John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, together with Senator Hollings, the Emergency Warning Act of 2003. In the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster, Americans must know how to respond. In the first terrible hours on September 11, 2001, in Washington, in New York, and across the country, most of us didn't know what to do. We didn't know whether it was safer to pick our children up from school or safer to leave them there. We didn't know if we should stay at work or head for home. For everything that's happened since September 11, the reality is that if an attack happened again, many of us still would not know what to do. That must change. To prepare Americans to respond in time of attack, the first thing we need to do is to update our emergency warning system. Today, that system depends heavily on television and radio, and it has two big problems. First, the system doesn't reach millions of Americans who aren't near a TV and radio at a given moment. How many of us would hear a warning issued on TV at 3 a.m? Second, the system doesn't provide all the information we need. For many of us, the new color-coded terrorism warnings have proven more confusing than helpful. We need practical information about what we can do to respond to threats or attacks. While the terrorist attacks have highlighted the need for effective public warnings, they're also essential during natural disasters. In fact, most public warnings deal with weather hazards like hurricanes and floods. After Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina, the Air Force had to rescue more than 200 people stranded in cars, on roofs, and in trees, people who weren't told to evacuate their homes until it was too late. More than 50 people died during that hurricane. In our State's neighbor, Tennessee, six people died during a 1999 tornado because tornado sirens failed. With all the technology that we have at our disposal, we can do better. In short, we have to make sure effective warnings get to every American in time of danger, and we have to make sure those warnings tell folks just what they can do to protect themselves and their loved ones. The Emergency Warning Act will help achieve that goal. This legislation will 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, Whether from flood, hurricane or terrorist attack. This bill instructs Commerce and DHS to work with the government agencies that currently issue warnings, with first responders, with private industry, and with the media to make sure that our emergency warning system actually warns Americans who are at risk. There are a lot of things the system could do using existing technology. For example, it could alert Americans in their homes through a special phone ring. These warnings could reach people as they sleep in their homes. For people on the move, the system could use cell phones, which can already be programmed to broadcast emergency warnings to all 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 also can make sure that warnings provide the specific information people need--what to watch for, where to go, how to travel, what to bring. We should not have empty warnings. Instead, we should respond to specific threats with specific information that people can use. This legislation was developed with a lot of help from the Partnership for Public Warning. Their comprehensive study of the problem, ``Developing a Unified All-Hazard Public Warning System,'' pointed the way to what we are doing. I'm grateful for their help, as well as the indispensable help of Senator Hollings. Creating a better emergency warning system is only the first step we must take in order to empower Americans to respond to terrorist attack. As I've said in the past, I believe Americans want to contribute to our nation's defense, they are just looking for ways to do it. In the coming weeks, I will introduce additional legislation to support civilian defense efforts across America. But this bill makes an important contribution to our efforts.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, every judicial nomination that comes before this body is critically important. However, I take a particular interest in appointments to the Fourth Circuit, which includes my home State of North Carolina. The Fourth Circuit needs qualified, fair- minded judges who will put aside their personal views and follow the law. After reviewing his record carefully, I have concluded that Judge Dennis Shedd is not such a judge. While Judge Shedd's record provides numerous reasons to oppose his confirmation, I am most troubled by his poor record on civil rights, where he has demonstrated an alarming propensity for putting his personal views above the law. Judge Shedd has repeatedly overstepped the bounds of judicial restraint and engaged in judicial activism on behalf of defendants in discrimination cases. I raised this concern with Judge Shedd earlier this year during his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Judge Shedd could not point to one instance in his eleven years on the bench in which an individual alleging discrimination--based on race, sex, age or disability--has ever won a case in his court. In the same period, there have been over 20 verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in other Federal courts in the State. In written questions, I asked Judge Shedd to say whether a victim of employment discrimination had ever prevailed in his courtroom. He could name no such case. On the other hand, there is considerable and disturbing evidence of Judge Shedd's conduct in civil rights cases to benefit the defendant. To name only one example: in a sexual harassment matter, Judge Shedd overruled a magistrate's ruling allowing a case to go to trial, even though the plaintiff had offered sworn evidence that her supervisor had commented on her breasts, asked her graphic sexual questions, bought her panty-less pantyhose, and frequently stood behind her, rubbed her shoulders while trying to look down her shirt, and so on. Finally, in a major case involving the Federal Government's power to protect the privacy of individuals' personal records, Judge Shedd sided against individual rights, and was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court. There is no other case since 1995 in which a lower court has limited Congress's power and the Supreme Court has reversed. Federal judges have no responsibility more important than enforcing our laws equally. Because Judge Shedd has proven his willingness to put his personal views above the law, especially in civil rights cases, I must vote against his confirmation. I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from a group of 16 North Carolina law professors addressing these and several other of Judge Shedd's decisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, every judicial nomination that comes before this body is critically important. However, I take a particular interest in appointments to the Fourth Circuit, which includes my home State of North Carolina. The Fourth Circuit needs qualified, fair- minded judges who will put aside their personal views and follow the law. After reviewing his record carefully, I have concluded that Judge Dennis Shedd is not such a judge. While Judge Shedd's record provides numerous reasons to oppose his confirmation, I am most troubled by his poor record on civil rights, where he has demonstrated an alarming propensity for putting his personal views above the law. Judge Shedd has repeatedly overstepped the bounds of judicial restraint and engaged in judicial activism on behalf of defendants in discrimination cases. I raised this concern with Judge Shedd earlier this year during his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Judge Shedd could not point to one instance in his eleven years on the bench in which an individual alleging discrimination--based on race, sex, age or disability--has ever won a case in his court. In the same period, there have been over 20 verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in other Federal courts in the State. In written questions, I asked Judge Shedd to say whether a victim of employment discrimination had ever prevailed in his courtroom. He could name no such case. On the other hand, there is considerable and disturbing evidence of Judge Shedd's conduct in civil rights cases to benefit the defendant. To name only one example: in a sexual harassment matter, Judge Shedd overruled a magistrate's ruling allowing a case to go to trial, even though the plaintiff had offered sworn evidence that her supervisor had commented on her breasts, asked her graphic sexual questions, bought her panty-less pantyhose, and frequently stood behind her, rubbed her shoulders while trying to look down her shirt, and so on. Finally, in a major case involving the Federal Government's power to protect the privacy of individuals' personal records, Judge Shedd sided against individual rights, and was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court. There is no other case since 1995 in which a lower court has limited Congress's power and the Supreme Court has reversed. Federal judges have no responsibility more important than enforcing our laws equally. Because Judge Shedd has proven his willingness to put his personal views above the law, especially in civil rights cases, I must vote against his confirmation. I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from a group of 16 North Carolina law professors addressing these and several other of Judge Shedd's decisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, Governor Mike Easley of my State of North Carolina has issued a proclamation designating the week of October 20-26, 2002 as ``World Population Awareness Week.'' This proclamation highlights the need to better understand the environmental and social consequences of rapid population growth, particularly those issues surrounding the education and health of youth and adolescents around the world. I join Governor Easley in his recognition of World Population Awareness Week, and I ask unanimous consent to have his proclamation printed in the Record

