John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk numbered 3417 and I call it up at this time.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I will speak to that contains a number of proposals. We all recognize that trade has done some very good things for many Americans. We know that. It is also important to recognize something else: Trade has hurt a lot of people; it has hurt them in ways that sometimes people in Washington are not willing to recognize. To people in Washington, DC, free trade is a good concept. To a lot of people in my State of North Carolina, and all over the South, and, in fact, for that matter, all across America, free trade is a lot more than an abstract concept that people in Washington talk about. For them, trade has had an enormous impact. In some ways, it has meant an end to a way of life that they have enjoyed for a long time, from generation to generation. For those people who are hurting, we have an opportunity as part of this legislation to make life better. My view is we have not only an opportunity but a responsibility to make life better. Americans have always watched out for each other, and we need to do exactly the same thing when it comes to trade. We need to watch out and make sure we do not leave behind millions of our fellow citizens who have been hurt by trade and trade policy. The people who are hurt are real people. They are mothers and fathers. They work hard. They work just as hard as anyone else in this country. They play by the same rules as everyone else. They do right by their family. They go to work every day and do their job. They work very hard to build a future for their family. These people are being hurt, and many of them badly hurt, by trade. I am speaking particularly about folks who are in the textile and furniture industries. There are a lot of those folks in my State of North Carolina. But there are also hundreds of thousands of those workers across the South--in fact, in places all over the country, such as upstate New York. For most of the 20th century, manufacturing jobs were the basis of our economy in this country. People who worked in those jobs didn't get rich, but they were able to take care of their families, they were able to go to church, participate in and contribute to their communities, and oftentimes they were able to send their kids to college. The jobs never paid great, but they paid well enough--you know, $10, $12 an hour--for them to take care of their families. The jobs did, however, come with health care benefits so they didn't have to worry about taking care of their family if someone got sick or their children got sick. They came with vacations so they got a chance to spend time with their family every year. The textile mills and furniture factories have been the cornerstone of a way of life in the South, a very good way of life. That way of life is now being greatly affected and, in many cases, destroyed by trade. Since the beginning of the year 2001, 179 textile plants have closed in this country. We have lost 91,000 textile jobs. That is just since the beginning of the year 2001. If you go back to 1997, the numbers are even worse. This chart is a listing of the jobs, textile jobs that have been lost since 1997. My State of North Carolina has been hardest hit. We have lost 122,000 jobs since 1997. That is 122,000 families who, over the course of the last 5 years, have lost their jobs. In Georgia, they have also been hit hard, losing 95,000 jobs during the same period of time. South Carolina lost 61,000 jobs; Alabama, 35,000 jobs lost; Virginia, 23,000 jobs lost. In North Carolina, we have had 57 plants close since the year 2001. In the years between 1994 and 2000, we lost more than 100,000 jobs due to international trade. There are towns in North Carolina where the mill employed literally a quarter of the people who lived in the town--one out of every four people. Now the mill is gone and hundreds of people are looking for work and the town is devastated. In Washington, you often hear people say--and I have heard this in the debate on the floor of the Senate, and I have heard it all around Washington, DC, in discussions on the impact of trade--well, they lost those jobs, but they can get better jobs. That probably is true. It may well be true in the big picture. The problem is, in a Southern mill town it is a very different picture. I grew up in Southern mill towns. My father worked in textile mills all of his adult life--37 years, if I remember correctly. I know firsthand what impact closing of these mills has on the town. They are the heart and soul of the economy, and they are part of a way of life. The vast majority of these other, better jobs that you hear people talk about are not in that town. That is the problem. When the mill closes down, these jobs everyone is talking about, the better jobs that will ultimately be available because of free trade, they are not in that town. They are not anywhere near that town in a lot of cases. It so happens that those jobs are also not the kind of jobs that a middle-aged ex-millworker is going to be able to get. I often thought when I heard the discussions about, ``There are other jobs,'' ``We can do job retraining,'' all of that is important. I do believe, for the country as a whole, free trade has a lot of positive benefits. There is no question about that. But for those people who are affected directly, they are hit like a laser by these trade policies and this trade legislation. They are tremendously affected. To say to men or women who have spent their entire lives taking care of their family, providing for their family, now at the age of 45, 50, 55, ``We want you to change work; we want you to go to another kind of employment,'' this is not just about a job, although their job is very important to them. It is about their dignity, their self-respect. It is about their belief that that mother and father have always been able to take care of their family, and all of a sudden they are not able to do that anymore. They are being asked to train to do something entirely new when they have spent their entire life doing this particular job. I was blessed to be the first person in my family to go to college. A lot of folks are like my parents. They are great people. They work very hard, but sometimes they have not in their life had the extraordinary opportunity that many of us had in terms of our education. Across this country, about 60 percent of people have some college education, which is good; we hope that continues to improve as we go forward. But in the areas we are talking about, where these mills are closing and where people have spent a lot of their lives working in those mills, the number is closer to 20 percent. It is more like one out of five people have some college education. So when a furniture factory or cotton mill in North Carolina shuts down, oftentimes we have half the workers who do not even have a high school diploma or a GED. The workers in these mills also are not young. The average worker affected by a trade deal is more than 40 years old. They have usually two kids, sometimes more. There is a good chance many of them have never spent any time working outside that factory. That has been their entire life. So when that factory closes and somebody in Washington, DC, says, ``Oh, you can get a job in one of these other dynamic sectors of the economy,'' it is a lot easier said than done. The people suffering from trade have tremendous trouble getting back what they are losing. When you look at North Carolina workers over age 55 who lose their jobs due to trade, only half have found work within 2 years. So within 2 years, still almost half of those people are unemployed. These are folks who know how to work. They have worked all their lives. They are some of the hardest working people I have ever seen. I still remember vividly going in the mill when I was young and seeing the men and women who worked in that mill with my dad, and then when I got a little older I worked there sometimes in summers or part- time. I have never seen anyone work harder. They were extraordinary. They did it to provide for their families--for their family's self- respect and dignity and for their own. They were proud of what they did, and they ought to have been proud of it. The problem is, although they are looking for work, and they know how to work, they just cannot find work. If they do find work, sometimes it is not good work. Instead of making $12 an hour, which they had been making in a mill, or $15 an hour, they are looking instead at a minimum-wage job with no benefits and no health care. Those are the kind of problems with which these folks are confronted. It is real. It has an enormously devastating effect on their lives. When a plant closes, it is not just the people who work there who are affected; the small businesses that used to sell groceries and clothes to the people who work in that mill suffer as well. The companies where the plant used to buy materials and equipment suffer. The city hospitals, the police force that depend on taxes from that plant and from the people who work in that plant suffer. According to some projections, for every job the textile industry loses, we may lose two more jobs as well. So families are suffering because of trade, but not just families; communities are also suffering. We need to do right by these folks, by the people who lose their jobs, and by the communities. We need to do right by doing two things. First, we need to make sure that our trade deals give the same considerations to textile workers they are giving to our farmers. That is totally consistent with the current TPA bill and totally consistent with fair trade. By the way, I think it is a very good idea to have the language in the bill that provides protection and support for our farmers. That is also important in North Carolina. But we ought to treat these factory workers, these textile workers exactly the same way. It is right and it is fair. Second, when trade does hurt factory workers in industries such as textiles, we need to make sure those workers have every opportunity to get back on their feet. We all say that is our goal, but we need to make sure the law is as strong as our words. So today, I have three proposals, all contained in one amendment now, for amending trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance. I expect as we go forward that I may have additional proposals and at least one, and perhaps more, additional amendments. I have been working with my colleagues, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Montana, on not only this amendment and proposals contained in this amendment, but also additional amendments. I will continue to work with them. I appreciate very much their cooperation.