John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, at 8:48 a.m. on September 11, 2001, America lost one of its finest citizens, one of the many who gave their lives in the senseless acts of terror visited upon our country that day. His name is Karleton Douglas Beye Fyfe, and he deserves to be remembered. He died aboard American Airlines Flight 11, scheduled to fly from Boston to Los Angeles. He died at the age of 31 in the service of his family, of his profession and of his country. He died among the very first victims of this tragedy which has so unsettled our Nation. He would have had strong views about the aftermath of this tragedy, and he would not have been shy about expressing them. Mr. Fyfe's loss leaves his many survivors devastated. He was a devoted father and loving son, a constant husband and loyal friend, an outstanding student and solid professional. Mr. Fyfe grew up in North Carolina and attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he majored in economics and philosophy. At Chapel Hill, Mr. Fyfe's lightning intellect flourished; he was equally at home both inside and outside his chosen disciplines. His instructors describe Karleton as a prodigy, the kind of student who makes teaching exciting, rewarding, and easy. Mr. Fyfe served his family and his country as a successful member of America's financial community in Boston, working as an analyst with Fidelity Investments for eight years before joining John Hancock as a telecom analyst in January. As a financial analyst, he would tell his friends of the seriousness with which he took his important work: ``These are people's lives'' is how he would describe the retirement accounts in his care. Mr. Fyfe's family and friends all remember his unique, disarming sense of humor, a quality he used to overcome awkward moments and often to make a point. He died, and his voice has been silenced, but those who had the honor of knowing Karleton are certain that he would have views about his country's reaction to the horror that took his life. A close friend imagined that Karleton might say: ``If you must go to war, be sure somebody is in charge of protecting the innocent. Make sure that our country emerges from this enterprise having improved the condition of all the women and children it will inevitably affect.'' Let us take a moment to hear those words. If he thought they could be heard in this forum, Mr. Fyfe would have been glad to give his life in the service of his family, his profession, his country, and the innocent. I ask consent that two important insertions into the Record be in order. The first will be the text of Mr. Fyfe's death notice as published in the Raleigh News and Observer on Thursday, September 13, 2001; it reiterates the profound loss suffered by his family and friends, and it emphasizes the message, which must emerge from his death, of protecting the innocents. The second is an account of Mr. Fyfe's character, friendship, and sense of humor, written by his dear friend, Ric Schellhorn, as published in the Raleigh News and Observer on Tuesday, September 18, 2001; it characterizes Karleton's humanity and humor as only a best friend can. I now ask consent, that the two documents be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1510, the Uniting and Strengthening America Act. In the aftermath of September 11, we face two difficult and delicate tasks: to strengthen our security in order to prevent future terrorist attacks, and at the same time, to safeguard the individual liberties that make America a beacon of freedom to all the world. I believe that when the President signs this anti-terrorism legislation into law, we will have achieved those two goals as best we now can. The act is a far-reaching bill. I will mention just a few key aspects of that bill. First, the legislation brings our surveillance laws into the 21st century. Here are two of many examples. Under current law, the FBI can use a basic search warrant to access answering machine messages, but the FBI needs a different kind of warrant to get to voice mail. This law says the FBI can use a traditional warrant for both. Another example: Under current law, a Federal court can authorize many electronic surveillance warrants only within the court's limited jurisdiction. If the target of the investigation is in the judge's jurisdiction, but the subject of the warrant is technically an internet service provider located elsewhere, the warrant is no good as to that ISP. This bill allows the court overseeing an investigation to issue valid warrants nationwide. Second, the act gives law enforcement officers and the foreign intelligence community the ability to share intelligence information with each other in defined contexts. For example, the act says that under specified conditions, the FBI may share wiretap and grand jury information related to foreign- and counter-intelligence. I appreciate concerns that this information-sharing authority could be abused. Like Chairman Leahy, I would have preferred to see greater judicial oversight of these data exchanges. But I also believe we simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing. Third, the act enhances intelligence authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). When I met with FBI agents in North Carolina shortly after September 11, they told me their number one priority was to streamline the FISA process. We've done that. We've said, for example, that the renewal periods of certain key FISA orders may be longer than the initial periods. This makes sure the FBI can focus on investigations, not duplicative court applications. A more controversial change