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make. We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action. Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal. Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies. We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments. This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein. Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process, squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side, I support its recent efforts to forge a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq. If inspectors go back into Iraq, they should do so with parameters that are air-tight, water-tight, and Saddam-tight. They should be allowed to see what they want when they want, anytime, anywhere, without warning, and without delay. Yet if the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat. We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so. That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility. Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the President the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies. If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side. Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force. Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try. Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaida. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can. The resolution before us today is significantly better than the one the president initially submitted. It is not a blank check. It contains several provisions that I and many of my colleagues have long argued were required. First, it gives the administration the authority to use all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Second, it calls on the administration to do as much as possible to forge a new U.N. Security Council mandate, understanding that if new Security Council action proves impossible, the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as will join us. Third, it requires the administration to report to Congress on its plans to assist with Iraq's transition to democracy after Saddam Hussein is gone. 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. So far, we have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said that the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how. As we have learned in Afghanistan, this administration's words are not enough. This resolution will require the administration to move beyond its words and share with Congress, and the world, its concrete plans for how America will support a post-Saddam Iraq. Finally, in taking this action, Congress must make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East, and indeed around the world. We must do more to support existing non-proliferation and disarmament programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants like Saddam Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, and promoting democratization throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources. The decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today the members of the Senate are focused on Iraq. There's no task more serious than deciding whether to send our young men and women into harm's way. My position is clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. But as we act to defend America's interests abroad, we must also act to make America strong at home. With 8 million people out of work and millions more struggling to make ends meet, our government is falling down on the job of protecting economic security. To restore an economic environment where businesses are creating jobs and parents are earning a better living for their children, I believe we need to act, and act now. I want to explain very specifically why and how we should act. And I call on the President and my colleagues to join together immediately to take decisive action. Nobody is a greater optimist about America's future than me. Our long-term economic outlook remains strong because our free enterprise system remains strong--our spirit of innovation, our leadership in new technologies, and of course our people's hard work and productivity. But sound economic fundamentals and strong economic growth are not things we can take for granted. They are things we have to work for. Like all Americans, I have hoped that our economy is on the way to a speedy recovery. While I continue to hold out hope, I do not believe that hope can stand in the way of action any longer. There is too much uncertainty and there are too many disturbing signs. Economic indicators that had started to turn up, including consumer confidence and manufacturing, have turned back down again. Many industries, particularly telecommunications, have far too much capacity, and they will continue to cut back in order to restore profitability. Job growth remains stagnant, and CEOs report that they are planning to cut jobs rather than hire. As more and more Americans worry about their prospects, the last bulwark of the economy, consumer spending, shows signs of weakening. We should not overreact. We need to keep our faith in the fundamental strength of our economy. But we cannot turn away from the reality we face. This administration has spent months saying that recovery is just around the corner, but wishful thinking will not create jobs, pay the bills, or get the economy going again. America is right to prepare for action against Iraq. But we ought to apply that same logic to our economy. If you look at the recent economic evidence, the risks of inaction on our economy now outweigh the risks of action. We cannot wait until thousands more people lose their jobs before taking steps to defend our economic security. We can and should take preemptive action against this economic slump. The President's plan is: Do nothing to promote economic growth in the short-run, and pretend that deficit-exploding tax cuts for the wealthiest will promote economic growth in the long-run. That is wrong for our economy and our security. What our economy needs is the reverse prescription: a shot-in-the arm in the short-term, and a tighter grip on fiscal discipline in the long- term. Contracting the economy in this environment makes no economic sense. On the other hand, stimulating the economy while exploding the long- term deficit would be self-defeating. The loss of confidence in long- term fiscal discipline can undermine both long-term confidence and short-term progress. With a shot-in-the-arm now and a tighter grip on fiscal discipline in the long run, we can have the best of both worlds. Right now, we can increase demand, prevent a negative or even deflationary cycle, create jobs, and get incomes growing again. In the long run, we can get back to balanced budgets and maintain the investment climate we need for prosperity. Let me be very specific about what we should do. On the long-run side, we have to take two major steps. Number one, we have to tackle excessive spending by restoring the budget enforcement rules that have lapsed. Congress should not go home without making sure these rules are back in place. If Congress and the administration can't agree on spending bills before the election, let us at least show the voters that we are serious about holding down spending. Number two, we must ask our most fortunate citizens to forgo the full extent of future tax cuts. Since the President took office, a $5.6 trillion surplus has almost entirely disappeared, and the biggest single reason was a tax cut whose full cost was over $2 trillion. As I have said before, we need to ask Americans at the very top of the economic ladder to live with smaller tax cuts than the tax bill passed last year. If we stop cuts in the top two rates, eliminate new deductions for very high-income earners, and triple the estate tax exemption without repealing it, we can save over $1.3 trillion in the next two decades. This kind of fiscal discipline will have at least five advantages for our country: Number one, it will help bring us back to the strong economic fundamentals that led to growth during the 1990s. Number two, it will enable us to save for grave national security needs. Number three, it will help us save Social Security and address the coming explosion of baby boom retirements. Number four, it will reduce our dependence on foreign capital. Number five, it will allow us to confront emergencies when we need to. The fiscal surplus inherited by President Bush has helped our country to meet its challenges since September 11. Restoring long-term fiscal discipline will help us meet the