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia. He and I understand the people who work in textile mills in these small towns, as do a number of our other colleagues in the Senate. It is wonderful to hear him describe, firsthand, what he and I have both seen all our lives among the people who live there. I appreciate his support of the amendment. And I appreciated his eloquence on this subject because he truly does understand the plight of these folks. I want to talk about the three proposals contained in this amendment. The first proposal is very simple. Right now, the trade promotion authority bill is full of objectives for different purposes--electronic commerce, intellectual property, border taxes. Every one of those things has its own objectives. The bill has a whole section of objectives for agriculture, which is good. It is a good thing. All told, there are more than a dozen kinds of objectives, with pages on each. I do not have any problem with any of that. When Congress gives the President as much negotiating authority as TPA provides, the least we can do is make sure how the President should exercise that authority. This is my concern. There is a glaring omission from those objectives. That omission is textiles and apparel. There is not a single objective for trade in textiles and apparel. Here is an American industry clearly being destroyed by trade, and there is not a word about it--not a word. That is wrong. If we are going to give the President broad authority to enter more free trade agreements, we need to make sure the President's negotiators do not leave behind the people who work in these mills. These folks have already suffered enough from trade agreements. This amendment would set this problem straight, by including a set of objectives for textiles and apparel. There is nothing radical about the objectives. In fact, the language closely parallels existing objectives for other areas, specifically agriculture. Let me give you a few examples of how closely my amendment tracks the agriculture language already in the bill. For agriculture, the objective is: ``to obtain competitive opportunities for United States exports of agricultural commodities in foreign markets substantially equivalent to the competitive opportunities afforded foreign exports in United States markets and to achieve fairer and more open conditions of trade'' for various agricultural commodities. That language makes sense. This is what our amendment does: If you take out the words ``agricultural commodities'' and insert the words ``textiles and apparel,'' you have the amendment. It does exactly the same thing with exactly the same language. The agricultural objectives talk about ``reducing or eliminating, by a date certain, tariffs or other charges that decrease market opportunities for United States exports.'' Again, the language makes sense. Our amendment has exactly the same language. So my point is this: We are not asking for any special treatment for the textile industry. It just says that textile workers are just as good and just as important as others who make enormous contributions to our economy, such as farmers. Let me also be clear, the amendment does not ask for special treatment for our textile industry compared to other countries. The amendment just says that our textile industry should be treated by other countries the same way their textile industries are treated in this country--with a level playing field. That is all we are asking. Today, that field is not level. We have cut our tariffs. Between 1995 and 2000, our imports of textiles from other countries have nearly doubled. That is because we cut our tariffs. In the same period, our trading partners maintained their barriers to our products. We played fair; they did not. As a result, our partners have gotten access to markets and shut down our mills. When we have tried to get into their markets, we have been met by trade barriers that make it impossible. This amendment says, very simply, that when it comes to textiles, the President's negotiators should work for a level playing field--not special preferences, just equal treatment. So, to sum up, there are two major points in this part of the amendment, this part of the proposal. First, textiles deserve to be treated as well as agriculture--not better, just the same. Second, as with agriculture, that does not mean special treatment for American textiles compared to other countries; it just means equal treatment compared to other countries. That is fair and just. The second proposal contained in this amendment is aimed at making community college more accessible for people who have lost their jobs and are being hurt by trade. We all know how critical education is to economic opportunity. But for workers who lose their jobs, community college really is the key. It can make the difference between chronic unemployment or a good career in a new job. Community colleges cost half as much as the average public university and 90 percent less than the average private college. And thanks to community colleges, 5 million workers earn degrees and certificates every year in professions ranging from information technology to health care to construction. Let me give one example of how community colleges can transform lives. These are the words of a former textile worker who is now a student at Guilford Technical Community College in Jamestown, NC. He says: The college gives you more than just the ability to train for a different job. It also gives you back some hope that has been stripped away when your skills and experience are no longer useful. I talked about this earlier. This is not just about a new job and taking care of your family. It is about self-respect and dignity. We ought to give people back the hope that unemployment has taken away. The trouble now is that many community colleges can't keep pace with the demand, especially in communities where textile mills are closing. In fact, as mills close and workers need retraining more than ever, community colleges are seeing their budgets go down. So you have more demand for community college and fewer seats in the classroom. That is the opposite of what we want. Let me give a couple of examples. In 2001, Mayland Community College in Spruce Pines, NC, saw enrollment go up by 40 percent after two textile plants in the area closed. Hundreds of additional workers had to be turned away from courses. The college didn't have the resources to serve them. At Cleveland Community College in Shelby, NC, enrollment will grow by 15 percent next year at the same time that the college's budget is being cut by 10 percent. As a result, the school had to cancel training programs this summer that would have served over 400 workers, about 20 percent of the school's population. These stories are typical. All across the country our community colleges are struggling. We, in Congress, have to step up and make sure community colleges fulfill the critical role they have always filled. This amendment establishes a grant program to provide an emergency infusion of aid to community colleges in areas hard hit by foreign trade so that they can create or expand retraining programs. This program will compensate for cuts in State and local aid and make sure community colleges can meet the needs of workers in their area who have lost their jobs. At the same time, this amendment also encourages community colleges to serve workers who have not yet lost their jobs but who are at a high risk of losing them. If you know you are going to lose your job and you want to go back to school for a new job, you are doing the right thing. We ought to help that and promote it. Much of the time we do exactly the opposite. Folks can't go back to school. At a result, they are left stuck where they are. People who want to plan ahead ought to be able to do it. This amendment would give them a chance by supporting training not just for workers who have already lost their jobs and been displaced but also for workers who know the pink slip is coming and that they have to prepare for it. The third proposal and the last proposal in the amendment meets a very specific need. When a worker loses his job at a mill, one of best things he can do is go back to school for more training. That is especially true for working people who do not have a GED or who are immigrants with very poor English. The best thing these workers can do is get a GED or take an English as a second language class, an ESL class. Here is the problem. Today if you qualify for trade assistance, you get 2 years of help with your education, but only 18 months of help with your income. That is a huge problem for somebody who is trying to get a GED or take an ESL class. If they are getting help paying for school, they often run out of money because they have to provide for their family before they finish their education and their training. As a result, they are forced to drop out of school. Instead of graduating and getting a job that may pay $15, $20 an hour, they have to stop, quit, and take a job that pays the minimum wage. This is wrong. We should not force people who lose their jobs because of foreign trade to choose between getting the education they want and need and being able to put food on the table. This amendment solves that problem by allowing extensions for 6 months of the TAA income allowances for workers who have taken a GED or ESL class and are finishing up their training. Six more months of income support can mean a lifetime of higher wages and higher living conditions. It is the right thing to do. In sum, the three proposals contained in this amendment are aimed at a very specific objective. They are aimed at helping people who have families, mothers, fathers, people who have worked hard all their lives to provide for their family, to contribute to their community, to contribute to their country, to get back on their feet and in another job, to get back to work, which they desperately want to do. They have spent their whole lives taking care of their families, doing right by their families and their communities and making an enormous contribution. They just want to do it again. We want to make sure they get a chance to do it again. That is what the amendment is about. I urge all my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I point out for my colleagues that both the ranking Republican Member and the chairman of the committee support these amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Hollings, Miller, Cleland, Lincoln, and Allen.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, this amendment does two things. First, it says our trade negotiators have to stop entering into trade agreements that hurt North Carolina textile workers and that are unfair to North Carolina textile workers. North Carolina's textile workers are entitled to a level playing field, and that is what this amendment is designed to give them--no better, no worse than anybody else, just a level playing field. Second, it makes sure that workers who have lost their jobs because of trade have an opportunity to get the education and the training they need to get another job at as good or better wages. At its base, that is what this amendment is about. The amendment serves those two purposes. It is a critical amendment for the textile workers in my State of North Carolina where, over the course of the last 5 years, over 100,000 workers have lost their jobs. These people have been hurt by trade. We need to give them an opportunity to get their lives back in shape. That is what this amendment is about: No. 1, making sure any trade agreement that is negotiated is fair and fair to North Carolina textile workers; No. 2, for those people who have lost their jobs, families who have lost their jobs, making sure they have an opportunity to get back on their feet and do what they have always done--work and help to support their family and give their kids a chance for a better life. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as the chairman of the committee and the ranking Republican Member do. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. EDWARDS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I want to report to my colleagues. As probably all are aware, our friend and colleague, Senator Jesse Helms, had heart surgery recently. We have all been monitoring his progress very carefully and closely. I have been speaking with those in his office and his staff who are working so hard and so diligently to keep up Senator Helms' operation here in the Senate and back in North Carolina while he is recovering from his heart surgery. The most recent report as of today is that Senator Helms is progressing. He is progressing in the manner in which his physicians would have expected. Senator Frist, along with others, has been watching and monitoring his care and recovery very carefully. I am told by members of Senator Helms' staff that his progress is exactly as anticipated. They are feeling optimistic. The doctors are feeling optimistic. Hopefully, before too long, we will have Senator Helms back with us. We also want Senator Helms, his wife Dot, whom we all love and adore, and the members of his family, plus the members of his staff who are so devoted to him, to know that all of us, all his friends, all his colleagues, are thinking about him constantly. He is in our prayers daily. We will continue to pray for his rapid recovery. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I'm very pleased to rise today to introduce the School Service Act of 2002. This is legislation that can help foster the next generation of great American citizens. When we think about education, we usually think about English, math, science. But I believe education needs to do more than provide knowledge and career skills. It also has to teach citizenship, the lesson that America is about not only rights but also responsibilities, and that each of us, however humble or wealthy, has a calling to our community and to our country. In my view, service to the community ought to be more than just another afterschool activity, like basketball or photography. Service should be a part of every child's education, as much as math or science or anything else. If our children are going to believe in serving their community, we have to give them the experience of service while they're young, so they know in their bones that it matters. In the last few months, the President and several of my Senate colleagues have offered proposals to engage more adults Americans in expanded national service programs. These are promising ideas, but I believe they're left our one key group: school-age students, especially high schoolers. In the best service initiatives with teenagers, we've seen remarkable benefits, for students and the communities they serve. In one program, 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. Just as important, the service also has tremendous impacts on communities. 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. People in the community say this work is worth four times more than it actually costs. It's time to encourage more States and cities to develop service programs for all their students. It's not enough that students study history to graduate. We should expect them to contribute to history, too. Some of my favorite models for engaging children in service come from my own State, in fact, from the high school in Raleigh that my children have attended. With these thoughts in mind, today I am introducing, together with Senator Gordon Smith and Senator Clinton, the School Service Act of 2002. 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 school's efforts. The service can be based in the classroom. It can be based in an afterschool program. It can be based in a summer program. And it can be directed or supervised by AmeriCorps members who are leaders and coordinators. All that we ask is that you ensure two things: First: real service with real benefits to communities. The Corporation's own studies show that a dollar invested in a good service effort produces benefits worth over four dollars. We need to keep that up. Second: we want service that means something to young people, service that students reflect on and talk about with each other. We want kids seeing these experiences not as another chore, but as an exciting initiation into long lives of active citizenship. And we know service is often just that. Kids who serve grow up to volunteer more and to vote more throughout their lives. Finally, our bill will hold these programs to high standards and require measurable success. Let me stress: I don't think we should require my State or city to do anything. Nor should this program operate nationwide. My proposal is that for the 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. Here in Congress, it is our responsibility to give those opportunities for service to our young people. When we do, our country will be richly rewarded in the years and decades to come.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I'm very pleased to rise today to introduce the School Service Act of 2002. This is legislation that can help foster the next generation of great American citizens. When we think about education, we usually think about English, math, science. But I believe education needs to do more than provide knowledge and career skills. It also has to teach citizenship, the lesson that America is about not only rights but also responsibilities, and that each of us, however humble or wealthy, has a calling to our community and to our country. In my view, service to the community ought to be more than just another afterschool activity, like basketball or photography. Service should be a part of every child's education, as much as math or science or anything else. If our children are going to believe in serving their community, we have to give them the experience of service while they're young, so they know in their bones that it matters. In the last few months, the President and several of my Senate colleagues have offered proposals to engage more adults Americans in expanded national service programs. These are promising ideas, but I believe they're left our one key group: school-age students, especially high schoolers. In the best service initiatives with teenagers, we've seen remarkable benefits, for students and the communities they serve. In one program, 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. Just as important, the service also has tremendous impacts on communities. 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. People in the community say this work is worth four times more than it actually costs. It's time to encourage more States and cities to develop service programs for all their students. It's not enough that students study history to graduate. We should expect them to contribute to history, too. Some of my favorite models for engaging children in service come from my own State, in fact, from the high school in Raleigh that my children have attended. With these thoughts in mind, today I am introducing, together with Senator Gordon Smith and Senator Clinton, the School Service Act of 2002. 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 school's efforts. The service can be based in the classroom. It can be based in an afterschool program. It can be based in a summer program. And it can be directed or supervised by AmeriCorps members who are leaders and coordinators. All that we ask is that you ensure two things: First: real service with real benefits to communities. The Corporation's own studies show that a dollar invested in a good service effort produces benefits worth over four dollars. We need to keep that up. Second: we want service that means something to young people, service that students reflect on and talk about with each other. We want kids seeing these experiences not as another chore, but as an exciting initiation into long lives of active citizenship. And we know service is often just that. Kids who serve grow up to volunteer more and to vote more throughout their lives. Finally, our bill will hold these programs to high standards and require measurable success. Let me stress: I don't think we should require my State or city to do anything. Nor should this program operate nationwide. My proposal is that for the 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. Here in Congress, it is our responsibility to give those opportunities for service to our young people. When we do, our country will be richly rewarded in the years and decades to come.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, today I pay tribute to an incredible North Carolinian, Mr. Robert Hodges. On Friday, the Department of Veterans Affairs will host a ceremony in Pamlico County and officially recognize Mr. Hodges as the oldest American veteran. According to VA records, Mr. Hodges celebrated his 111th birthday last June. But if you ask Mr. Hodges, he'll tell you he is actually 114 years old. As remarkable as his age is, it's not how long he's lived, but how he has lived those 111 or 114 years that is so inspiring. Mr. Hodges is truly an example of living history. His life has been touched by almost every struggle this nation has endured. He was born in 1888, the same year Benjamin Harrison was elected President. His father, a runaway slave who lived to be 112 years old, often told him stories of the Civil War. He grew up on a former plantation in Beaufort County. He was never offered the chance for a formal education, so he helped his mother and father raise corn, cotton and peanuts on land that just decades before had been tended by slaves. Shortly after America entered World War I, Mr. Hodges volunteered to serve his country. Mr. Hodges was one of nearly 20,000 African-American soldiers from North Carolina, men dedicated to protecting a nation that treated them as second-class citizens at best. Military life offered no escape from the racism and segregation of civilian life, but Mr. Hodges didn't let that deter him. He served his country with distinction as a medical corpsman, ordnance technician and supplymaster. Mr. Hodges even became friends with General John ``Black Jack'' Pershing, commander of the U.S. Allied Expeditionary Force. Following his service, he returned home to his mother and father's farm. He married Malinda, and despite the economic hard times, the two eventually saved enough money to buy their own land and build a home in Stonewall. He and Malinda had eight children. Sadly, after more than 50 years