Evan Bayh

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the accounting reform and corporate responsibility conference agreement. I do so, because I believe very strongly that it is in the best interests of America at this critical time in our history. I believe it goes way beyond mere accounting issues. What we are agreeing to today deals with the financial security of millions of individual investors across this country, the security of their pensions, their 401(k) programs, and their other investments for the future of their children and their grandchildren. What we are talking about today involves the very vitality of our economy, the amount of investment that will take place in the economy, the number of jobs that will be created, and the vitality of farms. It involves the standing of America in the international economy, whether we will continue to be a safe haven for investments from those abroad, attracting the capital that helps us build a strong foundation for America's economy. More than anything else, this bill embodies the basic values upon which this has been based. It clearly answers the question: Will we continue to encourage those virtues that have always characterized America and will our Nation continue to be the land of opportunity based upon hard work, honesty, and playing by the rules or, will we be perceived as the land of opportunity based upon deceit. I believe that the right answer, based upon traditional values and virtues, is embodied in the accounting reform and corporate responsibility bill. I congratulate our colleagues, Senators Sarbanes, Dodd, Corzine and Enzi. They demonstrated leadership and foresight in this issue. Since the tragedies of 9/11, our country has been involved in twin struggles: One, the physical national security of this country; and, second, getting this economy moving again to ensure the economic security of Americans across this country. There are parallels between these two challenges. Both occurred as a result of unexpected tragedies but have presented us with opportunities to make this an even better, stronger, more secure Nation. Both involve breaking the political gridlock and the bureaucratic inertia that all too often make progress in this Capitol difficult. And both involve striking the right balance between individual freedom and liberty on the one hand, that we cherish, and collective security, which makes individual liberty meaningful, on the other. Let me conclude where I began. This issue goes a long way beyond mere accounting issues. It goes a long way beyond economic policy. It goes to the very heart of who we are, what we stand for as a people, and the kind of values we cherish in the United States of America. This will protect individual investors. It will help to ensure the integrity of our economy. But more than anything else, it will ensure that those Americans who have embraced our tradition with virtues, who have worked hard and saved their money, who have played by the rules, and are honest are able to get ahead in this society. It will send a loud and clear signal to those who practice corporate fraud that they do not have an avenue to success in this country. That does not embody the best values of America. I strongly support the accounting reform and corporate responsibility conference agreement. I urge my colleagues to enact this important legislation.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. I come to the floor of this august body to call for the swift enactment of the accounting reform measure, including the Leahy amendment. I do so because I believe very strongly that it is in the best interests of America at this critical time in our history. I believe it goes way beyond mere accounting issues. What we are debating today deals with the financial security of millions of individual investors across this country, the security of their pensions, their 401(k) programs, and their other investments for the future of their children and their grandchildren. What we are talking about today involves the very vitality of our economy, for those who have invested and not invested alike, the amount of investment that will take place in the economy, the number of jobs that will be created, the vitality of farms. What we are debating today involves the standing of America in the international economy; whether we will continue to be a safe haven for investments from those abroad, attracting the capital that helps us build a strong foundation for America's economy. More than anything else, what we are debating today is nothing less than the basic values upon which this country has been based; whether we will continue to encourage those virtues that have always characterized America, whether we will continue to be the land of opportunity based upon hard work, ability, thrift, honesty, and playing by the rules or, instead, whether we will be perceived as the land of opportunity based upon artifice, avarice, and financial deceit. I believe the choice is clear and that the right thing, based upon traditional values and virtues, is embodied in the Sarbanes bill, including the Leahy amendment. I congratulate our colleague, Senator Sarbanes. He has demonstrated leadership and foresight in this issue. I believe the record will show that Senator Sarbanes was a leader in this issue a long time before it became popular. It is wonderful when events combine with leadership to give us an opportunity to truly make historic progress in this body. I think Senator Sarbanes has seized the moment. I congratulate Senator Leahy for his protection of whistleblowers and strong penalties against document shredding and financial fraud. He has made this a better bill. Mr. President, as you know, we serve on the Intelligence Committee together, and since the tragedies of 9/11, our country has been involved in twin struggles: One, the physical national security of this country; and, second, getting this economy moving again to ensure the economic security of Americans across this country. There are parallels between these two challenges. Both occurred as a result of unexpected tragedies but have presented us with opportunities to make this an even better, stronger, more secure Nation. Both involve breaking the political gridlock and the bureaucratic inertia that all too often make progress in this Capitol difficult. And both involve striking the right balance between individual freedom and liberty on the one hand, that we cherish, and collective security, which makes individual liberty meaningful, on the other. I believe this bill strikes the right balance. It insists upon credibility and transparency of information provided to the marketplace, the very foundation upon which capitalism is built, but it does so with flexibility to ensure that the regulatory hand is as light as possible, and that the information provided, that transparency and credibility provided to the marketplace, is done in a manner that is least burdensome to shareholders and investors as possible. For example, the prohibitions against auditors providing consulting services: We have seen, as the chairman would note, in recent years a vast expansion of expenses and consulting services which create an appearance of a conflict of interest. We need to deal with this transparency to reassure the marketplace, but we need to do so in a way that imposes less regulation, burden, and cost upon existing shareholders as is humanly possible. This bill takes that approach by creating a presumption that certain consulting services will not be allowed, but by also providing flexibility to the new independent oversight board to waive that presumption, or the company and its auditors can go to the oversight board and say in this instance, under these facts, the presumption should be waived because we can provide the transparent data to the marketplace in a less costly manner by allowing our auditors to provide these consulting services. Basically, the bottom line is where it makes sense to provide the consulting services, or the presumption or the appearance of conflict is not a conflict in fact, it can be waived, and the consulting services can be provided. That is the right balance for transparency and credibility provided in the marketplace in the less costly manner to shareholders. I congratulate the chairman for incorporating that into the bill. I have heard some of our colleagues and commentators talk about overburdensome regulations. I don't have the reflexive reaction to regulate. I am well aware that one of the few laws that we count on in Washington is the law of unintended consequences. But the fact that an error may be made is no excuse for doing nothing. The right answer is not no action