concerns the purpose of FISA surveillance. Under current law, a FISA wiretap order may only enter if the primary purpose of the surveillance is foreign intelligence gathering. The administration initially proposed changing the ``primary purpose'' requirement to a requirement of ``a purpose,'' any foreign intelligence purpose. At a recent Intelligence Committee hearing, I was one of several Senators to raise constitutional questions about the Administration's initial proposal. The last thing we want is to see FISA investigations lost, and convictions overturned, because the surveillance is not constitutional. S. 1510 says that FISA surveillance requires not just ``a purpose,'' but ``a significant purpose,'' of foreign intelligence gathering. That new language is a substantial improvement that I support. In applying this ``significant purpose'' requirement, the FISA court will still need to be careful to enter FISA orders only when the requirements of the Constitution as well as the statute are satisfied. As the Department of Justice has stated in its letter regarding the proposed FISA change, the FISA court has ``an obligation,'' whatever the statutory standard, ``to reject FISA applications that do not truly qualify'' as constitutional. I anticipate continued close congressional oversight and inquiry in this area. A forth step taken by this legislation is to triple the number of Border Patrol, INS inspectors, and Customs Service agents along our 4,000-mile northern border. Today there are just 300 border patrol agents to guard those 4,000 miles. Orange cones are too often our only defenses against illegal entries. This bill will change that. Fifth, the bill expedites the hiring of translators by the FBI. It is unthinkable that our law enforcement agents could have critical raw intelligence that they simply cannot understand because they do not know the relevant language. This statute will help to change that state of affairs. Finally, the bill makes the criminal law tougher on terrorists. We make it a crime to possess a biological agent or toxin in an amount with no reasonable, peaceful purpose, a crime to harbor a terrorist, a crime to provide material support to terrorism. And we say that when you commit a crime of terrorism, you can be prosecuted for that crime for the rest of your life, with no limitations period. Statutes of limitations guarantee what lawyers call ``repose.'' Terrorists deserve no repose. As Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch have both said, this legislation is not perfect, and the House-Senate Conference may yet make improvements. For example, the Conference might clarify that, as to aliens detained as national security threats, the law will secure the due process protections and judicial review required by the Constitution and by the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis and INS v. St. Cyr. The Conference might also sensibly include a sunset of the new surveillance authorities, ensuring that Congress will reconsider this bill's provisions, which touch such cherished liberties, in light of further experience and reflection. The bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill, it is important for the Nation, and I am pleased to support it.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, in July of this year, Governor Mike Easley of my State of North Carolina, issued a proclamation designating the week of October 21-27, 2001 as ``World Population Awareness Week.'' The proclamation draws attention to the serious issues associated with rapid population growth and urbanization, including infrastructure, pollution, transportation, health, sanitation, and public safety problems. I join Governor Easley in his recognition of World Population Awareness Week. I ask unanimous consent to have his proclamation printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great North Carolinian, General Hugh Shelton. Since 1997, General Shelton has served our nation well as the 14th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But the men and women stationed in my State benefitted from his leadership long before he was confirmed as Chairman. Early in his career, General Shelton commanded the 1st Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC. In 1989, he began a two-year assignment as Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 101st Airborne Division-Air Assault. That tour included a seven-month deployment to Saudi Arabia for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. When he returned from the Gulf, he was promoted to major general and returned home to assume command of the 82nd Airborne Division stationed at Fort Bragg. In 1997, the Senate confirmed his nomination to chairman, making him the first Green Beret to command our military. The Senate reconfirmed him in 1999. For 38 years, General Shelton has served his country honorably. He has received the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal with V device as well as the Purple Heart. Among other honors, he also earned the Master Parachutist Badge, the Air Assault Badge, the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Military Freefall Badge. And in a ceremony today at the Pentagon, the general will receive his fourth Defense Distinguished Service Medal. He is a native of Tarborro and a graduate of North Carolina State University. He and his wife Carolyn have three sons. The Sheltons' children have followed their father's example of service to the country--his son Jonathan is a special agent for the U.S. Secret Service and his son Jeffrey is a U.S. Army Special Operations soldier. These are uncertain and difficult times for our Nation. And, true to his dedication as a soldier in the U.S. Army, General Shelton admitted to being reluctant about retiring now. In fact, last week, the general said ``I feel like the quarterback of a football team that went out on the field and he's behind by one touchdown but he knows his team's going to come through and win. But you're in the first quarter and all of a sudden the coach sends a player out to tell you your eligibility just expired.'' But as General Shelton must surely know, his retirement does not end the tremendous influence he has had on our military and the defense of this nation. His work will live for years to come. I am so grateful to call him my friend, and North Carolina is proud to call him our son.