of marriage, Malinda died in 1997. Time has not touched his incredible spirit. In fact, if you ask him to, he can still describe his feelings at the moment he heard an orderly shout to the front lines ``The war is over!" Several years ago, a reporter covering a Veteran's Day celebration in Stonewall asked Mr. Hodges why it was so important for him to tell his story. Mr. Hodges replied because ``so many people . . . didn't get to come home.'' Mr. Hodges' story is remarkable. He overcame discrimination and prejudice and served his country with honor. He raised a loving family and has become a pillar of his church and community. I am proud to help tell his story of service and patriotism today, and I'm certain it will serve as an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for final passage of the farm bill. I want to thank Chairman Harkin for his hard work and strong leadership in getting this bill through the Senate. Not a day goes by that a North Carolina farmer doesn't call my office and tell me that he or she can't get credit with a local bank and can't make planting decisions. And you can't really fault the banks; they are reluctant to make decisions while some here try to play partisan games with farm programs. We must get this bill passed and to the conference committee. We must send a signal to our farmers and our farm lenders that their Government will provide them a safety net. But while I recognize the importance of moving this process along, I still have serious reservations about this measure and the effect the stringent payment limitations enacted here on this floor will have on my farmers. The Grassley-Dorgan amendment, which I did not support, could quite literally mean the end for many of North Carolina's farmers. Those who supported this amendment did so in an effort to rid the farm subsidy system of abuses and that's an important goal. I don't think there is a person, myself included, who would argue against ensuring millionaires aren't profiting from Government payments. So I don't question the good faith of those who offered this amendment. But if this amendment remains in the final conference report, it won't rid the system of abuses. In fact, his amendment would hurt those hard- working men and women who are trying to make a decent living on family farms. Some people like to call this amendment the ``Scottie Pippen amendment'' after the basketball player who reportedly received farm subsidies. I am sure we have all heard other stories about millionaires supposedly profiting off of this system. But I want to tell you a story about the real impact of this amendment. Kenneth is a cotton farmer in North Carolina. It costs about $475 an acre to grow cotton in North Carolina, and this year the price was roughly 36 cents per pound. For Kenneth, that meant he lost about $150 an acre--and he would be the first to tell you last year was a good year. So he got by with subsidies and his Loan Deficiency Payments. Kenneth poured almost every cent of that money back in to that farm. And if this amendment remains in the final bill, Kenneth will no longer be eligible for most of the Government's assistance programs and I suspect he wouldn't be able to survive 1 year. And if you think he should just hang it up, then what should he do for the other families who partner with him to work that farm? What do you suggests Kenneth do for the farm hands--all with families to support--who will be out of work? And let me tell you, eastern North Carolina is struggling and employment opportunities are few and far between. I am sure if you asked him, Kenneth would tell you he doesn't like receiving Government payments. I don't want him to have to give up his farm because we here passed an amendment with unintentional consequences. Talk to my farmers. Talk to the dozens of people who are calling my office every hour scared to death that if this amendment remains in the final conference report, they'll be put out of business. They will tell you the reality. And not a single one of them is a rich, corporate farmer. They are the salt of the earth, hardworking men and women who want to make a decent living on their land. None of us wants wealthy people to profit from farm subsidies. But payment limitations and gross income caps don't prevent millionaire athletes from profiting from farm subsidies; they punish families with massive debt and not a penny of cash flow, no matter what they are worth on paper. I urge the conferees to remove this amendment. I trust the conferees will address this problem before they send their report to the full Senate.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. president, since the horrifying events of September 11, our country's number one priority has been to secure our families against the scourge of terrorism. First, in our hearts, of course, are the men and women on the frontlines of the fight: the soldiers fighting for freedom half a world away; the firefighters and police officers in New York; the postal workers here in Washington. Those of us elected to serve in Washington have a special responsibility to protect our security. To discharge that duty, I have been working with my colleagues here in the Senate. We have made a great deal of progress, but there's a lot more work to do. After a long debate, Congress passed and the President signed important legislation, based partly on a bill I introduced, to tighten security in our airports. But we have to do more. There are several bills that I have helped author that are working their way through Congress. Two of these bills, to tighten security at seaports and to protect against bioterrorism, have already passed the Senate and are awaiting action in the House. Another bill, to tighten our border security, should reach the Senate floor soon. All three should be enacted quickly. You can be sure our enemies are not waiting for us to act. One of the greatest challenges in the struggle for security is to prepare for the next attack, not just the last one. We have seen how vicious thugs can destroy innocent life with airplanes, how they can terrorize ordinary people with biological weapons. We are responding to those threats. But what about threats whose awful consequences we haven't yet felt? Today I want to talk about one of those threats: the threat of ``cyberterrorism'', an attack against the computer networks upon which our safety and economy now depend. Computers have become a foundation of our electricity, oil, gas, water, telephones, emergency services, and banks, not to mention our national defense apparatus. Computer networks have brought extraordinary improvements in the way we live and work. We communicate more often, more quickly, more cheaply. With the push of a button in a classroom or a bedroom, our children can get more information than most libraries have ever held. Yet there is a dark side to the internet, a new set of dangers. Today, if you ask an expert quietly, he or she will tell you that cyberspace is a very vulnerable place. Terrorists could cause terrible harm. They might be able to stop all traffic on the internet. Shut down power for entire cities for extended periods. Disrupt our phones. Poison our water. Paralyze our emergency services--police, firefighters, ambulances. The list goes on. We now live in a world where a terrorist can do as much damage with a keyboard and a modem as with a gun or a bomb. Already, one hacker has broken into a computer-controlled waste management system and caused millions of gallons of raw sewage to spill into parks, rivers, and private property. You probably haven't heard about this attack because it occurred in Australia. But imagine if terrorists launched calculated, coordinated attacks on America. Our enemies are already targeting our networks. After September 11, a Pakistani group hacked into two government web services, including one at the Department of Defense, and declared a ``cyber jihad'' against the United States. Another series of attacks, known as ``Moonlight Maze,'' assaulted the Pentagon, Department of Energy, and NASA, and obtained vast quantities of technical defense research. To date, we can be thankful that these attacks have not been terribly sophisticated. But that could change soon. As the Defense Science Board recently stated, the U.S. will eventually be attached ``by a sophisticated adversary using an effective array of information warfare tools and techniques. Two choices are available: adapt before the attack or afterward.'' In addition, cybercrime is already a billion-dollar drain on our economy, a drain growing larger each year. In 1955, one survey reported that losses from FBI-reported computer crime had already reached $2 billion. Last year, the ``ILOVEYOU'' virus alone caused $8.7 billion in damage worldwide, much of it here. Cyberattacks have shut down major web sites like Yahoo! and eBay, not to mention the FBI. According to a recent survey, 85 percent of large corporations and government agencies detected computer security breaches over the prior 12 months. Two thirds suffered financial losses as a result. So the danger is clear, and the only question is how we address it. I think we need to address it in many ways. Today I want to focus on just two that are especially critical. The first is to encourage computer users to take proven measures to protect themselves. In the industry, these proven measures are known as ``best practices''--steps like using customized passwords, not the ones that come with software, or promptly installing known ``patches'' to keep intruders out. The National Academy of Sciences recently reported that cybersecurity today is far worse than what known best practices can provide. As a result, viruses have shut down tens of thousands of machines even after patches to block them were widely available. Because the password protections on some systems are so weak, intruders have taken the ``routers'' that control Internet traffic hostage. And the government is as guilty as anyone. According to the report card issued by a member of the House of Representatives, most government agencies rate between a ``D'' and an ``F'' on cybersecurity. Improving our security by implementing existing best practices is our first big task. Our second challenge is to train more researchers, teachers, and workers to fight cyberthreats. Today the private sector engages in some short-term R&D on cybersecurity. But broader research and knowledge needs aren't being met. In addition, our workforce in cybersecurity is woefully inadequate, especially in academia. Each year, American universities award Ph.D.'s in computer science to about one thousand people each year. But less than one-half of one-percent specialize in cybersecurity, and fewer still go on to train others in the discipline. As Dr. Bill Chu, Chairman of the Software and Information Systems Department at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and one of the country's leading experts on cybersecurity puts it: ``The weakest link . . . is the lack of qualified information security professionals. The majority of information technology professionals in this country have not been trained in the basics of information security. Information technology faculty in most universities do not have sufficient background to properly train students.'' As a whole, the challenge of cybersecurity is not unlike the challenge of a terrible disease like cancer. First, we have to encourage everyone to do what they can to reduce the risk of disease-- don't smoke, eat right, exercise. That is what cybersecurity ``best practices'' like changing passwords are all about. Second, we have to make sure we have got top-notch scientists working to find new medicines to prevent and fight the disease. And that is why we need more cyber teachers and researchers. To tackle these two challenges, I'm proud today to introduce two new bills that will support an intensive, $400 million cybersecurity effort over the next five years. The first bill is called the Cyberterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002. That bill's first step is to establish a new, nonprofit, nongovernment, consortium of academic and private sector experts to lay out a clear set of ``best practices'' that protect against cyberattack. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Institute for Defense Analyses, and the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology have all recommended a new, nonprofit cybersecurity consortium. Such a consortium can work closely with the private sector, unfettered by bureaucracy, in a way that all the country can see and learn from. The goals of the consortium are simple: first, the establishment of ``best practices'' that are tailored to different computer systems and needs; second, the widest possible dissemination of those practices; and third, long-term, multi-disciplinary research on cybersecurity- research that isn't occurring now. The second part of the Cyberterrorism Preparedness Act will implement ``best practices'' for government systems. The government has a duty to lead by example, something we aren't doing right now. And so, within 6 months after this Act passed, the National Institute of Standards and Technology would immediately begin the process of implementing best practices for government agencies, beginning with small-scale tests and concluding with government-wide adoption of the recommended best practices. The last part of my bill will assess the issue of best practices for the private sector. While the bill doesn't impose new mandates beyond the government, it does require careful consideration of how to encourage the widest possible use of known best practices. There's a particular focus on entities that do business with the Federal Government as grantees or contractors. Government agencies should not be exposed to security vulnerabilities in the products supplied by these companies. And Federal dollars should not be flowing to firms that expose America to cyberterrorism. So the new consortium would be required to study whether and how government could condition grants and contracts on the adoption of cybersecurity best practices. The President is authorized to implement recommendations from that study. The Cyberterrorism Preparedness Act will address the first goal of cybersecurity--making sure we're taking the steps we already know to improve our security. The second bill I am introducing today--the Cybersecurity Research and Education Act--focuses on our second task: ``training the trainers'' and increasing the number of researchers, teachers, and workers committed to cybersecurity. First, the bill establishes a Cybersecurity Graduate Fellowship Program at the National Science Foundation. Individuals selected to participate in the program will receive a loan that covers the full tuition and fees as well as a living stipend for 4 years of doctoral study. Upon graduation, these loans will be forgiven at 20 percent per year for each year that the individual teaches at a college or university. After only 5 years of teaching, the entire loan will be paid off. That way, we can ensure that the money we invest in these promising young scientists will be used to train others interested in cybersecurity. Second, my bill also establishes a competitive sabbatical for Distinguished Faculty in Cybersecurity. Under the program, a qualified faculty member will receive a stipend to spend a year working and researching at the Department of Defense, a university specializing in cybersecurity, or some other appropriate facility. Universities sending faculty on sabbatical will receive funding to hire a temporary replacement instructor. In addition, when the faculty member returns, the university will get a generous grant to enhance its cybersecurity infrastructure needs. For example, the university could purchase advanced computing equipment and hire graduate research assistants. Participants in this program will have a unique opportunity to engage in cutting-edge research with some of the best minds in the country. When they return to their schools, these faculty will be even better equipped to advance the state of cybersecurity education. Third, this bill will create a Cybersecurity Awareness, Training, and Education Program at the National Security Agency. NSA has a strong history of supporting cybersecurity education, as exemplified through initiatives such as the Centers of Excellence program and the National Colloquium for Information Systems Security Education. The program I propose would build on NSA's expertise and would enable the agency to make grants to universities specializing in cybersecurity. The grants could be used for projects like teaching basic computer security to K- 12 teachers, or for the development of a ``virtual university.'' Students who don't have access to nearby course offerings would then be able to take cybersecurity classes online. All of these programs are critical in our fight against cyberterrorism. A strong and vibrant academic community is essential for building the trained workforce of tomorrow. We must be committed to funding long-term research. And we must vigilantly maintain basic cybersecurity protections in government, while promoting them in the private sector. When it comes to the threat of a sophisticated, coordinated cyberterrorist attack, the question most likely is not whether such an attack will come. The question is when. And so we must be prepared to fight against a ``cyberjihad,'' and we must be prepared to win. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. president, since the horrifying events of September 11, our country's number one priority has been to secure our families against the scourge of terrorism. First, in our hearts, of course, are the men and women on the frontlines of the fight: the soldiers fighting for freedom half a world away; the firefighters and police officers in New York; the postal workers here in Washington. Those of us elected to serve in Washington have a special responsibility to protect our security. To discharge that duty, I have been working with my colleagues here in the Senate. We have made a great deal of progress, but there's a lot more work to do. After a long debate, Congress passed and the President signed important legislation, based partly on a bill I introduced, to tighten security in our airports. But we have to do more. There are several bills that I have helped author that are working their way through Congress. Two of these bills, to tighten security at seaports and to protect against bioterrorism, have already passed the Senate and are awaiting action in the House. Another bill, to tighten our border security, should reach the Senate floor soon. All three should be enacted quickly. You can be sure our enemies are not waiting for us to act. One of the greatest challenges in the struggle for security is to prepare for the next attack, not just the last one. We have seen how vicious thugs can destroy innocent life with airplanes, how they can terrorize ordinary people with biological weapons. We are responding to those threats. But what about threats whose awful consequences we haven't yet felt? Today I want to talk about one of those threats: the threat of ``cyberterrorism'', an attack against the computer networks upon which our safety and economy now depend. Computers have become a foundation of our electricity, oil, gas, water, telephones, emergency services, and banks, not to mention our national defense apparatus. Computer networks have brought extraordinary improvements in the way we live and work. We communicate more often, more quickly, more cheaply. With the push of a button in a classroom or a bedroom, our children can get more information than most libraries have ever held. Yet there is a dark side to the internet, a new set of dangers. Today, if you ask an expert quietly, he or she will tell you that cyberspace is a very vulnerable place. Terrorists could cause terrible harm. They might be able to stop all traffic on the internet. Shut down power for entire cities for extended periods. Disrupt our phones. Poison our water. Paralyze our emergency services--police, firefighters, ambulances. The list goes on. We now live in a world where a terrorist can do as much damage with a keyboard and a modem as with a gun or a bomb. Already, one hacker has broken into a computer-controlled waste management system and caused millions of gallons of raw sewage to spill into parks, rivers, and private property. You probably haven't heard about this attack because it occurred in Australia. But imagine if terrorists launched calculated, coordinated attacks on America. Our enemies are already targeting our networks. After September 11, a Pakistani group hacked into two government web services, including one at the Department of Defense, and declared a ``cyber jihad'' against the United States. Another series of attacks, known as ``Moonlight Maze,'' assaulted the Pentagon, Department of Energy, and NASA, and obtained vast quantities of technical defense research. To date, we can be thankful that these attacks have not been terribly sophisticated. But that could change soon. As the Defense Science Board recently stated, the U.S. will eventually be attached ``by a sophisticated adversary using an effective array of information warfare tools and techniques. Two choices are available: adapt before the attack or afterward.'' In addition, cybercrime is already a billion-dollar drain on our economy, a drain growing larger each year. In 1955, one survey reported that losses from FBI-reported computer crime had already reached $2 billion. Last year, the ``ILOVEYOU'' virus alone caused $8.7 billion in damage worldwide, much of it here. Cyberattacks have shut down major web sites like Yahoo! and eBay, not to mention the FBI. According to a recent survey, 85 percent of large corporations and government agencies detected computer security breaches over the prior 12 months. Two thirds suffered financial losses as a result. So the danger is clear, and the only question is how we address it. I think we need to address it in many ways. Today I want to focus on just two that are especially critical. The first is to encourage computer users to take