to address the inadequacies that we have seen, just as it is not an overburdensome action. The right answer, my friends, is a well-considered, thoughtful, well-balanced action to protect the interests of American investors, and to ensure the integrity of our economy. That is the balance which is struck in the Sarbanes bill. That is why I compliment the chairman for all the work he has done. Let me conclude. My colleague from Minnesota has been so gracious for allowing me to continue. I am pleased to see the chairman in the Chamber. I hope he will have a chance to read the complimentary remarks I made about his leadership and his farsightedness. I said he is the leader on this issue, and I congratulate him for that. Let me conclude where I began. This issue goes a long way beyond mere accounting issues. It goes a long way beyond economic policy. It goes to the very heart of who we are, what we stand for as a people, and the kind of values we cherish in United States of America. This will protect individual investors. It will help to ensure the integrity of our economy. But more than anything else, it will ensure that those Americans who have embraced our tradition with virtues, who have worked hard and saved their money, who have played by the rules, and are honest are able to get ahead in this society. It will send a loud and clear signal to those who practice financial deceit and financial chicanery that they do not have an avenue to success in this country. That does not embody the best values of America. That is why I strongly support the Sarbanes bill and the Leahy amendment. I urge my colleagues to enact this important legislation. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH. I thank the chairman.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, for his courtesy. Mr. President, it is good to see you in the chair again. You have had the misfortune of being in the chair the last few times I took the floor, and I appreciate your forbearance as well.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the city of Indianapolis on its recent designation as a ``Digital Television Zone.'' Viewers in Indianapolis are fortunate to be served by local television broadcast stations that have been and continue to be leaders in the digital television transition. These stations are: WTHR, a dispatch broadcast-owned NBC affiliate; WISH-TV, a LIN television-owned CBS affiliate; WRTV, a dispatch broadcast-owned ABC affiliate; and WXIN, a tribune broadcast-owned FOX affiliate. As the broadcast industry undertakes its transition to digital television, I am proud to say that our local Indianapolis affiliates are already fully on the air in digital. For those not familiar with digital television, it is the next step in the evolution of television. Those of us old enough, remember the move from black and white to color. Now, the next exciting step in the process is digital. Just as the other communications mediums are moving from an analog to a digital world, so too is television. This past spring, Indianapolis' local CBS station, WISH-TV, granted the wish of many of my constituents. Through digital television, the station was able to simultaneously broadcast four NCAA basketball tournament games. Our local ABC affiliate, WRTV, has expanded its primetime digital line up. Today, Indianapolis viewers can watch popular programs such as ``Drew Carey,'' ``Alias,'' and ``NYPD Blue''-- all in high definition. The local NBC affiliate, WTHR, airs ``Crossing Jordan'' and ``The Tonight Show'' in high-definition nightly. This year, they broadcast the Olympics' opening ceremonies in digital. It is compelling programming like this that will propel the transition forward and encourage consumers to invest in digital technology--like their local broadcasters have done already. In January, Indianapolis earned the distinction of being named a ``Digital TV Zone.'' As Mayor Bart Peterson said at the ribbon cutting ceremony, ``Our designation as a Digital TV Zone--being one of only a handful of cites to have all local network affiliates broadcasting in digital--is evidence that Indianapolis is where it needs to be to compete in the digital world.'' Through the Digital TV Zone Program, Indianapolis broadcasters pooled their resources over the past year to educate Indianapolis consumers-- my constituents--about digital TV technology and its benefits. The local stations cooperated with electronics manufacturers and retailers to post digital sets in high traffic areas throughout the city. If you walked through Indianapolis International Airport, or if you went to Conseco field house, or the NCAA Hall of Champions over the last 5 months, you would have seen the local Indianapolis stations in digital being displayed on high-definition digital television sets. Clearly, Indianapolis broadcasters are doing their part to launch the digital television future. All of these different activities are designed to educate my constituents about the promise of this new technology. There will, of course, be many challenges before all consumers can fully benefit from digital television. Despite any outstanding issues, I am proud to say that Indianapolis broadcasters are leading the charge into the digital television future and giving local viewers the opportunity to experience digital television now.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Defense Authorization Act. I begin by congratulating and thanking Senators Warner and Levin for their leadership on this important issue to ensure that our military men and women have the resources and tools to get the important job done of protecting America's homeland and our interests abroad. I would also like to thank a colleague of ours who was called away. That is Senator McCain, from Arizona. He bears the scars of battle, having served our Nation in the military. There is no one more dedicated to the defense of America than Senator McCain. He was instrumental in the provisions of this bill that will make it possible for more young Americans to serve our Nation in the military. It is ironic that at this time when we face greater national security challenges than at any time in a generation, so few Americans, particularly young Americans, have served our country in uniform. Senator McCain and I would like to change that by opening up greater avenues for Americans to serve in the military to protect this country, to attract America's best and brightest to military service. There are provisions in this bill that will do exactly that. Specifically, we establish a shorter track for military service: 15 months of active duty following basic training with the balance of the service to be served in other capacities. In exchange for this, we will relieve up to $18,000 of student loans for each man or woman who has served in the military and goes on to higher education or has studied in higher education previously. In addition, we provide full 1-year GI benefits following leaving the military and two-thirds of GI benefits for up to 36 months following leaving active service. This, colleagues, will serve as a powerful incentive for those in our society who want to get a higher education to first or subsequently serve in the U.S. military and the cause of protecting America. At a time when a college degree is so important to success in the private sector, we believe it is equally important not only for our society as a whole but for the military particularly to attract more men and women with a background in college and higher education in the defense of our Nation. These provisions will accomplish exactly that. In addition, I am hopeful we can use the national service provisions included in this bill as an additional motivation and incentive to attract more Americans to serving our country in civilian capacities as well. The amendment of Senator McCain and I will accomplish exactly that. We will extend the AmeriCorps provisions a full fivefold, from 50,000 to 250,000 Americans each and every year, so that every 4-year period 1 million of our citizens, particularly young people, will have served our Nation in capacities that are important, and half of those new AmeriCorps members will be serving America in a homeland defense capacity. At a time when we need to secure our infrastructure, ports, airways, and railways, at a time when we need to protect our country against biological and other threats, it is important we do so to the extent we can using highly trained and motivated volunteers. It will not only help to instill the ethic of service but protect our country in tangible ways in a manner that is most cost effective. We seek to reach out and enlist more senior citizens in the cause of putting something