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges facing the criminal justice system is the question of how we ensure that convicted criminals do not repeat their crimes when they are released from prison. In my State of North Carolina, there are laws that attempt to address this issue in order to make our communities safer places to live and work. These laws require sex offenders to register with law enforcement whenever they move into a new county in the State, and require law enforcement agencies to locate and arrest sex offenders who fail to comply with any part of the registration laws. The establishment of a Sex Offender Registration Unit at the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office will enable the Sheriff to keep better track of offenders that move into the County, and to identify sex offenders who do not comply with registration laws. Funding for the Unit is critical toward ensuring that our communities are kept safe from individuals who intend to repeat their crimes and prey on some of the most vulnerable members of our society--our children. I greatly appreciate the support of Senators Hollings and Gregg for this important project. Also, as my distinguished colleagues indicated, the committee report appropriated $3 million for the Mecklenburg County Criminal Justice Information System. The demands of modern, large, urban law enforcement systems, such as Mecklenburg County's, are numerous. That is why the CJIS project is so important. CJIS will help local law enforcement agencies and court services to manage and compile information about their cases and to share electronically maintained subject and case data in real time. The end result will mean increased efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system in Mecklenburg County and the surrounding region. Again, I thank Senators Hollings and Gregg for their generous support of these projects. I also thank Senator Helms for his tireless efforts on these and the many other appropriations projects that we have worked so closely on together. methamphetamine

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, we awoke yesterday to a much different world than the world we are required to accept today. On the most basic and fundamental level, we have lost the lives of heroes and victims, and we know that behind the devastating numbers we have all been seeing are real people, with real families, with real lives, with real accomplishments, and real hopes. We also know sadly for all of us that we can never, ever reclaim those lives. We can honor them and remember them, and in their names we can devote ourselves to take every action to assure that no other Americans have to make this supreme sacrifice. My Scripture teaches us to weep with them that weep and be of the same mind one toward another. I speak now to the families of those who have been taken. We in this Chamber cannot erase yesterday, although we wish with everything inside us that we could. In the difficult days and years to come, we will keep their lives and their names and their sacrifices in our hearts, and we will translate our grief and our anger into a determination to prevent this tragedy from ever being repeated. I know this is little solace for their extraordinary loss, but it is an important commitment that I truly believe every one of them would wish us to make. We will not forget, and we will act. For 225 years now, America has been more than a nation--state, more than a set of borders, more than a piece of land. America is an idea, and that idea is freedom: Freedom of thought, freedom of movement, freedom to shape our lives and our society the way we choose. Yesterday morning, it was not just America that came under attack. It was the hopes and aspirations of freedom-loving people all over this world. There is a reason America does not bow to terrorism. There is a reason we live by the rule of law and not the rule of the jungle. There is a reason we return to our homes and offices and reclaim our skies and our pride. There is a reason we will marshal our resources, all our resolve and the awesome strength of our military to catch these death mongers, to punish them, to make them pay for what they have done to us and our people because we surrender our freedom to no one. I commend President Bush for his leadership in this extraordinarily difficult time. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with him. From time to time, from issue to issue, the votes in this Chamber are divided, but when it comes to defeating terrorism and hate, the Senate will not be divided. Some have wondered, in the aftermath of this tragedy, whether our country will ever be the same. We need to make our airports safer, and we will. We need to make our flights more secure and their flight patterns more inviolate, and we will. We need to do more to root out terrorism in the countries where it is tolerated, funded, and harbored, and the world can rest assured that we will. The strength of our Nation is measured not in airport scanners or in flight controls; it is measured in the grit and the will of our people when it is needed the most. By that standard, America is the strongest, toughest, most resilient Nation on the face of the Earth. Scripture also tells us ``whoever shall be great among you, let him be your minister; and whoever shall be chief among you, let him be your servant.'' Mr. President, we glimpsed that greatness yesterday in the rescue efforts in New York City and at the Pentagon--policemen, firemen, military personnel, and so many brave volunteers putting themselves and their lives in harm's way to help others. Too many of them paid the ultimate price for their acts of courage. My Senate office was flooded yesterday with calls from concerned people in North Carolina, people who wanted to give blood, to donate clothes and blankets, to open their hearts in this time of solidarity. I am especially proud that a group of Marines from Camp LeJeune in Jacksonville, NC, is preparing to leave for New York now to assist in any way they can. Today, we can't help but think how fragile is the safety and security we have been taking for granted. But throughout our history, we have weathered war and pestilence; we have met every kind of disaster, both natural and manmade; we have mastered every challenge and conquered every foe. The spirit of America is strong. The power of freedom will overcome. And by reaffirming that freedom through strength, justice, and compassion, we will honor the memory of those who have departed and give renewed purpose to those of us who must now carry on. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained and therefore was unable to cast my vote on the motion to table the Smith-Harkin amendment No. 1538 to H.R. 2500. Had I been present, I would have voted against the motion to table. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am proud to honor SAS Institute Inc. as it celebrates 25 years as a leading technology company. SAS is the world's largest privately held software company. The roots of SAS' software stem from a United States Department of Agriculture grant to a group of universities in need of a way to analyze their vast amounts of agriculture data. The group developed the ``Statistical Analysis System'', giving SAS both its name and its corporate beginnings. Headquartered in Cary, NC, SAS has made significant contributions to communities throughout North Carolina. Fortunately, as it has grown over the last 25 years, SAS has extended its community involvement to include areas around the United States and the world. The company and its founders believe very strongly that education and technology are vitally important for our local communities, state, and country. SAS' customer list have grown significantly over the past 25 years. SAS customers now include 98 of the ``Fortune 100'' companies. In addition, all fourteen major Federal Government departments currently use SAS software. SAS customers continually praise its software, as demonstrated by a 98-percent annual renewal rate. For the past quarter century, SAS has annually reinvested at least 30 percent of its income into Research & Development, far exceeding the industry average. As a result of its commitment to R&D, SAS is positioned to continue to develop important solutions for its customers. SAS co-owners and co-founders, Dr. James H. Goodnight and John P. Sall, have a built a company that is committed to providing not only valuable software solutions for its customers, but also providing a worker friendly environment for their employees. SAS' treatment of its employees is a model for other companies around the world to follow. For example, SAS was a corporate pioneer by providing on-site daycare for its employees' children as early as 1981. In 1986, SAS began offering onsite healthcare for its employees. Last year, the company's Health Care Center had more than 33,000 patient visits. SAS also provides onsite employee cafeterias, an employee fitness center, massage therapy and hair care services. SAS has created a family atmosphere that inspires employee loyalty and bottom line success. As a result of the many employee benefits and the positive employee- friendly atmosphere created by its co-founders, SAS' employee turnover rate is just 5 percent as compared with a 20-percent industry average. Based on its workplace environment, SAS has received corporate leadership awards from numerous publications, including Working Mother, Fortune, and Business Week magazines. Based on its past performance, I have no doubt that SAS will continue to provide an exciting work environment for its employees and remain committed to supporting community causes. SAS and its employees most certainly must be excited about the next 25 years, and as a U.S. Senator from North Carolina, I am proud that SAS was born in my State.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Senator Mikulski, you have made available $140,000,000 for the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) to finance a variety of economic development efforts. I want to make you and your committee aware of a project I think is worthy of an EDI grant. The town of Mooresville, NC is in dire need of assistance in rebuilding its library. The current library has more than 60,000 books, despite the fact that it was built to hold only 26,000. The Town plans to add 20,000 square feet to house library materials as well as community room as well as a large research and reference area. The library is on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. I am certain this project will contribute to the overall revitalization of the neighborhood. I am certain the Senator would agree that the Mooresville project is a worthwhile investment. I respectfully ask you to urge members of the conference committee to provide $1 million in EDI funds for the Mooresville library project.