challenges of the future. To meet the challenge of today, we need decisive action that satisfies two basic principles. First, we should provide an efficient and effective spur to the economy. Second, the effect must be immediate and temporary--with incentives for business investment and consumer demand that will jumpstart the economy now, and get out of the way when they are no longer needed. We all have to admit that the stimulus package of last spring did not meet that test. In the fall, I advocated a stimulus package that would have provided greater depreciation in the near-term, then tapered off quickly. That package would have been efficient and temporary. Unfortunately, the President and his party blocked proposals like that because they supported special-interest giveaways that the independent Congressional Budget Office found to be the most ineffective on the market. While we all hoped for the best, the business incentives that eventually passed did not create the surge our country needed. In addition, the tax rebates bypassed in part or in full 50 million Americans who would have been most likely to spend the money and increase economic activity. This time, we should do it right. Here is how. First, and most important, we have to make sure the economic uncertainty and higher energy prices we're likely to face this winter don't hurt the economic confidence and consumer spending that have been so critical over the last year. Today, I am proposing a one-time refundable energy tax cut of $500 per family. This tax cut will put money into the pockets of Americans who will spend it where they need it most: to pay their heating bills; make their homes more energy- efficient, and prevent higher energy prices from squeezing out other vital needs. Unlike last year's rebate, this energy tax credit will leave no American behind. Earlier this week, this administration's own experts said that families in the Midwest will be paying 19 percent more for natural gas and 22 percent more for heating oil. Increases in the Northeast will be even higher. All the price hikes will fall particularly hard on the elderly, who have watched their life savings disappear in the stock market and have no way to make up the lost income. Americans are prepared to sacrifice to win the war on terrorism and in Iraq. But America can win a war without leaving old people to cut back on their medicine to keep from shivering in the dark. We can protect people against rising oil prices and, at the same time, reduce our country's dependence on Middle Eastern oil. This administration approaches energy the same way it approaches the economy: doing nothing in the short-term and ignoring the big problems in the long-term. That is wrong. I also continue to believe we should take the steps to stimulate the economy that the administration failed to take earlier this year. To encourage businesses to invest, we should raise the bonus for investing in new equipment from 30 percent to 45 percent--a 50 percent increase-- but do it through June 30 of next year only. This will do what the administration's stimulus has failed to do so far: persuade businesses to get off the fence and put their money to work in our economy. We also should act to prevent painful property tax increases and education cuts at the State level, giving States relief to deal with what the Wall Street Journal this week said is a $58 billion budget gap. The Senate has already acted to provide relief in the quickest possible way--through the Medicaid program--and there is no excuse for further delay. Last but not least, we have to change a terrible reality: At a time when the index of Help Wanted listings is at historic lows, we are set to cut off unemployment benefits for nearly a million out-of-work Americans just three days after Christmas. These are good people who want nothing more than to get back to work. Last September, 800,000 Americans had been out of work for 6 months or more. By December, that total will have climbed to over 2 million. We have to do what is right for the workers who have done the worst in this economy and extend their benefits. They are sure to pump the money right back into our economy. I call on the President and my colleagues in both parties to put politics aside and come together immediately to take these urgent steps to get our economy going again. Americans deserve nothing less from us.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to be able to come down this morning and speak to my colleague and on his behalf, a colleague who I have now had the privilege of serving with for 4 years in the Senate. I say, first, to Senator Helms, and to Dot, his wife, thank you for the extraordinary kindness you have shown to myself, my wife, and my family. Senator Helms knows--and Jimmy Broughton is sitting beside him, and other members of his staff are on the floor--he also has an extraordinary group of people working with him, not just here in Washington but also back in North Carolina, because our folks in North Carolina have had the privilege of working with Senator Helms' staff in North Carolina. As I said--and I am sure Senator Helms heard while he was off taking care of his health--his office ran very smoothly. Sometimes I think, Senator Helms, both of our offices run more smoothly when we are not there. But they did a terrific job in your absence. I know you are not surprised to hear that, but we are proud of the work they did. I know you are proud of the work they did then and have always done on your behalf. I have had the privilege of going around my State for the last 4 years now, talking to people about what they need, the problems they are faced with--whether it is farmers, whether it is textile workers who have lost their jobs, people trying to get a relative a visa, whatever it is--and you cannot hardly move in North Carolina without finding people who Senator Helms has touched over the time he has been in the Senate. The people of North Carolina will never forget the work and the kindness and the personal attention that he has given to them. He has been a relentless advocate for the people of our State and all the problems they face. The people here in Washington and around the rest of the country see a certain side of Senator Helms. Senator Biden just mentioned this. Senator Helms knows well he and I do not agree about a lot of things, but there is a side of him that most people here in Washington do not get to see, at least not publicly--the people who work in the Senate see it--which is the extraordinary kindness and friendship that he shows basically to anyone who touches him. We had a meeting of Senators a few weeks ago to talk about how we should deal, as publicly elected officials, with people who we represent who are faced with a tragedy of one kind or another. And I used Senator Helms as the best example I could ever imagine for someone who knows how to deal with those kinds of problems, having had a personal experience with Senator Helms on that level. I say here, as I have said to him before, myself, my wife, my family, we will never forget--as long as I am alive--the way Senator Helms treated us during that time. It meant an unbelievable amount to us, Senator. I thank him on our behalf. I thank him on behalf of all of the people of North Carolina for whom he has done so much for so long, the many lives that he touched, in a very positive way, below the radar screen, in ways that people don't see or don't hear but, more importantly, they know about. I thank him personally for being my friend during the time I have been in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, this morning on the National Mall a report entitled ``State of Home Safety in America'' was unveiled by David Oliver, Executive Director of the Home Safety Council. The study, conducted by Dr. Carol Runyan of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and recognized by Dr. Sue Binder of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, paints a picture of far too many Americans being hurt by unintentional injuries and deaths in this nation. For instance, the study found that: Unintentional injuries are the fifth leading cause of death in the United States. Unintentional injuries in the home result in nearly 20,000 deaths and 13 million medical visits. Unintentional home injuries cost nearly $380 billion each year and account for an estimated 10 percent of all visits to emergency rooms. The Home Safety Council, a not-for-profit organization devoted to home safety, has already been working to educate Americans on the risks they face every day in their own homes. The Great Safety Adventure is a traveling hands-on educational experience that teaches basic life skills to help children, families and communities. Americans need to know the risks that exist in their homes and what they can do to prevent home injuries. This study will be an important resource for all Americans and will be a benchmark for examining future trends in home injury prevention. I urge my colleagues to join me in this monumental effort to educate and save American lives by informing our constituents of the risks present in their homes and the steps they can take to prevent unintentional home injuries and keep families safe. More details are available through the Home Safety Council's Web site, www.homesafetycouncil.org. For commissioning this important study and for raising the issue of home safety in the Congress, I congratulate the Home Safety Council and its distinguished board of directors.