proven measures to protect themselves. In the industry, these proven measures are known as ``best practices''--steps like using customized passwords, not the ones that come with software, or promptly installing known ``patches'' to keep intruders out. The National Academy of Sciences recently reported that cybersecurity today is far worse than what known best practices can provide. As a result, viruses have shut down tens of thousands of machines even after patches to block them were widely available. Because the password protections on some systems are so weak, intruders have taken the ``routers'' that control Internet traffic hostage. And the government is as guilty as anyone. According to the report card issued by a member of the House of Representatives, most government agencies rate between a ``D'' and an ``F'' on cybersecurity. Improving our security by implementing existing best practices is our first big task. Our second challenge is to train more researchers, teachers, and workers to fight cyberthreats. Today the private sector engages in some short-term R&D on cybersecurity. But broader research and knowledge needs aren't being met. In addition, our workforce in cybersecurity is woefully inadequate, especially in academia. Each year, American universities award Ph.D.'s in computer science to about one thousand people each year. But less than one-half of one-percent specialize in cybersecurity, and fewer still go on to train others in the discipline. As Dr. Bill Chu, Chairman of the Software and Information Systems Department at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and one of the country's leading experts on cybersecurity puts it: ``The weakest link . . . is the lack of qualified information security professionals. The majority of information technology professionals in this country have not been trained in the basics of information security. Information technology faculty in most universities do not have sufficient background to properly train students.'' As a whole, the challenge of cybersecurity is not unlike the challenge of a terrible disease like cancer. First, we have to encourage everyone to do what they can to reduce the risk of disease-- don't smoke, eat right, exercise. That is what cybersecurity ``best practices'' like changing passwords are all about. Second, we have to make sure we have got top-notch scientists working to find new medicines to prevent and fight the disease. And that is why we need more cyber teachers and researchers. To tackle these two challenges, I'm proud today to introduce two new bills that will support an intensive, $400 million cybersecurity effort over the next five years. The first bill is called the Cyberterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002. That bill's first step is to establish a new, nonprofit, nongovernment, consortium of academic and private sector experts to lay out a clear set of ``best practices'' that protect against cyberattack. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Institute for Defense Analyses, and the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology have all recommended a new, nonprofit cybersecurity consortium. Such a consortium can work closely with the private sector, unfettered by bureaucracy, in a way that all the country can see and learn from. The goals of the consortium are simple: first, the establishment of ``best practices'' that are tailored to different computer systems and needs; second, the widest possible dissemination of those practices; and third, long-term, multi-disciplinary research on cybersecurity- research that isn't occurring now. The second part of the Cyberterrorism Preparedness Act will implement ``best practices'' for government systems. The government has a duty to lead by example, something we aren't doing right now. And so, within 6 months after this Act passed, the National Institute of Standards and Technology would immediately begin the process of implementing best practices for government agencies, beginning with small-scale tests and concluding with government-wide adoption of the recommended best practices. The last part of my bill will assess the issue of best practices for the private sector. While the bill doesn't impose new mandates beyond the government, it does require careful consideration of how to encourage the widest possible use of known best practices. There's a particular focus on entities that do business with the Federal Government as grantees or contractors. Government agencies should not be exposed to security vulnerabilities in the products supplied by these companies. And Federal dollars should not be flowing to firms that expose America to cyberterrorism. So the new consortium would be required to study whether and how government could condition grants and contracts on the adoption of cybersecurity best practices. The President is authorized to implement recommendations from that study. The Cyberterrorism Preparedness Act will address the first goal of cybersecurity--making sure we're taking the steps we already know to improve our security. The second bill I am introducing today--the Cybersecurity Research and Education Act--focuses on our second task: ``training the trainers'' and increasing the number of researchers, teachers, and workers committed to cybersecurity. First, the bill establishes a Cybersecurity Graduate Fellowship Program at the National Science Foundation. Individuals selected to participate in the program will receive a loan that covers the full tuition and fees as well as a living stipend for 4 years of doctoral study. Upon graduation, these loans will be forgiven at 20 percent per year for each year that the individual teaches at a college or university. After only 5 years of teaching, the entire loan will be paid off. That way, we can ensure that the money we invest in these promising young scientists will be used to train others interested in cybersecurity. Second, my bill also establishes a competitive sabbatical for Distinguished Faculty in Cybersecurity. Under the program, a qualified faculty member will receive a stipend to spend a year working and researching at the Department of Defense, a university specializing in cybersecurity, or some other appropriate facility. Universities sending faculty on sabbatical will receive funding to hire a temporary replacement instructor. In addition, when the faculty member returns, the university will get a generous grant to enhance its cybersecurity infrastructure needs. For example, the university could purchase advanced computing equipment and hire graduate research assistants. Participants in this program will have a unique opportunity to engage in cutting-edge research with some of the best minds in the country. When they return to their schools, these faculty will be even better equipped to advance the state of cybersecurity education. Third, this bill will create a Cybersecurity Awareness, Training, and Education Program at the National Security Agency. NSA has a strong history of supporting cybersecurity education, as exemplified through initiatives such as the Centers of Excellence program and the National Colloquium for Information Systems Security Education. The program I propose would build on NSA's expertise and would enable the agency to make grants to universities specializing in cybersecurity. The grants could be used for projects like teaching basic computer security to K- 12 teachers, or for the development of a ``virtual university.'' Students who don't have access to nearby course offerings would then be able to take cybersecurity classes online. All of these programs are critical in our fight against cyberterrorism. A strong and vibrant academic community is essential for building the trained workforce of tomorrow. We must be committed to funding long-term research. And we must vigilantly maintain basic cybersecurity protections in government, while promoting them in the private sector. When it comes to the threat of a sophisticated, coordinated cyberterrorist attack, the question most likely is not whether such an attack will come. The question is when. And so we must be prepared to fight against a ``cyberjihad,'' and we must be prepared to win. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001 and to speak about the need to protect our seaports from terrorist attacks. Our seaports are critically important to our national, and global, economy. Our seaports enable us to export our goods to the rest of the world and allow us to import the goods we do not produce domestically. Ninety-five percent of all U.S. overseas trade is conducted through our 361 public seaports. Roughly 45,000 cargo containers enter the U.S. every day. Our seaports are also an important component of our national security. In the interest of promoting trade, we accept increasing traffic in and around our seaports as ships, crew and cargo move goods between our nation and others. Yet even as we do this, we must recognize that the very volume of cargo moving through our seaports makes it difficult to adequately guard against a potential terrorist attack. Traditionally, our seaports are viewed as highly vulnerable targets for terrorist attacks. They are open spaces, full of traffic, and difficult to monitor. Yet an attack against one of our larger seaports could dramatically impact our domestic economy by destroying cargo, eliminating jobs, and shutting off trading routes to other shippers. Unfortunately, we have let our guard down with respect to our seaports by failing to adequately address the potential for a terrorist attack. We know how important our seaports are to our national and global economy, yet at best, inspectors are able to examine only about two percent of the cargo that passes through our seaports. This means that the vast majority of cargo entering our seaports is not inspected before the containers are allowed to move throughout the country. We can, and must, do better. We must improve the quality of and deployment of detection technology and we must make sure that those who guard our seaports are equipped to prevent an attack. We have technology that scans containers to look for suspicious materials and shipments. It is in place right now, but not at all our seaports and not even at all of the largest seaports. We need to expand the deployment of this type of technology, and make sure all our seaports are equipped with the best available scanning technology. We must also make sure that the Coast Guard has the manpower and equipment it needs to protect our coast and ports and to respond in the event of an attack. I am so pleased that we are passing the Port Security Bill. This is an extremely important piece of legislation and an important component of our national defense. I would like to take this moment to thank Chairman Hollings for working with me on several amendments I had to this important bill. When the Commerce Committee held hearings on port security back in July, I raised several issues with the witnesses about the security of our ports and the ability to protect against a possible terrorist threat. I have been working since