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Pollution Prevention and Opportunity Act. This legislation would help address a matter of great concern to all Americans who care about water quality and the environment. Toxic and flammable solvents are used in ninety-five percent of the 35,000 small dry cleaning businesses in our country. Dry-cleaned clothes are the primary source of toxins entering our homes, endangering our health. These solvents often leak from storage tanks or spill onto the ground, contaminating the property on which dry cleaning businesses are located. This contamination has resulted in part in the large number of brownfields sites across our country. These dry cleaning solvents are regulated by numerous State and Federal agencies, causing dry cleaners and neighboring businesses to be concerned about the health of their workers and the dangers of property contamination. An innovative scientist, Dr. Joseph M. DeSimone of North Carolina, developed an environmentally-friendly alternative to these solvents. He and his graduate students have developed a process to clean clothes using liquid carbon dioxide and special detergents. This safer dry cleaning method has been commercially available since February 1999, with several machines in operation around the country that have successfully cleaned half a million pounds of clothes in over 10,000 cleaning cycles at shops in various states across the Nation. The Small Business Pollution Prevention and Opportunity Act would provide new and existing dry cleaners a 20 percent tax credit as an incentive to switch to an environmentally-friendly and energy efficient technology. Dry cleaners in Enterprise Zones would receive a 40 percent tax credit. The tax credit would also be extended to wet cleaning fabric cleaners who use water-based systems to effectively clean 40 percent of ``dry clean only'' garments. This new technology is becoming increasingly recognized as a safer, cleaner alternative to traditional dry cleaning. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has issued a case study declaring liquid carbon dioxide as a viable alternative to dry cleaning. R&D Magazine named Dr. DeSimone's technology one of the 100 most innovative technologies that will change our everyday lives. For his innovation, Dr. DeSimone received the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award in 1997. The EPA as well as the National Science Foundation, NSF, has funded Dr. DeSimone's research. Now that environmentally beneficial technologies like liquid carbon dioxide and wet cleaning are commercially available, it makes sense to provide a modest incentive to encourage dry cleaners to utilize them. The benefits to small business dry cleaners, consumers, employees, and the environment would be enormous. This bill's approach provides incentives, not additional regulations, for dry cleaners. The goal of the bill is to protect and enhance the dry cleaning industry, not reinvent or harm it. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. It is the right thing to do for 35,000 small businesses, millions of dry cleaning consumers, and for our environment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce much-needed legislation to protect the privacy of consumers who use technologies that can pinpoint their location. Under my bill, the Location Privacy Protection Act, any company that monitors consumers' physical location will be prohibited from using or disclosing that information without express permission from the consumer. And third parties that gain access to the information cannot use or disclose it without the individual's permission first. Within the next few years, new technologies will allow companies to know our location any time of day or night. Our cell phones, pagers, cars, palm pilots and other devices will enable companies to constantly track where we go and how often we go there. These services can have enormous advantages. For example, public safety and rescue teams can save lives with systems that enable them to quickly locate crash victims. Imagine being able to ask your cell phone for directions to the nearest Italian restaurant. Or imagine you are traveling in a new city and your pager alerts you when you are within a block of your favorite coffee shop, which happens to be running a sale on coffee. The possibilities for location-based services and application are endless. But these new technologies also raise serious privacy issues. Location information is very private, sensitive information that can be misused to harass consumers with unwanted solicitations or to draw inaccurate or embarrassing inferences about them. And in extreme cases, improper disclosure of location information to a domestic abuser or stalker could place a person in physical danger. The wireless industry is unique in that it has worked with Congress to guarantee some privacy protections in the law, and it should be commended for recognizing the sensitivity of location information. However, although these laws are a good first step, we need to build on them and strengthen them. For example, although under the law customers must give their permission before wireless carriers can use or disclose their location information, the law does not require carriers to clearly