back in our society. On the cusp of the baby boom generation beginning their retirement, we will have more Americans living longer, healthier lives than ever before, with more energy and resources to put back into this country. We think senior citizens have a lot to offer America and will seize this opportunity to serve our country if we give it to them, as I believe we must. We seek to challenge young people involved in our work/study programs to give back to the country that has made their higher education possible. Currently, only 7 percent of those involved in work/study are required to be involved in public service. Senator McCain and I seek to expand that to a full 25 percent over the course of the next 9 years, ensuring a corps of young Americans who are not only getting a higher education but, in the process, building and rebuilding the country that has helped to make that higher education possible. In all these capacities, we seek to harness the good intentions that have arisen from 9-11--the surge in patriotism, the desire to put something back in this country, to harness those intentions and to channel them into concrete action that will improve America for generations to come. This Defense Authorization Act will do that in terms of encouraging more young Americans to serve in uniform in ways that will tangibly protect this country from military aggression. At the same time, we seek to enact the Call To Service Act, to channel more energy into civil service as well, to help students learn, to help senior citizens lead independent, productive lives out of their homes, and to meet the other challenges that will make our country not only safe militarily but make our Nation more decent, more compassionate, more just; to remember the challenges we face at home and meet them, just as our brave military young men and women are meeting the security challenges we face abroad. In summary, the call to service, whether in the military or in the civilian sector, is in the finest of American traditions. It was Thomas Jefferson who once said, in reflecting upon the accomplishments of his own life: I would much prefer to be remembered for what I have been privileged to do for others than for what others have so kindly done for me. This spirit of national service could not be more timely, colleagues. The eyes of the world are upon us today, and they are asking: Does this generation of Americans have what it takes to sacrifice, even for a moment, even in part, the ease and comfort to which we have been accustomed, in the cause of championing and protecting the ideals we claim to cherish? I believe we can. I believe we must. I thank Senators Warner and Levin for including the military components of our service legislation within this authorization act. I think it will do a lot to strengthen the military in years to come and will strengthen the fabric of society as more Americans, and particularly young Americans, will have had the experience of serving in uniform, with all that that means in forming their own citizenship in future years. At the same time, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider and support our Call To Service Act, which would do exactly the same in the civilian sector, strengthening America in ways that are beyond measure. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin and am happy to assist him with any information that he might need to ensure that Indiana's concerns are adequately addressed in the conference. Medicare Reclassification Amendments

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern with language contained in the report accompanying the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, specifically under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Program. During the month of May, much of the Midwest, and the State of Indiana in particular, was devastated by heavy rain and flooding. In our home state, a disaster declaration has been requested for a total of 33 counties. Many of these areas were under water for weeks and FEMA has recently completed its assessment of damages. I hope my friend from Wisconsin will add Indiana to the list of states under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Program that have been adversely affected by flooding.

Mr. BAYH. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to be of help on this matter and am aware of his concerns regarding the Army's failure to reprogram existing funds this year. I also want the chairman to know that we appreciate how hard he worked to ensure that the defense title of the supplemental was consistent with the administration's request.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, the Senators from Maryland, Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski and I would like to engage the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, in colloquy on funding for the chemical demilitarization program. I rise today to express my strong support for funding to be included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to accelerate the destruction of chemical weapons stored at U.S. Army facilities. Following the tragic events of September 11, I worked with a number of my colleagues, including Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes of Maryland, in urging the Army to find alternative methods for accelerating the disposal of our Nation's chemical weapons stockpile consistent with the highest safety and environmental standards. Since that time, the Army has come forward with proposals to accelerate the neutralization of chemical weapons stored at the Newport Chemical Depot in my home State, and the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. There are presently 1,269 tons of VX agent located at Newport, and 1,621 tons of bulk mustard agent stored at Aberdeen. Let us be clear, the nearly 3,000 tons of chemical agent stored at these two sites poses a dangerously attractive terrorist target and a grave threat to millions of citizens. The Army has plans to accelerate disposal of these chemical agents by more than 2\1/2\ years but needs additional funds for the remainder of fiscal year 2002 to do so. If funding is provided in the supplemental, the Army can alleviate the fears of these communities, and millions of our constituents, by the end of next year. I firmly believe this request falls within the purview of enhancing homeland security in the post-September 11 world in which we live. Ms. Mikulski. I join with the Senator from Indiana in supporting additional funding to accelerate the chemical demilitarization program. This is an urgent homeland security need. There is no question whether the United States should destroy the chemical weapons stockpiles at Aberdeen Proving Ground and other sites around the country. Congress made that decision in 1986. The United States is also a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention. That treaty binds the United States and 144 other countries to destroy chemical weapons stockpiles. We have 10 years from the time the Chemical Weapons Convention came into force--until 2007--to complete destruction. I have worked for decades to ensure that we destroy chemical weapons in a way that is safe for the workers, safe for nearby communities, and safe for the environment. After extensive research, the Army developed a chemical demilitarization process to destroy the bulk mustard agent stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Last October, I joined with Senator Bayh and Senator Sarbanes and other colleagues in urging President Bush to strengthen the security of the nation's chemical weapons storage sites. We recommended several measures, including expediting construction of agent destruction or neutralization facilities, consistent with the highest environmental and safety standards. We now have National Guard troops guarding chemical weapons storage sites. I am grateful for that added security, but that's not a long- term solution. In fact, it adds to the cost of delay. The Army also came up with plans to accelerate chemical demilitarization. Under that plan, all of the mustard agent stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground would have been destroyed by the end of this year. The Defense Department wanted funding for this effort included in the President's supplemental request, but OMB rejected that proposal. I am not sure why OMB would reject an effort to make our country safer and save money, but that is what happened. We have the opportunity here to address that deficiency, to fulfill the Pentagon request. We have the opportunity to address a very real homeland security need. I am proud to join with Senator Bayh and Senator Sarbanes in this effort.