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability--a capability that could be less than a year away. I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear. Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraqi's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror. Iraq has continued to develop its arsenal in definance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and ignoring as many as 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions--including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. These U.N. resolutions are not unilateral American demands. They involve obligations Iraq has undertaken to the international community. By ignoring them. Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of international collective action which is so important to the United States and our allies. The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein. The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community. This is not an easy decision, and its carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and possibly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action. As we set out on this course, we must be as conscious of our special responsibility as we are confident in the rightness of our cause. The United States has a special role of leadership in the international community. As America and its allies move down this path, we must do so in a way that preserves the legitimacy of our actions, enhances international consensus, and strengthens our global leadership. First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses. Months of mixed messages, high- level speculation and news-leaks about possible military plans have caused widespread concern among many Americans and around the world. I am encouraged that the President has overruled some of his advisors and decided to ask for the support of Congress. From the support of Congress, this effort will derive even greater and more enduring strength. Second, the Administration must do as much as possible to rally the support of the international community under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We should tap into the strengths of existing alliances like NATO to enforce such a mandate. And let me be clear: America's allies deserve more than just token consultation. The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed. If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a U.N. Security Council resolution was impossible. Third, we must be honest with the American people about the extraordinary commitment this task entails. It is likely to cost us much in the short-term, and it is certain to demand our attention and commitment for the long-haul. We have to show the world that we are prepared to do what it takes to help rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq and give the long-suffering Iraqi people the chance to live under freedom. Working with our allies, we have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of success--helping to provide security inside Iraq after Saddam is gone, working with the various Iraqi opposition groups in shaping a new government, reassuring Iraq's neighbors about its future stability, and supporting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. This is a massive undertaking, and we must pursue it with no illusions. Ensuring that Iraq complies with its commitments to the international community is the mission of the moment. Rebuilding Iraq and helping it evolve into a democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors will be the mission of many years. Unfortunately, the administration's record to date gives me cause for concern. They must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root and flourish. Finally, the administration must show that its actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security around the world. We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction--the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them. We must do much more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must fully fund Nunn-Lugar; and we should work hard to forge international coalition to prevent proliferation. We must be fully and continuously engaged to help resolve the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. Disengagement was a mistake. The United States cannot deliver peace to the parties, but no agreement is possible without our active involvement. We also must have a national strategy for energy security, working to strengthen relationships with new suppliers and doing more to develop alternative sources of power. And we must do far more to promote democracy throughout the Arab world. We should examine our overall engagement in the entire region, and employ the same kinds of tools that we used to win the battle of ideas fought during the Cold War, from vigorous public diplomacy to assistance for democratic reform at the grassroots. The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9/11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event--or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse--to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, first, I say thank you to my colleagues and my friends, Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy, who have worked so hard on this legislation. Senator Kennedy worked long and hard on this before a number of us, including Senator McCain and myself, became actively involved. He has been rowing the boat for a long time. And his work has been critical to the progress that has been made on behalf of patients. And Senator McCain has had such an enormous influence on the work that has been done and the progress that has been made. Today conferees will be appointed, which is unfortunate. I want to say a word about why this matters and why it matters for people, for patients, and why most of the people in this country don't care at all about the process or the procedures inside the Senate or a conference between the House and the Senate. All they care about, and all they know, is they write those checks every month to the insurance company for their insurance premiums, and they want to get what they are paying for. They expect, if they are going to pay the insurance company for health care coverage, they ought to get it. If their child needs to see a specialist, that child ought to be able to see that specialist. When they are going to the emergency room, they should not have to call a 1- 800 number to get permission to go. If a woman wants to participate in a clinical trial, she ought to be able to participate in a clinical trial. If the insurance company and the HMO say, we are not paying for this, we will not give you the care toward which you have been writing those checks for every month, they ought to have a simple, inexpensive, fast way of getting that decision overturned. That is what the Patients' Bill of Rights is about. It affects real people's lives. There is a fellow from North Carolina named Steve Grissom whom I got to know over time. Steve developed all kinds of health problems as a result of a blood transfusion. It got to the place where he needed oxygen basically 24 hours a day in order to continue to function. All of his doctors, including a specialist at Duke University, said he needed it--everybody except an HMO bureaucrat who came along after the fact and said: You don't need this. We are not going to pay for it. Steve, because of what happened to him, became an enormous advocate for doing something about patients' rights and the Patients' Bill of Rights. He became a powerful, passionate voice for regular people against the HMOs in order to do what needs to be done for families to be able to make their own health care decisions. Steve lost his life this week, not as a result of what the HMO did, but he is the personification of the problem that exists all over America and what HMOs are doing to patients all over America. Millions and millions of people, children, and families can't make their own health care decisions. Health care decisions are being made by bureaucrats sitting behind a desk somewhere who have no training, no business making those kinds of decisions, and the patients and the families can do nothing about it. They are totally powerless. HMOs live in a privileged, rarified world that no other business in America lives in. In this era of corporate responsibility, we are trying to say on the floor of the Senate that corporations ought to be held accountable for what they do, for their decisions, they ought to be responsible for what they do; not HMOs, HMOs can do anything they want, and we are powerless to do anything about it. What the Senate did in the Patients' Bill of Rights, which received strong bipartisan support, was create real rights for patients: Allowing people to make their own health care decisions, to go to the emergency room, to participate in clinical trials, to get bad decisions by HMOs overturned. That is what we did in the Senate. All we said was this: We want HMOs to be treated like everybody else. Why in the world should every person in America be responsible for what they do, every other business in America be responsible for what they