notify consumers about how their location information will be used if they do grant their permission. Consumers also have no control over what happens to their information once third parties gain access to it. These parties are free to share it with anyone they please. And shockingly, there are no laws that protect the privacy of users of new technologies like telematics, services that allow drivers to get directions at the push of a button in their cars, and global positioning systems. My legislation puts control over location information in the hands of the consumer. It requires the FCC to issue new regulations prohibiting all providers of location-based services and applications from collecting, using, disclosing, or retaining location information without the customer's permission first. And customers must be given clear and conspicuous notice about what the company is going to do with their location information. Customers also will have the right to ensure the accuracy of the information that is collected and companies will be required to keep that information safe from unauthorized access. Third parties will not be able to use or disclose location information without prior authorization from the customer. In this regard, my bill makes an exception if the third party is an emergency service. I believe that the FCC must be very careful not to interfere with the laws that have been carefully crafted to allow emergency medical rescue teams, public safety, fire services, hospital emergency facilities and other emergency services to respond to the user's call for help. These laws are critical to saving lives and I believe we should do everything we can to make sure they work. I would also like to point out that while my bill requires that the FCC rules not interfere with the ability of law enforcement to obtain location information pursuant to an appropriate court order, it does not provide the FCC with extraordinary authority to control when law enforcement can and cannot gain access to location information. Although I have concerns about unnecessary and surreptitious government surveillance, I believe that this issue is best addressed either separately, or at a later date. The purpose of my bill is primarily to lay down guidelines for when private persons, such as businesses, are able to use and disclose consumers' location information. The law needs to be strengthened, and we have the opportunity to do so while these location-based technologies are in their infancy. We have a unique opportunity to give consumers power over their location information before its commercial value becomes so great that it is impossible for consumers to prevent the buying and selling of this very personal information. In sum, I believe the Location Privacy Protection Act is a common sense measure offered at an ideal time. I know that wireless carriers and many companies such as OnStar, ATX, Qualcomm and others care deeply about privacy. I applaud them for their efforts and I look forward to continuing working with them on this issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce much-needed legislation to protect the privacy of consumers who use technologies that can pinpoint their location. Under my bill, the Location Privacy Protection Act, any company that monitors consumers' physical location will be prohibited from using or disclosing that information without express permission from the consumer. And third parties that gain access to the information cannot use or disclose it without the individual's permission first. Within the next few years, new technologies will allow companies to know our location any time of day or night. Our cell phones, pagers, cars, palm pilots and other devices will enable companies to constantly track where we go and how often we go there. These services can have enormous advantages. For example, public safety and rescue teams can save lives with systems that enable them to quickly locate crash victims. Imagine being able to ask your cell phone for directions to the nearest Italian restaurant. Or imagine you are traveling in a new city and your pager alerts you when you are within a block of your favorite coffee shop, which happens to be running a sale on coffee. The possibilities for location-based services and application are endless. But these new technologies also raise serious privacy issues. Location information is very private, sensitive information that can be misused to harass consumers with unwanted solicitations or to draw inaccurate or embarrassing inferences about them. And in extreme cases, improper disclosure of location information to a domestic abuser or stalker could place a person in physical danger. The wireless industry is unique in that it has worked with Congress to guarantee some privacy protections in the law, and it should be commended for recognizing the sensitivity of location information. However, although these laws are a good first step, we need to build on them and strengthen them. For example, although under the law customers must give their permission before wireless carriers can use or disclose their location information, the law does not require carriers to clearly notify consumers about how their location information will be used if they do grant their permission. Consumers also have no control over what happens to their information once third parties gain access to it. These parties are free to share it with anyone they please. And shockingly, there are no laws that protect the privacy of users of new technologies like telematics, services that allow drivers to get directions at the push of a button in their cars, and