then to develop legislation to address some of the concerns I had that were confirmed at the hearing. When the Commerce Committee marked up its port security bill in early August, I received assurances from Chairman Hollings that we would continue to work to make sure my concerns were addressed when the bill came to the Senate floor. At that time, we of course had no idea that our country was only a month away from such a horrendous terrorist attack. But I am pleased that we are now taking up this bill. It will make our seaports and our nation safer. And I want to again thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for working with me on these amendments and for including them in the final bill. Specifically, these amendments will: improve our ability to safely handle cargo entering our country; provide the Coast Guard with additional anti-terrorism resources to protect domestic ports; and provide for the most modern security technology to be deployed in seaports. My first amendment is an anti-tampering amendment that will ensure that the cargo we accept in our country has not been altered or interfered with. The amendment improves port security by allowing Customs to work with ocean shippers to better coordinate the tracking of cargo in our ports and across our country. It will improve security by enabling Customs to better assist shippers in preventing cargo tampering and cargo theft. It will also improve security by enabling Customs to track containers as they move cross-country to ensure that they are not diverted for criminal or terrorist purposes. My second amendment establishes Port and Maritime Security Teams, teams of Coast Guard personnel with training in anti-terrorism, drug interdiction, and navigation assistance. These units will operate high- speed boats that are equipped to patrol our coastal waters and respond immediately to terrorist or other criminal threats to our coast and seaports. Similar teams are already used to protect U.S. vessels in foreign ports, my amendment brings them to our domestic defense. My final amendment will ensure that the best available technology is deployed in our seaports to improve security, identify threats, and prevent terrorist attacks. The grant program would cover technologies to deal with such security risks as: explosives, firearms, weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, drug and illegal alien smuggling, and trade fraud. This amendment is so important, because the type of cargo and containers that move through seaports are entirely different than what moves through our airports, and we need to make sure we are developing technology that recognizes those differences. Only about 2 percent of the cargo entering our seaports is inspected, without better technology, we are leaving ourselves too vulnerable to those who would exploit our seaports for terrorist or criminal activity. Again, I would like to express my thanks to Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain for helping make sure that these amendments were included in the final bill and for making sure that we take aggressive action to protect our seaports. Amendment No. 2690

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, after many months of hard work we have before us today an education bill that represents a quantum leap forward for America's children. We have come together in a common- sense, bipartisan way and we should be proud of the progress we've made. The bill is a strong one, and I commend my colleagues for recognizing that a quality public education is not a conservative or liberal goal. The education debate in Washington has too often broken down along stale ideological lines. With this bill, we are moving beyond the false choice of greater investment versus stricter accountability. We've struck the right balance by both giving more to our schools and expecting more in return. This bill increases investment in our schools, gives new flexibility to principals and superintendents, encourages high standards for all children, and holds schools accountable for their performance. Every child in America has a right to a world-class education. This bill enacts the reforms and provides the resources necessary to make this right a reality. My State of North Carolina has much to offer in this debate about national education reform. Since coming to the Senate, I've tried to bring some of North Carolina's successes to the rest of the Nation. I am grateful that the final bill includes a provision which I introduced that will allow States to try out a very simple plan we have implemented with great success in North Carolina. Here's how our program works: immediately after we learn that a school is in trouble, we appoint a specially-trained Assistance Team composed of experienced educators and administrators who are dedicated to a clear and specific goal: helping that school get back on track. The team begins with an intensive review of school operations to find out what works and what doesn't work. Then the team evaluates all of the school's personnel; finally, the team works with the school staff and local boards of education to make the changes necessary to restore educational quality, to improve student performance, basically, to turn the school around. It's a simple idea, but sometimes simple ideas can lead to dramatic results, and it has worked in North Carolina. Now other States will also have this same tool in their reform arsenal. I must confess that I am disappointed that some of our Republican colleagues rejected the proposal by Senators Harkin and Hagel to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. For almost three decades, the Federal Government has failed to live up to its promise to pay 40 percent of special education costs at the local level. The Senate approved an eminently reasonable, bipartisan proposal to make good on this promise. I regret that this long-overdue provision is not included in the final bill. For all the progress we have made, my hope is that this bill will only be the beginning of our conversation about education reform. It will take time to learn whether the changes we are making will work and whether the resources we are providing are adequate. We must commit to reviewing these issues periodically and consistently as the consequences of reform become clearer. Today we take an important first step towards a fundamental reform of American education. But it is only a first step. Even as we approve a strong bipartisan bill, we must commit ourselves to doing all that we can for America's children in the months and years to come.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today we are commemorating the anniversary of a despicable act against our country and against our people. We all pay tribute to those who died on September 11. At the same time, we salute those defending freedom today at home and halfway across the globe. War brings out the best in America. The soldiers who stormed Omaha Beach are still our heroes. The firefighters who marched into the World Trade Center will be our grandchildren's heroes. But the heat of battle and the crush of necessity can also bring out America's worst, especially here at home. And that is the risk I want to talk about today. During World War II, one of our greatest Presidents authorized the internment of more than 100,000 innocent people, mostly United States citizens, simply on account of their ancestry. Today, we are ashamed of that episode. And we are resolved that our actions should make our grandchildren proud, not ashamed. President Bush himself has expressed that resolve. In his speech to the Congress on September 20, he said something that was very important. He said: We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. That is exactly right. One of our principles is vigorous debate. I was saddened when the Attorney General of the United States last week said that unidentified critics ``aid terrorists'' and ``give ammunition to America's enemies.'' Mr. Ashcroft did not offer any evidence that terrorists benefit when Americans speak their mind. In our American tradition, it is the responsibility of leaders to promote the free exchange of ideas, not stifle them. That responsibility carries over from peacetime to wartime. We don't encourage different ideas because we owe it to critics. We encourage different ideas because we owe it to ourselves. Robust debate has made America stronger for more than 200 years. It is only because of open debate that we have a legal right to speak our minds at all. The way the Constitution was initially drafted back in 1787, there was no guarantee for free speech. There was no protection for religious freedom, for privacy, for individual liberty, for so many rights all Americans now take for granted. The original Constitution contained no Bill of Rights. Without a Bill of Rights, many veterans of the American Revolution furiously opposed the original Constitution. My State of North Carolina flatly rejected it. The first Congress approved the Bill of Rights only after those patriots spoke their minds, spoke up and demanded it. Today, we are all grateful for their speaking their minds, for their patriotism that has meant so much to many Americans who followed. A few years later, in the late 1790s, our Nation was on the brink of war. The French Government was torturing American soldiers and seizing American ships. At that point, an enraged Congress passed a sedition act criminalizing ``scandalous'' writing ``against the Government.'' Chief among the opponents of that legislation was Vice President Thomas Jefferson. As he put it, the country's critics should be allowed to ``stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.'' Closer to today, President Richard Nixon moved to expand the Subversive Activities Control Board's oversight of political protests during the Vietnam war. Sam Ervin, whose seat in the Senate I now hold, supported that war. But he challenged President Nixon's proposal. What he said on the floor echoed Jefferson: Our country has nothing to fear from the exercise of its freedoms as long as it leaves truth free to combat error. I believe that is still true today. Like the vast majority of Americans, I strongly support America's war on terrorism overseas. Unlike some, I also support much of the administration's law enforcement effort here at home. We live in a new world after September 11. We simply must take steps that we would not have accepted 3 months ago. I also believe that vigorously discussing each of those steps strengthens our war effort. Thanks to the courage and skill of our soldiers, we will win this war against al-Qaida. But there is a totally different question whether we will win the war for the minds and hearts of those around the world. I believe we will do that if we hold true to our values--values such as justice, fairness, and the rule of law. Those are the values that make America the beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. And nothing reminds us of our values like open discussion. The debate over military tribunals is a perfect example. The order of