Mr. BAYH. While we are prepared to offer an amendment to provide funding for the Army to accelerate chemical demilitarization, we would be willing to withdraw the amendment if the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee would be supportive of funding for the Army's Chemical Demilitarization program during the conference on the supplemental.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the conference agreement on the charter reauthorization of the Export- Import Bank of the United States. As chairman of the Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance, I have worked with my colleagues to craft a bill that creates a level playing field for all U.S. companies. The conference agreement includes a number of important provisions that will help make the Bank more competitive with other export credit agencies. Although the Ex-Im Bank has played an important role in increasing our country's exports, there have been a few instances in which the Bank has lent its support to exports that have helped foreign companies who are engaged in dumping products into our domestic market. For this reason, I included a provision in the conference agreement that would prohibit the extension of a loan or guarantee to any entity subject to a determination of injury under section 201 by the International Trade Commission, ITC or subject to a countervailing duty or anti-dumping order. Action by the President is not necessary. Additionally, it would required a heighten level of scrutiny and comment period for transactions where a preliminary injury determination exists. Since its creation in 1934, the Export Import Bank of America has contributed greatly to the welfare and well-being of America's economy. I hope that we will allow the Bank to continue its function, and I encourage my colleagues to support reauthorization of this important organization.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the charter reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The Ex-Im Bank was last reauthorized in 1997, and its charter expired in September of last year. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance, I held two hearings last year in order to craft a bipartisan reauthorization bill that is both helpful to the Bank and to the export community. The present bill, which authorizes the Ex-Im Bank for 5 years, includes a number of important provisions that will help make the Bank more competitive with other export credit agencies. Among other provisions, this bill requires Ex-Im to submit its Competitiveness Report to the Banking Committee by June 30 of each year. It will be more helpful to the Committee to receive that report earlier in order to be able to use its information during the reauthorization. The bill also requires Ex-Im to compile and analyze data regarding market windows and their effects on the Bank's competitiveness for the annual Competitiveness Report. This will give the Committee a clearer understanding of the amount of market window activity taking place around the world. Finally, the bill requires the Bank to estimate the annual amount of export financing available from the government and government-related agencies and to include that information in Ex-Im's Competitiveness Report. This provision would essentially require Ex-Im to rank itself against other export credit agencies. Although the Ex-Im Bank has played an important role in increasing our country's exports, there have been a few instances in which the Bank has lent its support to exports that have helped foreign companies who are engaged in dumping products into our domestic market. For this reason, I offered an amendment to Bank's reauthorization that would prohibit the extension of a loan or guarantee to any entity subject to a countervailing or anti-dumping order. I will continue working with Senators Sarbanes, Dodd, Gramm, and Hagel to develop a compromise version of my amendment that will improve the Ex-Im Bank's adverse economic impact standards. I understand that some people who favor a pure model of economics would view the Export-Import Bank as essentially a subsidy that would be unnecessary in the give and take of free markets and free economy. My own view is that while that model has some merit in terms of economic theory, we do not live in a theoretical world. We live in a real world. America is currently suffering from a significant balance of trade deficit that will undoubtedly have an impact on our currency and overall economic health in years to come. It is essential that we work to provide a level playing field for American companies, particularly at a time when many of our foreign competitors receive financial support for their exports from their own governments. If our competitors offer their exporters assistance, so should we. Since its creation in 1934, the Export Import Bank of America has contributed greatly to the welfare and well-being of America's economy. I hope that we will allow the Bank to continue its function, and I encourage my colleagues to support reauthorization of this important organization.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, as we begin debate on comprehensive energy legislation, it is important to remember that a diversity of energy concerns has brought us to this point. Because current energy supplies are relatively high and gasoline prices are relatively low, there are those that may want to postpone the difficult decisions required by comprehensive action. I rise today to remind my colleagues of our energy history and that, to avoid repeating the energy crises of the past, we need to act now. A quick review of just the last four years reveals the breadth of the energy issues that we must address. At the end of 1998, oil prices were so low they threatened the viability of the domestic oil industry; in the spring of 1999, they soared to record levels. Severe weather and transportation problems combined to create a home heating oil crisis in the Northeast the following winter. At the start of the summer of 2000, people in the Midwest were paying record prices for petroleum products. Later that summer, a decaying gas pipeline in New Mexico exploded, killing an entire family. The winter of 2000 brought new challenges. Consumers were paying an average 30 percent more to heat their homes than they had the previous year. The summer