical coverage for 26,000 low-income people. In California, hundreds of nursing homes are in danger of bankruptcy, according to the Washington Post. San Diego may close fire stations. Portland, OR, will likely trim its school year by 24 days. Oregon State police are laying off 129 troopers and abandoning 24-hour patrols. The Multnomah county jail will release as many as 500 inmates early. Medical benefits will be eliminated for 8,000 elderly and disabled people. This is wrong. It's wrong for the people being hurt. And it is wrong for our economy. That's why I am proposing the Homeland Protection and Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2003. This bill would enacts a State relief plan I first described last November. It gives States and cities a total of $50 billion, allowing them to avoid raising taxes and protect critical priorities in public safety, education, and health care. First, my legislation would provide $10 billion to states and major cities to strengthen homeland security. We have a whole range of homeland security priorities that we ought to be meeting but we haven't. Although our domestic readiness begins with first responders, they are not getting the training and equipment they need to respond to an attack with speed, skill, and strength. Our public health system isn't fully prepared to respond to biological attacks. We need to modernize an emergency warning system that is terribly out of date so we can reach Americans at any time, day or night. Our infrastructure is exposed. There are 500 large skyscrapers, 250 major arenas and stadiums, and countless train, subway, and automobile bridges and tunnels. Many of these facilities have vulnerable ventilation systems, poor emergency exits, and inadequate fire retardants and blast-resistant materials. Security at nuclear and chemical plants and over shipments is still too lax. At 123 chemical plants, a toxic chemical release would endanger a million people or more. We need to meet all these priorities, and we can ought to meet them through a partnership between Washington, states, and local communities. This bill goes a long way toward doing that by providing $10 billion for homeland security. Next, today's bill would provide States $10 billion through higher Medicaid reimbursements. Higher Medicaid reimbursements can dramatically help State budgets. It can also address serious inequities in the way Medicaid funds are distributed today. The legislation is based on Senator Rockefeller's excellent proposal. It maintains last year's Medicaid matching rate where rates are declining and provides an additional modest, temporary increase in the matching rate. This short- lived relief will help states balance their budgets and protect children and seniors who rely on Medicaid. Last but not least, my bill will give States and local governments $30 billion in general relief. In return for this aid, State and local governments must agree not to cut K-12 education funding or raise college tuition faster than inflation for low- and middle-income families. Across the Nation, States and cities are struggling with more needs and less revenue. Washington is not doing its part to help. Instead, we have created new demands through the No Child Left Behind education reform law and the Federal special education laws, without delivering the resources needed to meet those demands. We ought to help States and localities meet those demands, and this bill will do that. The Homeland Protection and Tax Hike Protection Act will strengthen our homeland security and prevent states and cities from raising taxes and cutting schools and health care. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.