global positioning systems. My legislation puts control over location information in the hands of the consumer. It requires the FCC to issue new regulations prohibiting all providers of location-based services and applications from collecting, using, disclosing, or retaining location information without the customer's permission first. And customers must be given clear and conspicuous notice about what the company is going to do with their location information. Customers also will have the right to ensure the accuracy of the information that is collected and companies will be required to keep that information safe from unauthorized access. Third parties will not be able to use or disclose location information without prior authorization from the customer. In this regard, my bill makes an exception if the third party is an emergency service. I believe that the FCC must be very careful not to interfere with the laws that have been carefully crafted to allow emergency medical rescue teams, public safety, fire services, hospital emergency facilities and other emergency services to respond to the user's call for help. These laws are critical to saving lives and I believe we should do everything we can to make sure they work. I would also like to point out that while my bill requires that the FCC rules not interfere with the ability of law enforcement to obtain location information pursuant to an appropriate court order, it does not provide the FCC with extraordinary authority to control when law enforcement can and cannot gain access to location information. Although I have concerns about unnecessary and surreptitious government surveillance, I believe that this issue is best addressed either separately, or at a later date. The purpose of my bill is primarily to lay down guidelines for when private persons, such as businesses, are able to use and disclose consumers' location information. The law needs to be strengthened, and we have the opportunity to do so while these location-based technologies are in their infancy. We have a unique opportunity to give consumers power over their location information before its commercial value becomes so great that it is impossible for consumers to prevent the buying and selling of this very personal information. In sum, I believe the Location Privacy Protection Act is a common sense measure offered at an ideal time. I know that wireless carriers and many companies such as OnStar, ATX, Qualcomm and others care deeply about privacy. I applaud them for their efforts and I look forward to continuing working with them on this issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained during this vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to the Conrad amendment, vote No. 221. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 865

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, we appreciate very much the work by the Senator from Ohio. We appreciate him working with us. This is another example of what can be accomplished when we work together. We will be supporting this amendment. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, Senator Coverdell offered legislation in 1997, as the Senator referred to, called the Volunteer Protection Act that does what this amendment is aimed at. It provides specific protection for people who provide volunteer services. Physicians are included in that legislation. Further, there is a specific provision in that legislation which provides that State laws can remain in effect and States are given wide latitude to opt out and enact their own legislation on this issue. There is no such provision in this amendment. Legislation, offered by Senator Coverdell and passed in 1997, covers this issue. If the Senator wants to attempt to amend that legislation, that would be the appropriate vehicle, not this vehicle. This legislation we are debating today is the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. It is about HMO accountability and HMO reform. These issues that are not directly related to HMO reform and HMO accountability do not belong on this legislation. For that reason, we oppose this particular amendment. I yield the floor. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. This is another example of what can be done when we tackle these problems together and try to find solutions. As the issue of scope and employer liability, with a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle, now we are doing it on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, exhaustion of appeals. This amendment meets the very principle by which we began this legislative drafting, which is we want patients to get the care they need. The most effective way to do that is to have an effective appeals process. What we have done in this process is, No. 1, require that the patient, the claimant, go through the appeal before going to court, exhausting those appeals. That is the easiest way and the most efficient way to get them the care they need. The second thing we do is provide an outlet in case the appeals process drags on and it does not operate the way it should. If it is longer than 31 days, then the patient will be able to go to court. But, as the Senator from Tennessee points out, they will have to simultaneously exhaust the administrative appeal. Third, we have now provided specifically that the result of the administrative appeal will be admissible in any court proceeding, which is another important element of this amendment. I thank my friend from Tennessee. I thank him for working with us on this issue. I think we have an issue about which we now have consensus and we are pleased to be