do, but we are going to put HMOs up on a pedestal and treat them better and differently than everybody else? They can't be held responsible. They can't be held accountable. They are different. They are better than all the rest of us. Well, they are not. They are just like everybody else. What could be a better example of the abuses that occur than what we have seen happen over the course of the last several months with the corporate irresponsibility that has had an enormous effect on all American people--investors, Wall Street, the economy? In this era of trying to do something about corporate responsibility, are we going to maintain this special, privileged, protected status for a group of businesses that have proven--there is no question about it-- that they are willing to engage in abuses, all in the name of profit and all at the expense of patients? That is what this is all about. That is the reason virtually every group in America that cares about this issue supported the Patients' Bill of Rights that passed the Senate. Unfortunately, when the bill went to the House, a much weaker bill passed, a bill that in many cases would have actually taken away rights that States had put into place on behalf of patients. Many would argue it was an insurers' bill of rights, not a Patients' Bill of Rights. If you put the bills side by side, on every single difference between the Senate bill and the House bill, the Senate bill favored the patients, the House bill favored the HMOs. It is no more complicated than that. As a result of having two bills passed--a strong bill in the Senate and a weak bill in the House--it was necessary for Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, and me to begin negotiating with the White House because, as I said earlier, the people of this country couldn't care less about the process of what goes on inside Washington. They want to be able to make their own health care decisions. They depend on us to do something about that. So over the course of many months, Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, and I had a whole series of meetings, many meetings over long hours, to talk about trying to bridge the differences. I do have to say, on every single one of the discussions, the differences between us and the White House in the negotiations were the same as the differences between the Senate bill and the House bill. Our position favored the patients; their position favored the HMOs. They did make a good faith effort to talk to us. Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, and I made a very good faith effort to try to bridge the gap. The differences could not be bridged. At the end of the day, decisions have to be made. To the extent there is a conflict, you have to decide which side you are on. You can compromise. You can compromise. You can compromise. We made so many proposals in these discussions, new, creative proposals to try to bridge the gap, to try to find a way to bring the differences together. Over the course of time, we did make progress. Senator McCain said that. He is right. We did make some progress. But at the end of the day, a judgment has to be made about whether you are going to decide with patients and families or whether you will decide with the HMOs. It gets to be a fairly simple judgment. At the end of the day, the White House stood with the HMOs, and we were with the patients, as we have always been. We were willing to compromise. We were willing to make changes. We were willing to do things to get something done. Throughout the whole discussion, we were willing to do that. But our focus was always on the interests of the patients, not on the interests of the HMOs. We knew the HMOs were being very well represented, both in terms of their voice here in Washington and on Capitol Hill, and their influence with the administration. Unfortunately, this is a pattern. This is not one isolated example. The White House stands with the HMOs, and has throughout this process, and against patients. They have done exactly the same thing in standing with pharmaceutical companies. When we try to do something about the cost of prescription drugs, about bringing a real and meaningful prescription drug benefit to senior citizens, we know where they are; they are with the pharmaceutical companies. They always have been. The same thing is true when we try to protect our air. Right now they are changing the law, the regulations under the Clean Air Act, to give polluters, energy companies, the ability to pollute our air at the expense of children with asthma and senior citizens who have heart problems. We know where they stand. They don't stand with the people who are going to be hurt. They stand with the energy companies that are doing the polluting. Over and over and over, they were dragged kicking and screaming into doing something about corporate responsibility, and they finally embraced the Sarbanes bill that passed in the Senate. This is not an isolated incident. This has happened over and over and over. And at the end of the day, it is about corporate responsibility. There is absolutely no question about that. We will, though, get a bill. We will get a bill for exactly the reason Senator McCain said: Because ultimately we will do what the American people are demanding that we do. They have been saying to us for years now: We are not going to continue to stand by and have HMOs run over us. We will not let insurance companies make health care decisions. We want you, our elected leaders, to make decisions that are in our interest, not in the interest of the HMOs. We all know we can't move out here without bumping into some lobbyist for an HMO. They are everywhere. Who is going to look out for the interests of regular people in this country, for kids and families who need to be able to make their own health care decisions? We are going to; that is who is going to. That is why, when this process is over, we will have a real Patients' Bill of Rights. We will put decisionmaking authority back in the hands of kids, back in the hands of families. And if HMOs are going to make health care decisions, they ought to be treated just like the people who make health care decisions every day--doctors and hospitals. We never said we wanted them to be treated any worse. What we did in the Senate was pass a bill that said exactly that. If you make a health care decision--if some HMO bureaucrat makes a health care decision and overrides the decision of a doctor or of a hospital, they are going to be treated exactly as the hospital and the HMOs are treated. They will stand in the shoes of the people who make the decisions. We are going to treat them as everybody else. Madam President, we are still optimistic. We believe we can do what needs to be done for the American people. This is a critical piece of legislation to families all over America. We will not stop. We will not stop until this legislation and this law that is so desperately needed is signed by the President of the United States.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I hope the Senate, given this opportunity, will do something about providing a drug benefit for all those Americans who desperately need it. This is obviously a compromise, but great work has gone into this effort and it is important we do something for all those people who need help. I want to say a word about the underlying bill because while we are providing the prescription drug benefit, we need to make that benefit affordable, No. 1, and, No. 2, we need to do something about the cost of prescription drugs in this country. The Presiding Officer, Senator Schumer, led the way, along with Senator McCain, in doing something about the cost of prescription drugs in this country in getting generic drugs on to the marketplace, providing competition, and bringing down the costs for all Americans. In the HELP Committee, Senator Collins and I, working with Senator Schumer and Senator McCain, built on that work that had already been done and provided a way to deal with the problem of brand name drug companies abusing the patent process to keep generics out of the marketplace. What was happening was this: Brand name companies were filing frivolous patents. The result of filing those frivolous patents is the generics were not able to get into the marketplace. The brand names used the litigation process to keep generics out of the marketplace. What this underlying legislation does is to close those loopholes. It provides specifically for a mechanism to eliminate the use of frivolous patents to, in fact, give brand name companies protection when they have a real, new, creative, and innovative product, but at the same time it eliminates the patent and litigation abuses that have been occurring. It eliminates things such as brand name companies getting a patent on putting their pills in a brown bottle. Those are the kinds of abuses that have been occurring. In the past, they have kept generics out of the marketplace. What the underlying legislation will do is it will save $60 billion for American consumers over the next 10 years. It is critically important that we do this drug benefit, but it is also critically important that we do something about the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a time question?

Mr. EDWARDS. Does the Senator have an idea how much more time he will take?