of 2001 saw the collapse of the California electricity market, with blackouts and previously unthinkable electricity prices. Last fall, we began a war against terror that may impact our supplies of oil from the Middle East. Energy policy is about more than the price of gasoline at the pump today. A comprehensive energy policy will require thoughtful, and often difficult, choices today to ensure secure, affordable and sustainable energy in the future. The bill before us addresses many of these choices. It aims to secure new, as well as traditional, energy supplies; promote investment in critical infrastructure; expand technology options; reduce energy use and promote energy markets that protect consumers and the environment. I would like to highlight just a few of the provisions in this bill that I believe advance these objectives. Many of these are items that I worked with Chairman Bingaman to have included in this bill and I thank him for his assistance and support. First, among the bill's efforts to increase our short-term energy security, is a provision that Senator Landrieu and I developed directing that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve be filled to capacity. It also requires a review to determine whether the size of the Reserve and our capacity for refining and transporting the Reserve oil are adequate to respond to a severe supply disruption. The bill also moves the Nation toward greater long-term security by providing incentives for development of Alaska's natural gas resources. Other provisions to expand the use of renewable fuels for transportation will ease both short- and long-term supply uncertainties, while reducing the environmental costs of petroleum. The energy bill also acknowledges the critical role that innovation and technology deployment will play in our long-term energy strategy. The bill expands energy research and development in traditional as well as alternative energy. This bill also calls for the Department of Energy to identify ways to accelerate innovation and reduce barriers to technology development. The tax provisions of the bill, which I understand will be added at a later date, also aim to balance incentives for increasing conventional and alternative energy supplies, including credits for marginal oil well production, clean coal technology and renewable energy production. In addition to supply incentives, the package contains provisions to address energy demand, including credits for efficient cars, homes and appliances which will help to reduce energy use while promoting technology development. Another way that I believe that the Federal Government can play a significant role in promoting efficient technologies is by using its own purchasing power. Last year, I introduced a bill, S. 1358, to provide resources and enhance accountability for the Federal Government's efforts to improve its own efficiency and reduce its energy use. The bill would establish energy reduction goals and performance standards for Federal buildings and fleets; ensure that Federal procurement policies promote purchases of the most efficient equipment and supplies and create a Federal revolving fund, or ``energy bank'' to help agencies finance efficiency improvements. Many of these initiatives have been incorporated into the bill before us; I believe they will reduce the Federal energy bill and build the market for efficiency technologies. Another area in which the bill provides assistance for advanced energy technologies is a voluntary demonstration program, which I also supported, to help schools and communities secure newer school buses that use clean diesel and natural gas technology. A growing market will help to bring down the cost of these new technologies and let communities reap the air quality benefits in the process. The bill also recognizes the requirements of new energy markets. For instance, S. 517 replaces the archaic Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 with regulatory and oversight mechanisms that protect the consumer in the modern marketplace and promote investment in the energy sector. It also acknowledges that effective energy planning must occur across State lines and provides for regional energy coordination without undermining States' authority. These are just a few of the important ideas in the bill that deserve support; there are many more. There are also many difficult issues that will need to be resolved. We will not all be able to agree on every provision in this bill, but it is critical that we work across party and regional lines to find compromise where we can and move forward with a comprehensive policy. The alternative is to persist in our national amnesia about our energy problems, ensuring that the spiking prices, infrastructure failures and energy insecurity of the past become part of our future.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the seven members of the U.S. Marine Corps who died on January 9, 2002, when their KC-130 plane crashed in Pakistan. We are grateful for their service to the United States and are humbled by the ultimate sacrifice they made in defense of our country. In Indiana, we grieve the untimely death of one of our own, Sgt. Jeannette Winters. Sergeant Winters grew up in Gary, IN and followed in the footsteps of her older brother, Matthew, when she joined the Marine Corps in 1997. Sergeant Winters was deployed for Operation Enduring Freedom in December and worked as a radio operator on the KC-130 plane. Jeannette is remembered fondly by her friends and family as a caring person who had a positive outlook on life. She loved her country and was a proud marine who served honorably for more than 4 years. Her courage and her commitment to our country are a credit to her family and to the State of Indiana. It is my privilege to pay tribute to Sgt. Jeannette Winters for her bravery and sacrifice by honoring her in the official Record of the U.S. Senate. I send my heartfelt condolences to her family and friends. Sergeant Winters and all of the brave men and women of our Armed Forces will remain in our thoughts and prayers. When I reflect on the just cause in which we are engaged, on our commitment to routing out the scourge of terrorism across the world, I am reminded of the words of the prophet Isaiah who said, ``He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces.''