there. I yield the remainder of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I will first talk about what exactly the Senator from Pennsylvania is talking about when he talks about punitive damages. Punitive damages can only be awarded in a case where, in this context, an HMO or a health insurance company has engaged in virtual criminal conduct. They have to have acted maliciously, egregiously, outrageously for there to be a punitive damages award. Now let's talk about it in the context of a real case. Let's suppose some young child needs treatment or a test and the insurance company executives meet and say: We are not paying for that test, and we do not care what the effect is. If something bad happens, so be it. We will live with that, but we are not paying for it. Even though it is covered by our policy, even though we know we are supposed to pay it, we refuse to pay it, period. Let's suppose because that child fails to get some treatment or test that they should have gotten, the child was paralyzed for life. Then a group of Americans sitting on a jury listens to the case, as they do in criminal cases every day in this country, and decides the HMO has engaged in criminal conduct and awards punitive damages on that basis. First of all, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I doubt if the parents of that child crippled for life believe they have hit the lottery. That child's life has been destroyed because of intentional criminal conduct on behalf of a defendant, in this case the HMO and the health insurance company. It is not abstract. This is conduct that was specifically aimed at that child. It is not abstract to the world. This is something that was aimed specifically at the child who is sitting in that courtroom, and the jury found--in order for this to be possible, the court requires that the jury find that the HMO has engaged in outrageous, egregious conduct. This is what this amendment does: It says we are going to take away 75 percent of that child's punitive damages award. That is what it says. We are going to impose a 75-percent tax on that child. That is a real case. This is not an abstract academic exercise. This is reality. I say to my colleague, if we are going to start taxing people around this country 75 percent of their money--that would be that child's money in this case. It does not belong to the Senator from Pennsylvania; it does not belong to me and, by the way, it does not belong to the Government unless this amendment is adopted. It belongs to that child. If we are going to start taking 75 percent of people's money, let's not stop at that child. Why don't we consider taking 75 percent of the $400 million that the CEO of one of these HMOs apparently made last year? That will help. We can go around the country and start picking all kinds of groups of people and put that money in a pot and do what we choose with it. This is not a serious response to a serious problem. My friend from Pennsylvania and I agree that the uninsured are a very serious problem in this country. It is an issue we need to address, and we need to address it in a serious way. None of us suggest that what we are doing with this Patient Protection Act will solve that problem. It will not. We have work left to do. There is no doubt about that. But we need to do that work in a serious, thoughtful, comprehensive way that will deal with the kids and the elderly in this country who do not have access to health insurance and who, as a result, do not have access to quality health care. The way to accomplish that is not by imposing a 75-percent tax on people, families who have been hurt by HMOs.

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. EDWARDS. I will respond briefly to the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Louisiana. First, I suggest to the Senator from Louisiana, when an HMO does something egregious, criminal, to a child, and in my example that child is crippled for life, that crime is not against all of us; it is against that child. It is that child who is in court. It is that child to whom the jury has awarded these damages. They didn't award it to us or the people in the gallery; they award it to that child. When we go in and take 75 percent of that child's money, it is a tax any way you cut it. We can talk around this and talk about it for the next 15 minutes or 15 hours. That money does not belong to us. It belongs to that child and that crime was committed against that child and that is whose money we are taking. It is a tax.

Mr. EDWARDS. First I say to my colleague, we can keep talking about this. The truth of the matter is the criminal conduct we are describing here is committed against a particular patient; in my example, against that particular child. We are taking 75 percent of that child's money, any way you cut it. It is a tax. The Government is taking their money, and there is no reason to do that. It makes no sense whatsoever. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is exactly right. When we have a victim, such as a child who has been injured by the criminal conduct of an HMO, it is fundamentally wrong to take 75 percent of that child's money. And that is to whom it belongs. No matter what they say, and no matter how long we talk about it, it belongs to that child. To take 75 percent of that child's money is wrong, and we should vote against this amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. If the Senator will yield time to me, I will be happy to answer that question. I can't answer it yes or no. The answer is reckless, intentional, outrageous conduct.

Mr. EDWARDS. Of course, it is criminal conduct.