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may use. Let me say, first, from the discussion that we have been having all over America, and on the floor of the Senate for the last few weeks about trying to reinsert some responsibility and accountability because of the fundamental notion we believe in this country that everybody-- every person, every company, big business, small business, and everybody in America--should be responsible and accountable for what they do, one of the reasons we have had such a downslide in Wall Street lately is people have lost confidence in the responsibility of people who run some--I emphasize ``some''--of the companies that have been on the front pages of the newspapers for the last several months. What they want us to do is reimpose some of that corporate responsibility. So we work very hard on that. At a time when the focus is on trying to make sure we have real responsibility and real accountability in this country, the President yesterday went to my home State to do exactly the opposite. The President went to North Carolina to say: I am going to side with big insurance companies and against victims. I am going to say if a child who has been severely hurt as a result of bad care is trying to get some help for him and his family over a long period of time, I am going to put a limit on that. I am going to put a limit for a very simple reason: The big insurance companies of America will have to pay. Unfortunately, there is a pattern with this administration. Every time they have a choice between the interests of average Americans, kids, families, and people who do not have lobbyists in Washington, DC, representing them, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the interests of big HMOs, big oil companies, big energy companies, the drug industry, the pharmaceutical drug industry, and big insurance industry in this case--whenever those interests come into conflict with the interests of ordinary Americans, this administration consistently sides with the big interests. They have done it on the Patients' Bill of Rights. They have prevented us from having a real and meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights. While we try to protect families and patients, they side with the big HMOs. I think we are going to overcome it. On preventing us from having a meaningful prescription drug benefit for senior citizens and doing something about the costs of prescription drugs in this country, on which the Presiding Officer has worked so hard, we know that is a fight between ordinary Americans and ordinary families who need these prescription drugs and the pharmaceutical industry. The President has stood with the big pharmaceutical industry. On trying to do something about clean air in this country, the President and his administration have proposed weakening our clean air law--all in the interest of protecting his friends in the oil industry, in the energy industry, and against the interests of ordinary Americans. So now he adds to that list, going to my home State of North Carolina, to say to the victims: I am going to make sure the big insurance companies of America are protected. At the end of the day, that is all this is about. The proposal the President made is different from this amendment-- which I will talk about in a minute--which is to impose a limit of $250,000 on some of the damages for children can be recovered against these big insurance companies. For example, in the case of a child who may be born blind or crippled for life or a child who has to be taken care of by his or her parents every single day, 7 days a week, every day of the year for the rest of their lives, the President says: I am going to make sure the insurance companies don't have to pay what they are obligated to pay to that family, to that child. It is wrong. It is no more complicated than that. And the children and the families, who have been the victims, know it is wrong. The President held a roundtable yesterday in North Carolina on this subject. How many victims participated in that roundtable? How many people whose lives have been destroyed and who need the help that the insurance company is obligated to provide for them participated? Everybody else was well represented. What about the people who don't have lobbyists? What about the people who aren't represented here in Washington by lobbyists? The families, the kids who are hurt by all this, were they at the roundtable? Were their voices heard? I invite the President to come back to North Carolina, and this time, instead of talking to these powerful interests, I hope he will sit down with regular folks who have been the victims and listen to what they have to say, listen to what their lives are like. One of the phrases that was used in the administration proposal was: You have these families who have won the lottery. Well, I can tell you what the parents of a child who was a victim said yesterday from North Carolina. I know these people because I represent them. The parents said: Our little girl was born, and because of the type of care she got, she couldn't see, she couldn't hear, she couldn't walk. Every day of her life--7 days a week, 24 hours a day--we took care of her. And we loved her so much. There is nothing we wouldn't have done for her. And then she died. And when we go to visit her at her grave, we don't feel much like we won the lottery. These are the people whom these kinds of proposals affect. These are real people with real lives. We have to look at the consequences, even though they are not up here with powerful, fancy lobbyists representing them. They are the people we have to look out for. And they are the people who expect their President to look out for them. Unfortunately, he continues to stand with big insurance companies, with big pharmaceutical companies, with big HMOs. These people need his help. It is no more complicated than that. Now, as to this amendment and the purpose of it, first, medical malpractice premiums constitute less than 1 percent of health care costs in this country. So think about the logic. The argument is, we are going to do something about health care costs in this country, and the way we are going to do it is to try to do something misguided--we are going to try to do something about medical malpractice premiums, which constitute about two-thirds of 1 percent of health care costs in this country. First of all, it is the wrong place to start if you are going to do something about health care costs in this country. If you want to do something about health care costs, you ought to do what the Presiding Officer and I and so many of us have tried to do--bring the cost of prescription drugs under control in this country, because that will have a real effect on health care costs. They are a driving force in rising health care costs in this country. This is minuscule by comparison. So, No. 1, it is a misguided effort in terms of what it is focused on. No. 2, it will not work because these kinds of proposals--the President's proposal yesterday in North Carolina, and this amendment, which is different--are proposals that impose limitations on recoveries for victims, for families, to try to get rid of some concepts in the law. They have been used in many places around the country. They do not work. They do not, in fact, have the kind of impact on insurance premiums that these people who are proposing them say they have. If you look at medical malpractice premiums in this country, and you look at the States that have these provisions that impose limits on the families, and then you look at the States that do not have them, the costs of medical malpractice insurance--I am looking for the year 2001 for internal medicine, for general surgery, for obstetrics and gynecology--are virtually identical. This all sounds logical. If you impose limits on what the victims and the families can recover, why does that not help bring the cost of the insurance down? Why does it not have an effect on premiums? Because logic would tell you it would because insurance companies have to pay less, theoretically. So as a result, why don't they lower the premiums? Because the insurance company premiums have nothing to do with this. That is the reason. The insurance company takes the money that they receive in premiums, and they invest it. Where do they invest it? They invest it in that same stock market in which most of the people in America are invested. You can look at every time they start raising premiums. They come to Washington and say: There is a crisis; we have to do something about this; this is a serious problem; we have these outrageous awards for children and families; we have to stop it. And the way to stop it is to cut off the rights of the victims. That is the way to stop it. So why? Because they are not doing well in their investments. Every single time, when the stock market falls, and the insurance companies' money that is invested is not bringing back a good return--in fact, they are losing money--they raise premiums. Who has to pay those higher premiums? The health care providers. They are just as much a victim of this as the kids and the families who are victims of the bad medical care. The insurance companies are the ones that are responsible. You can look at it. It is as sure as the Sun is going to come up tomorrow, if they are doing well on their investments, the premiums stay relatively stable. When they are not doing well on their investments, the premiums go up. That is what this is all about. While these kinds of proposals are aimed at reducing the rights of victims--which is what they are--instead, what we ought to be doing is looking at what the big insurance companies are doing when they get unhappy with the results of their own investments. That is what drives this. If you look at what has happened in these States--the Senator from Tennessee talked about California at great length. California has some of the most severe limitations in the country on what victims can recover--severe limitations. They have been in place a long time. So let's look at what has happened in California. Between 1991 and 2000, over that about 10 years--a little less than 10 years--the premiums in California went up more than the national premiums. Why? Why in the world, if they have got these serious limitations on recoveries--and