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Kennedy, for those very gracious remarks. I am pleased to have his strong support of the conference report on H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. I would like to begin by thanking all of my colleagues who brought us to this moment today, starting with Senator Kennedy. From the very beginning, Senator Kennedy has been results-oriented in trying to strike the right balance between principle and practicality and has given clear evidence in this debate about why he is considered to be one of the most accomplished legislators of our time. Senator Kennedy understands that the art of legislating is not the same as being in a political science classroom. It is not the same as having an ideological debate. The end of the debate is what matters in what we can do and what we can actually accomplish to help people of our country--in this case, the schoolchildren of America. I thank him for his leadership and for his dedication and perseverance. Also, I thank my colleague, Senator Gregg. Senator Gregg is a former Governor. He has labored in these vineyards for many years. I thank him for his very able leadership throughout this process. We wouldn't be here today without him. I would like to express my gratitude to the President, who was good enough to call some of us down to White House, even before he was sworn in, to offer his commitment. He very clearly wanted to make this legislation his top priority. He wanted to work on this in a bipartisan fashion. He wanted to have accountability and some of the other landmark accomplishments that are included in this legislation. I thank him for his leadership. Also, I thank Sandy Kress, the President's chief liaison on this issue. I think the Presiding Officer is aware that Sandy is not only very schooled in the subtleties and the complexity of education policy, but he is also a card-carrying member, and in fact dues-paying member, of the Democratic Leadership Council. I believe this may be the very definition of bipartisanship when it comes to the education debate. I thank Sandy for his leadership. Our colleague, Joe Lieberman, will be in this Chamber before long. I thank Joe for his courage and persistence. We would not be here today without his perseverance and dedication to these issues. He is a true leader, a true statesman. I want to acknowledge today his indispensable contributions to this conference report. I thank the staff. I thank Elizabeth Fay of my own staff, who has worked tirelessly, sometimes late into the night and early in the morning. She has been my strong right arm. I am grateful to her. I thank Senator Kennedy's assistant, Danica Petroshius, Michele Stockwell of Senator Lieberman's staff, Denzel McGuire of Senator Gregg's staff, Charles Barone of Representative Miller's staff, Alex Nock of Representative Kildee's staff, Sally Lovejoy of Representative Boehner's staff, Kathleen Strottman of Senator Landrieu's staff, and all the rest of the staff on both sides of the aisle in the legislative branch and at the White House. They make it possible for us to do our jobs. I want to say how grateful we are to each and every one of them. I also want to thank Will Marshall and Andy Rotherham of the Progressive Policy Institute and Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust for their advice and support. Last, but by no means least, I thank the majority leader, Senator Daschle, who has scheduled this debate and action on this bill. We are grateful to him for his leadership and for his statesmanship. I want to acknowledge the fact that, with Senator Kennedy's agreement, he placed Senator Lieberman and myself on the conference committee. This was a new development. I thank him for his confidence. I hope we have demonstrated his confidence in us was well placed. As a matter of fact, I was joking with Senator Kennedy at one point in the debate--only one point--it seemed as if those of us who were not regular members of the committee were even more supportive of the chair than regular members of the committee. So this is perhaps a small precedent of some kind. In any event, for Senator Kennedy's willingness, and Senator Daschle's willingness, to put confidence in me, I am very grateful. I hope I discharged my responsibilities well, serving on the conference committee. Mr. President, this is another step in America's long journey toward making education a national priority for our country. The journey began in the mid to late 1800s with the common school movement when Horace Mann, and many others, reached a determination in this country that a good education should not be the province of the elite, the well to do, the wealthy alone, that the consequences of ignorance went way beyond the well-being of a single individual and, instead, affected all of us as a community and as a country. Nearly 100 years later, in the 1960s, in the war on poverty, we realized that the dream of a good education for too many poor children was, instead, merely a cruel illusion and that we should reach out to those communities and those families without means to make sure they could realize the dream of a good education. Not only so they could realize their full potential as individuals, but equally important, so that our country could recognize our full potential as a great society. So the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was born. Today we gather to recognize that the status quo is no longer good enough. Too many children, particularly poor children, are still at risk of falling behind, and that the failure is not theirs but ours and that of the system which for too long we have been unwilling to fundamentally change. Today we gather in this Chamber to make progress toward correcting that cruel inequity. The progress we mark today is a victory of bipartisanship and good public policy. Both sides in this debate have been required to put aside long-entrenched ideological positions. There were too many on the one side who believed that the only thing wrong with our public education system was the need for more dollars. And there were too many on the other side who believed that improving the public education system was beyond all hope and that, instead, it should be abandoned in favor of private school vouchers. Instead, we have forged a new way, a third way, a better way, that will insist upon change, results, and accountability in our public school system. There are consequences if results do not occur. There is accountability for all of us to improve the system and give the children the education they so desperately deserve. The consequences of inaction are great today. The consequences for ignorance and a lack of accountability have never been greater. Our country's economic well- being depends upon the quality of the education our children are receiving in classrooms across America today. In a global-knowledge-based economy, our economic progress, our standard of living, and our competitiveness will be determined by the quality of our children's education. High skills will demand high wages. The days of not knowing very much but commanding high wages and a good standard of living are rapidly receding. Our economic well-being depends upon our success in this arena. Likewise, there are profound social consequences to our level of success in this regard. The gulf today between haves and have-nots in America is primarily an education gap, a skills gap, a knowledge gap. If we want to avoid the consequences of a large and growing, persistent underclass in our country for the first time in America's history, it will be by winning the battle to improve the quality of education that those who are less fortunate in our society receive. The very vibrancy of our democracy is, in many important ways, dependent upon our success in this regard because an informed citizenry and participation by our citizens require more knowledge and learning than ever before. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founders of our Republic--one of the founders of the Democratic Party--who once said: A society that expects to be both ignorant and free is expecting something that never has been and never will be. Jefferson and the other Founders of our Nation understood the clear, indisputable link between knowledge, citizenship, and democracy. It is that challenge that we rise today to meet as well. The bill we are advocating in this conference report embodies within it major changes in education policy for the schools of America, changes for the better. It embodies high academic standards for all students. No longer will we tolerate the two-track system which embodied within it what the President referred to as the ``soft bigotry of low expectations,'' trapping too many poor children in ghettos of ignorance and, therefore, ghettos of poverty. Today we will reemphasize the fact that every child can learn and that every child should be given that opportunity, that expectations matter, and that we should expect the very best from all of our students, not just those who have been born to greater privilege than some in our country. This legislation embodies meaningful assessments to evaluate progress each and every year. There are clear definitions of how much progress we will consider to be good enough, with the goal of 100 percent proficiency within 12 years. And there is a focus on subgroups so we ensure that no group of America's children--the economically disadvantaged, the disabled, those who do not speak English as a first language, those who come from racial or ethnic minorities--that those children's futures will not be left behind, and their lack of adequate progress will not be masked by the progress of the majority of our schoolchildren, because these schoolchildren from these subgroups are as near and dear to the heart and future of our country as any others. They must not, and shall not, be left behind in this legislation. The bottom line is that every school, every district, every State, and each and every one of us, will be held responsible for the progress by our children each and every year. This legislation strikes the right balance between Federal and State responsibilities, making this clearly a national priority, because the progress of education will have national consequences for years to come for every American, but still recognizing that State and local officials and governments must take the lead in devising ways to implement this vision because they are ultimately closest to the schools with accountability to citizens at the local level. This legislation contains a strong commitment to teacher quality with $3 billion to recruit and train good teachers. This is vitally important because, after parental involvement, the most accurate predictor of a good education for a child is the presence of a quality, motivated teacher in that classroom. Nothing is more important, besides parental involvement, to the future of educational progress. This legislation contains within it a robust commitment to parental choice and the inclusion of market forces within our public education system, while still retaining the genius of a public education, which is the implicit guarantee of a good education for everyone, not just those who would do well in a purely market-based system. I would like to take a moment to salute the leadership and the work of the Presiding Officer in this regard. These provisions would not be what they are and would not have been included in this legislation without the Senator from Delaware. I want to acknowledge and thank him for his steadfast leadership and support on this bill. We have public school choice for every parent where a school has not done well enough in making progress within 2 years. There are supplemental services after 3 years, giving parents a choice for afterschool, summer school, and weekend tutorials to make sure the kids get the education they need. And finally, there is a meaningful, determined commitment to charter schools, making them an integral part of the public education system, to give more vitality, more innovation, and more accountability to public schools through charter schools. I thank the Chair for his leadership in this regard. My own capital city of Indianapolis just designated the first of four charter schools in Indianapolis. We look forward to benefiting from the provisions the Chair has championed in this bill. There are major provisions in this bill to help those who are limited English proficient. We also do a better job of targeting resources to kids who are most in need. Senator Landrieu from Louisiana championed the targeting provisions in this bill. I always thought it was one of the ironies of ESEA that so many schools with a high concentration of poverty children, in fact, receive next to nothing in terms of support from the very vehicle that was designed to rectify this inequity. In conclusion, let me say two things: First, nothing is perfect. Even with all of this historic progress that I and others have outlined, this is a major step forward. But, of course, many of us would like to have seen us accomplish even more, particularly in the area of funding. We have made a major step forward in regard to ESEA funding and with that, an implicit commitment to make even more historic increases in the years to come toward full funding of this vital program. I voted consistently--I know the Chair and others did--for more funding for IDEA. This includes a $1 billion downpayment as commitment toward full funding of this initiative which is not only long overdue but vitally important to the educational progress of children with disabilities across America. We must do better in this regard. We will do better. The choice was the progress we have outlined in this bill or nothing--nothing for another year, nothing year after year for America's schoolchildren. While there is work yet to be done, I don't think the appropriate course was to set aside the progress that is here to be made because, frankly, we cannot afford to wait any longer in making all the progress that we practically can for America's schoolchildren. That is why I support this bill and why I am also dedicated to coming back and finishing the business with regard to IDEA and ESEA funding. Let me conclude by saying, 2 years ago, on the floor--Senator Kennedy may remember that I quoted Winston Churchill when he spoke at a time of great trial for his country, a time of military trial for his country. I will paraphrase him once again today as we gather to make progress with the successful conclusion of this debate on reforming education. At that time, Churchill said that they had not reached the end and perhaps they had not reached the beginning of the end, but at least certainly they had reached the end of the beginning. So have we. Let us begin to provide the kind of historic advancements that America's schoolchildren have needed for so long. Let us begin to make meaningful progress in closing the inequities in income in our country by making knowledge and education affordable and available to all of our children, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, or income. When we do that, we will look back on this day's work with gratitude and satisfaction that we have made a difference in this body. I thank Senator Kennedy for adding another illustrious chapter to his long career of public service to our country. I thank him and my colleagues, including Senator Dodd.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues, Senators Dorgan and Craig. As a former governor, I also want to raise a potential concern that has been brought to my attention by some states. The Medicaid program is explicitly covered by HIPAA, but there are many other state programs with health components that may or may not be covered. Before states go through the potentially unnecessary work of submitting compliance plans that may not be needed, I feel strongly that HHS should provide guidance to states about what other plans are required. In addition, HHS should provide technical assistance as to what resources states can use for developing the compliance plans called for by the House bill. States should submit their plans for the Medicaid program and receive guidance from the HHS before submitting state plans that deal with other programs. Only with the appropriate and critical information can HHS and the states create a successful partnership.