November 30 that authorized tribunals came with very little explanation. Many Americans, including many past Federal prosecutors, asked why our ordinary criminal justice system was not adequate. The administration responded with a much more detailed explanation for their action. That explanation built broad support for the use of tribunals in very narrow circumstances. In fact, I support the use of military tribunals under the right circumstances. But even since that exchange, serious questions remained about the gap between the specific terms of the order and basic norms of fairness that Americans share and believe in deeply. In answer to some of the questions last Thursday, Attorney General Ashcroft was able to clarify that many things apparently allowed on the face of the order will not happen. For example, secret trials, indefinite detentions, executive reversal of acquittals by the military tribunals. Mr. Ashcroft could not rule out other disturbing possibilities. Could a lawful resident in this country be convicted and sentenced to death by a tribunal on a 2-to-1 vote? Could it happen under a burden of proof requiring only a 51-percent likelihood of guilt; that is, a lawful resident of this country being convicted and receiving the death penalty on 51 percent of the evidence? And could it happen without an independent review to see whether there was evidence that should have been admitted that was not admitted, evidence that would have shown that this particular defendant did not commit the crime? Members of Congress and members of the general public have much more than a right to raise those questions. We have a responsibility to raise those questions. The give and take over military tribunals hardly helps terrorists. I believe that it undercuts America's enemies, for open exchange ensures that our actions reflect our commitments. It signals that a great nation fears nothing from peaceful debate. We should welcome that debate. It is a proud, necessary tradition, both in peace and in war. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Punishing Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2001. In the days since September 11, all of us have learned that anthrax hoaxes are no joking matter. They are acts of terror in the true sense of the word because they inflict great fear and anxiety on innocent people. In addition, these hoaxes drain resources from police and emergency workers--resources desperately needed not only for the real war on terror, but for all of the ordinary emergencies that continue to arise every single day. According to recent reports, there have been some 160 anthrax and other terrorism hoaxes since September 11. In Connecticut, one hoax triggered the evacuation of 800 government employees for two days. Hoaxes in Virginia and Oregon have shut down post offices. In my State of North Carolina, from Greensboro to Chapel Hill, hoaxes have targeted and terrified workers at family planning medical clinics--workers who already must live with death threats day in and day out. I have spoken with law enforcement officials in North Carolina who believe we need new Federal legislation specifically to fight hoaxes. At a hearing of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information earlier this week, officials from the Bush Administration requested that legislation. In response to several questions that I asked, they articulated the very real need: Current law prohibits terrorist ``threats,'' but terrorism hoaxes may not always be viewed as threats because the people perpetrating the hoaxes are not able and do not intend to carry out actual terrorist acts. Yet these hoaxes must be punished. The legislation I propose builds on proposals by other Senators on both sides of the aisle, including Senator Leahy, Senators Biden and Hatch, and Senators Schumer and DeWine. There are two things that distinguish the legislation I propose, and I want to highlight those. First, my proposal includes ``findings'' about the need for this legislation. In recent decisions holding that Federal laws are not proper exercises of Congress's ``commerce clause'' power and therefore are not constitutional, the Supreme Court has said that ``findings'' about a real Federal need are important. Although I don't agree with those recent cases, I want to do everything I can to make sure this statute is upheld in the courts. The addition of findings is one way to do that while still enacting the ban we need. Second, my proposal establishes two Federal hoax crimes, not just one. All persons who perpetrate hoaxes are punishable by up to two years in prison. In addition, persons who perpetrate hoaxes with intent to cause fear, in a manner reasonably likely to cause an emergency response, are punishable by up to five years in prison. The line we are drawing is a line between people who really and truly think they are ``just joking'' and people who want to terrorize others. Both kinds of hoaxes should be felony crimes. And the person who wants to inflict fear deserves a stiffer sentence than the person who does not. That is a line we regularly draw in the criminal law. We punish people with evil motives more than people who are reckless or stupid. Federal law makes that distinction in the Bomb Hoax Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 35, which sets up a lesser offense requiring no criminal intent, and a greater offense requiring that the perpetrator act ``maliciously.'' I ask the Congress to enact the Punishing Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2001. And whether we enact this legislation or one of my colleagues' proposals, I ask the Congress to enact an anti-hoax bill before we go out of session. We owe it to police officers, public health officials, and the American people.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Punishing Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2001. In the days since September 11, all of us have learned that anthrax hoaxes are no joking matter. They are acts of terror in the true sense of the word because they inflict great fear and anxiety on innocent people. In addition, these hoaxes drain resources from police and emergency workers--resources desperately needed not only for the real war on terror, but for all of the ordinary emergencies that continue to arise every single day. According to recent reports, there have been some 160 anthrax and other terrorism hoaxes since September 11. In Connecticut, one hoax triggered the evacuation of 800 government employees for two days. Hoaxes in Virginia and Oregon have shut down post offices. In my State of North Carolina, from Greensboro to Chapel Hill, hoaxes have targeted and terrified workers at family planning medical clinics--workers who already must live with death threats day in and day out. I have spoken with law enforcement officials in North Carolina who believe we need new Federal legislation specifically to fight hoaxes. At a hearing of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information earlier this week, officials from the Bush Administration requested that legislation. In response to several questions that I asked, they articulated the very real need: Current law prohibits terrorist ``threats,'' but terrorism hoaxes may not always be viewed as threats because the people perpetrating the hoaxes are not able and do not intend to carry out actual terrorist acts. Yet these hoaxes must be punished. The legislation I propose builds on proposals by other Senators on both sides of the aisle, including Senator Leahy, Senators Biden and Hatch, and Senators Schumer and DeWine. There are two things that distinguish the legislation I propose, and I want to highlight those. First, my proposal includes ``findings'' about the need for this legislation. In recent decisions holding that Federal laws are not proper exercises of Congress's ``commerce clause'' power and therefore are not constitutional, the Supreme Court has said that ``findings'' about a real Federal need are important. Although I don't agree with those recent cases, I want to do everything I can to make sure this statute is upheld in the courts. The addition of findings is one way to do that while still enacting the ban we need. Second, my proposal establishes two Federal hoax crimes, not just one. All persons who perpetrate hoaxes are punishable by up to two years in prison. In addition, persons who perpetrate hoaxes with intent to cause fear, in a manner reasonably likely to cause an emergency response, are punishable by up to five years in prison. The line we are drawing is a line between people who really and truly think they are ``just joking'' and people who want to terrorize others. Both kinds of hoaxes should be felony crimes. And the person who wants to inflict fear deserves a stiffer sentence than the person who does not. That is a line we regularly draw in the criminal law. We punish people with evil motives more than people who are reckless or stupid. Federal law makes that distinction in the Bomb Hoax Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 35, which sets up a lesser offense requiring no criminal intent, and a greater offense requiring that the perpetrator act ``maliciously.'' I ask the Congress to enact the Punishing Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2001. And whether we enact this legislation or one of my colleagues' proposals, I ask the Congress to enact an anti-hoax bill before we go out of session. We owe it to police officers, public health officials, and the American people.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, this is not a complicated question. The American people have watched as these firefighters have put their lives on the line for us. They have provided all of us, all of our families, and families all over this country, with the security we need and expect. Now these firefighters have come to us, the Senate, and asked that we provide them and their families with the same kind of security American workers have all over this country. This is not a complicated question. It is a simple question. The American people have watched the heroism of these firefighters. It is time for our Senate to provide them with the same kind of security they have been providing to American families forever. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, Senator Helms and I are excited about the alternative uses of animal waste products, and I appreciate the attention this issue is receiving from the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. There has been a great deal of attention paid to the problems associated with animal waste, but very little has been said about the work taking place in the private sector and our research educational institutions to try and deal with this problem. I agree that there is reason to be optimistic that technological advances will yield innovative solutions that will benefit poultry and swine producers, the environment, and ultimately, energy consumers. We will look forward to continuing to support additional research into alternative animal waste uses, and I appreciate the interest of the managers.