they have been in place for years in California--why would their premiums go up? And why would they go up faster than in the rest of the country, many places which do not have these kinds of limitations? Because the rise in premiums, and what is happening in what insurance companies charge people around the country, is in direct relation to how they are doing in their own investments. In some cases, it is an insurance company or the insurance industry that exists in a region, in some cases it is national, and in many cases, of course, it is connected to the international and the reinsurance markets, but it is clear as day that it is directly related to how they are doing in their investments in the stock market. So this effort is misguided. Besides that, I do want to point out, though, that the Senators who are proposing this amendment to put limits on what victims can receive, even they are not willing to go as far as the administration is. The administration proposes a $250,000 limit on some damages for children, among others, who have a lifelong disability as a result of bad medical care. This amendment does not make that proposal. They are not willing to go that far. They know that when you put a limit on those kinds of recoveries, on those kinds of damages, it is like a laser directed at the most severely injured, and usually the youngest, because young children who have severe injuries for life, which they and their parents are going to have to carry for the rest of their lives--and you are limiting them to $250,000 in those kinds of damages--$250,000-- nobody in America thinks that makes sense. That is why that is not part, I suspect, of this proposal. Instead, this proposal goes about it in a different kind of way. What this proposal suggests is a couple things: One, that we get rid of something called joint and several liability. Without going into too much detail about this, we believe in this country--and it has been the law of the land for many years--that if you have a victim, whether it is a victim of criminal conduct or bad medical care, or somebody who has behaved wrongly, and you have a victim, the victim should not be the one held responsible. If you have several people who caused it, they share the responsibility. What this proposal says is, all right, somebody got hurt as a result of the bad behavior of a group of people. Always remember, you have an amount that has been lost by the victim. Let's say it is $100,000 that has been lost by the victim. If that money has been lost, it is shared among the defendants. What we have always said in America is, as part of our law, the victim should never be the one held responsible for that loss. The loss doesn't go away. The loss is always there; the damages are always there. This proposal says, if you have five people who are responsible, then among those five people, none of them can be required to pay more than whatever a jury determines is their percentage responsibility. But remember, these are all wrongdoers. So on one side of the equation you have a child who is innocent. On the other side of the equation you have the group of wrongdoers. The amount that has been lost does not change. Somebody has to be responsible for that. So are we going to say that the wrongdoers are responsible or are we going to shift some of that responsibility to the innocent victim? That is what this proposal does. It says we are going to get rid of what is called joint and several liability, which means you can collect against any one or all of the wrongdoers, and says instead, if there is a wrongdoer you can't get to, for whatever reason, that part of the responsibility goes back to the victim. It violates what we believe in this country. It violates our fundamental notion of responsibility and accountability that the people who ought to be held accountable for they are the people who did wrong, not the innocent victim. That is what is wrong with this specific proposal. There are other proposals. The next proposal says if there is an award of something called punitive damages, then half of that money will go to the Government. Now, let's talk about that in a real case. Let's explain what the effect of that is. To get punitive damages, the conduct has to be either criminal or very close to criminal. That is what is required in order for punitive damages to be awarded. So let's say you have a teenage girl who is the victim of this kind of criminal conduct. The jury awards these damages to that young girl. This is what this amendment says to that victim of essentially criminal conduct: We are going to impose a 50 percent tax on you. That is what we are going to do. We are going to say to the victim of this conduct: There is a 50 percent tax on the damages that a jury, after hearing the whole case, has decided you are entitled to, 50 percent. That is going to go to the Government. Is that the signal we want to send as a Congress, as the U.S. Senate? Do we want to say to the American people that we as a body want to impose a 50 percent tax on a child who has been the victim of what is essentially criminal conduct? This is crazy. It doesn't make any sense. It also violates our basic notions of fairness and responsibility and accountability. We have talked a great deal on the floor about doing things about the victims of criminal conduct. This essentially falls in the same category. It makes no sense for the government to impose a 50 percent tax on a child who has been the victim of what amounts to criminal conduct. These provisions--and there are others--are wrong: getting rid of what is called joint and several liability, which means the wrongdoers don't necessarily have to pay for all of what has happened, while some of it gets shifted to the victim. That is wrong. Second, to say we are going to impose a 50 percent tax on a victim, a child who has been essentially the victim of criminal conduct, that is wrong. More important than all of that, this whole effort is misguided. If what we want to do is do something about health care costs, we should not focus on what is well less than 1 percent of health care costs. We ought to focus on the things that really make a difference, such as the rising cost of prescription drugs. More importantly, the people who need us to look out for them are the very people that this amendment is aimed at--the kids, the families, the victims. We need to stand up for them. They need us to be willing to stand up for them no matter who is outside the floor of the Senate representing the most powerful interests in America. No matter how many lobbyists the insurance industry has, no matter how many lobbyists the HMOs have, the big energy companies, the big oil companies, who is going to stand up for these kids and these families? If they don't have us to stand up for them, they have nobody. On all of these fronts, whether we are talking about doing something about the high cost of prescription drugs for people, whether we are talking about kids and families who are the victims of bad medical care, whether we are talking about trying to protect our air for our children and for our families, on all these fronts, we have to stand up for them. The people who voted for us and sent us to the Congress are counting on us because they don't have lobbyists up there. They have nobody here outside the halls of Congress representing them. They count on us to stand up for them. As we go through these fights, we will stand up for them. This is one of them. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS. The Senator asked two very good questions. First, I think it is a terrific idea for us to look at the insurance industry, its practices in general, and what effect McCarran-Ferguson has on those practices. The Senator describes a large part of the problem. The Senator knows as well as I do, you can't move in Washington without bumping into some lobbyist representing the insurance industry. They are so well heard and so well represented. I think it is a very good idea. As to the second question, we have differences between North Carolina, my State, and the State of Nevada, and differences between us and California. These are the kinds of issues that ought to be resolved at the State level. We have always believed that. There is a little bit of an inconsistency for the administration that normally says these are matters that ought to be left to the States, we trust the States to make these decisions; but in the case where they want to do something on behalf of the insurance industry, which is what this is, they want to take it away from the States; they want to do it at the national level. What has historically been done in this area is the way it should be done, which is these are matters about State courts, how State courts handle these kinds of cases. They are in touch with it. They know what is happening in their individual States, what the problems are, and they can address them in a responsible and equitable way. I thank the Senator for his questions. We reserve the remainder of our time, Madam President.