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I rise today with my colleague Senator John McCain to introduce the Call to Service Act of 2001. I want to express my appreciation to Senator McCain; without his leadership we would not be here today. I also want to extend my thanks to Congressman Harold Ford and Congressman Tom Osborne for their strong leadership in the House on this issue. In addition, former President Clinton deserves our thanks and gratitude. He championed public service and AmeriCorps during his tenure. We build upon his legacy today and acknowledge with pride the important contribution to America's well-being he has made in this area. We are introducing this legislation at a time of great challenge for our country. But within this challenge lie the seeds of opportunity if we can seize the moment, the seeds of opportunity for civic renewal across the United States of America. Everywhere I have gone since the tragedy of September 11, people of every age are asking, What can I do? How can I help? So to those who are looking for a way to help to put something back, we are here today to say that the Call to Service Act will give you those opportunities. We expand the AmeriCorps program fully fivefold, increasing the number of volunteers annually, from 50,000 to 250,000, so that every 4 years, 1 million young people will have the opportunity to serve our country. Fifty percent of the new volunteers will be focused on homeland defense to meet the many issues that have come to light and need attention since the events of September 11. With this dramatic expansion, we include strong accountability measures to ensure measurable, positive outcomes for the communities served by AmeriCorps. The Call to Service Act significantly expands the serve study initiative. Work-study in our colleges was originally intended to get kids involved in public service and community work, but unfortunately, it has not lived up to that initial promise. The requirement today is that 7 percent of students involved in work-study have to be involved in community service. We expand that more than threefold to 25 percent, to get America's best and brightest giving back to the community. This means that every year, approximately 250,000 students will be contributing to their communities. Expanding the community service portion of work-study has broad bipartisan support. In May 2000, General Powell sent a letter to the Nation's college presidents to ``work toward a goal of dedicating a greater and greater portion of your Federal College Work Study funds each year to community service.'' I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I rise today with my colleague Senator John McCain to introduce the Call to Service Act of 2001. I want to express my appreciation to Senator McCain; without his leadership we would not be here today. I also want to extend my thanks to Congressman Harold Ford and Congressman Tom Osborne for their strong leadership in the House on this issue. In addition, former President Clinton deserves our thanks and gratitude. He championed public service and AmeriCorps during his tenure. We build upon his legacy today and acknowledge with pride the important contribution to America's well-being he has made in this area. We are introducing this legislation at a time of great challenge for our country. But within this challenge lie the seeds of opportunity if we can seize the moment, the seeds of opportunity for civic renewal across the United States of America. Everywhere I have gone since the tragedy of September 11, people of every age are asking, What can I do? How can I help? So to those who are looking for a way to help to put something back, we are here today to say that the Call to Service Act will give you those opportunities. We expand the AmeriCorps program fully fivefold, increasing the number of volunteers annually, from 50,000 to 250,000, so that every 4 years, 1 million young people will have the opportunity to serve our country. Fifty percent of the new volunteers will be focused on homeland defense to meet the many issues that have come to light and need attention since the events of September 11. With this dramatic expansion, we include strong accountability measures to ensure measurable, positive outcomes for the communities served by AmeriCorps. The Call to Service Act significantly expands the serve study initiative. Work-study in our colleges was originally intended to get kids involved in public service and community work, but unfortunately, it has not lived up to that initial promise. The requirement today is that 7 percent of students involved in work-study have to be involved in community service. We expand that more than threefold to 25 percent, to get America's best and brightest giving back to the community. This means that every year, approximately 250,000 students will be contributing to their communities. Expanding the community service portion of work-study has broad bipartisan support. In May 2000, General Powell sent a letter to the Nation's college presidents to ``work toward a goal of dedicating a greater and greater portion of your Federal College Work Study funds each year to community service.'' I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, because of the events of September 11, tens of thousands of airline passengers who bought airline tickets before and after that date will find that the flight they wanted is unavailable. How do these ticket holders get another flight or get their money back? If they paid cash for their tickets, then, they are out of luck if the airline goes bankrupt. There is no guarantee that another airline will honor the ticket. If they bought their ticket using a credit card, then as I understand it, Federal law protects them, but at a tremendous cost to those few banks who process airline tickets. The ticket holder has the right under Federal law, the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, to seek a refund from their credit card issuing bank. If the airline is unable to cover such charge-backs, the loss is borne by the acquiring or processing bank. The burden on the banking system as a result of the events of September 11, and the requirements of Regulation Z, is not small. About $5 billion of advanced ticket sales by credit card exist at any given time. I doubt that anyone anticipated that Regulation Z would be used in this manner after an act of war shut down the entire air transportation system and caused the failure of perhaps several airlines. There is a simple and equitable way to protect these passengers who paid cash and have no recourse. It can also relieve some of the burden that the law puts on a very few banks. I have a letter from Consumers Union that proposes the solution. It says, ``Consumers Union believes that carriers that receive federal funds under H.R. 2926 should be obligated to honor the tickets of other carriers, where due to service changes or discontinuation, the issuing carrier is unable to provide the contracted service.'' In short, if an airline has empty seats, then let the passengers who would otherwise be denied service use those seats. I intended to offer an amendment to this effect. Instead, I would ask the distinguished floor manager a question. Does he agree that in light of the aid this Congress has provided to the airlines, it is not too much to ask them to honor, to the extent practicable, the tickets of other carriers that are unable to provide the contracted service?

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I believe the chairwoman and ranking member are aware of the air traffic congestion and capacity issues facing the Chicago area. Not only are these important issues for the national aviation system, but for the greater Chicagoland area as well. I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for the attention given to this regional and national dilemma. As you know, the Chicago area desperately needs additional airport capacity. I believe the Gary/Chicago Airport is capable of immediately providing the capacity needed to relieve Chicago's O'Hare and Midway Airports. I continue my longstanding support for the Gary/Chicago Airport as an integral part of the solution to meet the air traffic needs of the region. I am working closely with my colleagues Senator Lugar, Congressman Visclosky in the House of Representatives, Indiana Governor Frank O'Bannon, and with local officials in Indiana to ensure that the Gary/ Chicago Airport is included in any discussions at the federal level about how to relieve air traffic congestion in the Chicago region. Section 315 (General Provisions) requires the Secretary of Transportation to work with the Federal Aviation Administrator (FAA) to encourage a locally developed and executed plan between the State of Illinois, the City of Chicago, and affected communities for the purpose of modernizing O'Hare International Airport. It is my hope that any discussions in Congress, at the FAA, or elsewhere, include Indiana and the Gary/Chicago Airport as a part of the solution to this crisis.