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I thank, along with all my colleagues, Senator Sarbanes for the extraordinary work he has done on this bill. We are proud of him. America appreciates very much what he and others who have worked with him have done. I also thank Senator Enzi, who is in the Chamber, and Senator Corzine, who is presiding, for the work they have done with me on what I think is an important part of this legislation which, in addition to corporate CEOs and accountants, is holding the lawyers involved in these transactions responsible and accountable; that if they see something wrong occurring, they should do something about it--report it to their client, to the corporation, report it to the CEO, the chief legal officer and, if necessary, report it to the board. In Congress, we are doing what needs to be done and stepping to the plate with regard to corporate responsibility. That is in striking contrast to what is going on in my home State right now. At a time when Americans are demanding more corporate responsibility, when Congress is stepping up and doing what needs to be done, the President has gone to North Carolina today to ask for less corporate responsibility, to make it easier on insurance companies and to make it harder on victims. The President is in North Carolina today proposing some of the smallest limits that have ever been proposed for families who have suffered tragedies, serious problems, as a result of poor medical care at a time when medical malpractice insurance premiums constitute way less than 1 percent, substantially less than 1 percent, of medical care costs in this country. The President is holding a roundtable, as I speak, on this subject. I would like to see how many victims of medical negligence, of medical malpractice, people who have been devastated and their lives devastated, are participating in this roundtable. I know these people. For many years I have represented them. I have been in their homes. I have been in homes and spent time with families whose child will never walk, who have been blinded for life, who have been crippled for life, who have suffered injuries from which they will never recover. These children blinded for life, crippled for life, severely injured for life--there is a description in the HHS report on which the President is relying which talks about when juries find they have been hurt and award money to them, they describe it as ``winning the lottery ticket.'' The parents of a child who has been blinded for life, the parents of a child who will never walk, rest assured they do not believe they have the winning lottery ticket. My question is: How many of those people are the President talking to when he is in North Carolina today? The next time he comes back to North Carolina, we invite him to talk to some of those people because those are the ordinary Americans to whom he should be talking. Those are the people who are going to be impacted. The children who have suffered serious injuries are the ones who are going to have the greatest impact and have their rights taken away by what the President is proposing. Unfortunately, listening to ordinary people is not what this administration does. They have done it time and time again. It is stunning, but it is sad and consistent. When this administration has a choice between protecting the rights of big companies, big insurance companies versus the rights of ordinary people, they choose the big insurance company, the big companies every single time. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to do something about corporate responsibility, which we are doing in the Congress. On the Patients' Bill of Rights, on which Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, and I have worked so hard, they have consistently sided with the big HMOs, which is why we do not have a Patients' Bill of Rights in this country. On prescription drugs, when we tried to do something about the cost of prescription drugs on the floor of the Senate, this administration consistently sided with the big drug companies. When it comes to the environment, this administration has weakened clean air laws that protect the air for our children and consistently sided with the big energy companies that are polluting our air. Today the President adds to that list, in going to the State of North Carolina, the big insurance companies. This President loves to talk about compassion. My question to him is: Where is his compassion for the victims? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. This debate taking place in the Senate is about people's lives. We have senior citizens who desperately need a prescription drug benefit. This is what they want. They want one that is affordable and reliable. It is no more complicated than that. The Graham-Miller bill meets that criteria. Unfortunately, the bill from the other side does not for at least two major reasons. It turns the prescription drug benefit over to private insurance companies. The insurance companies themselves have said this will not work. It will not work because they are in the business of making a profit. They will only go to the markets where it is profitable. That means there will be millions of senior citizens around this country with no access to a prescription drug benefit. Second, it has an enormous gap in coverage. For those who have $400 a month in prescription drug costs, there will be 3 or 4 months toward the end of the year where they will get no coverage at all, no help for their prescription drugs, although every month they are writing a premium check. That makes no sense. Those problems are taking care of in the Graham-Miller bill. In addition, we have to bring the cost of prescriptions under control. That is why, no matter what, we have to pass the underlying bill that gets generics in the marketplace, stops the frivolous use of patents to keep generics out of the marketplace so we can have competition and bring down the cost of prescription drugs for everyone. Second, to allow, in a safe fashion approved by the FDA, for drugs from Canada at lower cost to be brought into the United States so folks can buy at a lower cost. Third, to allow States to make prescription drugs available to the uninsured at the same cost of those of us with health insurance and those in the Medicaid Program pay, to make the same cost available to them that is available to everyone else so they are not taken advantage of. Those things will help make this prescription drug benefit affordable. Last, in addition to all of that, this has to be considered in the context of a responsible fiscal budget, in order to get this country back on the path to fiscal discipline. In January of 2001, there was a $5.6 trillion projected surplus; $5 trillion of it is gone. Why? The biggest single reason is because of a tax cut proposed by the President that has now been passed and signed into law. To get this country back on the path to fiscal discipline, which it so desperately needs to be able to afford a prescription drug benefit, we ought to do at least three things; First, we ought to have pay-as- you-go rules apply in this Congress; Second, we ought to follow spending caps; Third, we ought to do something about the top layer of the tax cut for the 1 percent of Americans, the highest earning, richest people in America, scheduled to go into effect in the year 2004, to ask them to give up that tax cut in order to help their fellow Americans, in order to help us get back on the path to fiscal discipline and operate this Federal Government and this Federal budget in a responsible way. The American people want us to do all these things. Give them a real prescription drug benefit, one that is affordable, one that is reliable, one they know they can depend on to bring down the cost of prescription drugs and find a way to pay for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Ms. Cynthia A. Glassman, of Virginia, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Mr. Roel C. Campos, of Texas, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the senate on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 at 10:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on the Moscow Treaty. Agenda Witnesses Panel I: The Honorable Sam Numm, Co-Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Threat Initiative, Washington, DC; Gen. Eugene E. Habiger, USAF (Ret.), Former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, United States Air Force, San Antonio, Texas; The Honorable Ken Adelman, Former Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Senior Counselor, Edelman Public Relations Worldwide, Washington, DC. Panel II: Fr. Drew Christiansen, S.J., Counselor, International Affairs, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC; Mr. Christopher E. Paine, Co-Director, Nuclear Warhead Elimination and Nonproliferation Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Charlottesville, Virginia; Mr. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO, Center for Security Policy, Washington, DC; Mr. Dimitri K. Simes, President, The Nixon Center, Washington, DC.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a Judicial nominations hearing on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 in Dirksen Room 226 at 10:00 a.m. Tentative Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Phil Gramm, U.S. Senator (R-TX); The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator (R-TX); The Honorable Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator (D-FL); The Honorable Kay Granger, U.S. Representative (R-TX). Panel II: Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Panel III: Timothy J. Corrigan to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Middle District of Florida; Jose E. Martinez to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on the judiciary

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, S. 2480,'' on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 in Dirksen Room 226 at 2:00 p.m. Tentative Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Max Baucus, U.S. Senator [D-MT]; The Honorable Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, U.S. Representative [R-CA- 51st District]. Panel II: Lieutenant Steve Young, National President, Fraternal Order of Police, Marion, OH; Mr. Arthur Gordon, National Executive Board Member, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Woodbine, MD; Deputy Chief of Police David Johnson, Cedar Rapids Police Department, Cedar Rapids, IA; Colonel Lonnie J. Westphal, Chief, Colorado State Patrol, Denver, CO. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Select Committee on Intelligence

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 at 10 a.m. to hold a closed hearing on the Joint Inquiry into the events of September 11, 2001. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Subcommittee on National Parks

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a Hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 23, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-366. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 2494, to revise the boundary of the Petrified Forest National Park in the State of Arizona; S. 2598, to enhance the criminal penalties for illegal trafficking of archaeological resources; S. 2727, to provide for the protection of paleontological resources on Federal lands; and H.R. 3954, to designate certain waterways in the Caribbean National Forest in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``The Role of the Financial Institutions In Enron's Collapse.'' THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.