Evan Bayh

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the nomination of Wade Horn to be Assistant Secretary of HHS for Family Support. I am confident that he will do an outstanding job in discharging his duties for all Americans. I have known Dr. Horn personally since 1996 when I had the privilege as Governor of our State of holding one of the first conferences in the country on the importance of promoting more responsible fatherhood on the part of many men. The vast majority of men in our society, when they bring children into the world, do the right thing by supporting children economically, emotionally and economically, and supporting the mothers. Regrettably, in recent years, in the last decade or so, we began the alarming trend of many men walking away from responsibilities, financial and otherwise, with great detriment to the children and the mothers of those children and, because of that, the society and taxpayers, as well. Wade Horn worked with us not only in that conference but in fashioning legislation in the Halls of Congress to do something about this epidemic of fatherlessness that harms our society in so many important ways. He understands that a child growing up without the involvement of a father, emotionally or financially, is five times more likely to live in poverty, twice as likely to be involved with drugs or alcohol abuse, twice as likely to commit a crime of violence, twice as likely for a young girl to be involved with teen pregnancy, and much more likely to get involved in a variety of situations that will harm a youngster throughout the course of his or her lifetime. Wade Horn is committed to doing something about this phenomenon, and thereby strengthening families and helping children. He understands this effort is not only good for America's children; it is good for taxpayers, as well. Many of the issues we debate in this Chamber, many of the initiatives we pursue to try to help America really deal with the manifestations of what are actually deeper underlying problems. If we are going to get at the root causes of the problems that afflict too many of America's children, we have to deal with them where they begin, the breakdown of the American family, and, in particular, too many men bringing children into the world and walking away, leaving women and taxpayers to try to pick up the pieces by themselves. That is not right. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year to try to overcome the consequences of irresponsible fathers not living up to their obligations. Wade Horn understands that if we are going to do right by those kids and do right by our citizens who are picking up the tab, we need to do something about this problem. So he has committed much of his life to doing exactly that. He also understands that this effort will be good for women. Women are doing heroic work, particularly single mothers, to try to pick up the pieces when men bring kids in the world and walk away. It is not right that those women should labor without the emotional support and the financial support to which they are entitled. Our responsible fatherhood initiative is designed to help children, help taxpayers, and help women as well. As I mentioned before our colleague, Senator Wellstone, had to leave the floor, we reached out to many women's organizations to make sure this effort is done in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of women who have experienced the horror of being battered or abused by a spouse or male companion. We want to make sure that is not the case; that, in fact, we protect women and children from the consequences of that type of behavior. Wade Horn has been involved in that effort to make sure we pursue strengthening families to help women and children with legitimate and important concerns and take into account the scourge of domestic violence that is unfortunately all too frequent in society today. Mr. Horn, when he is confirmed, will be in a position to be intimately involved in the next generation of welfare reform that we will undertake this year and next. Because of his lengthy experience laboring in these vineyards, I think he is ideally suited to this task. Let me offer a very brief recitation of some of Dr. Horn's experience. From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Horn was Commissioner for Children, Youth and Families, and Chief of the Children's Bureau within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Horn also served as a Presidential appointee to the National Commission on Children from 1990 to 1993, a member of the National Commission on Childhood Disability from 1994 to 1995, and a member of the U.S. Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators from 1996 to 1997. Prior to these appointments, Dr. Horn was the director of outpatient psychological services at the Children's Hospital, National Medical Center here in Washington, DC, and an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University. Currently, Dr. Horn is also an adjunct faculty at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute, and an affiliate scholar with the Hudson Institute. Simply put, if I could just summarize, I have known Dr. Horn now for several years. I know of no more decent, more compassionate individual. I know of no one who cares about the cause of helping children more than Wade Horn, or the cause of strengthening America's families and that is what this really comes down to. Whether it is within the bonds of marriage or outside, this all comes down to the cause of helping children, and in so doing not only helping those little ones but helping society as a whole. In conclusion, let me just say among his many other attributes, Wade Horn is an author. He authored a book after his own experience with cancer and wrote very eloquently in that book about the emotions that he experienced when he was sick, fighting cancer, seeing his own little girls come to his bedside. I know, based upon that personal experience and his many years of efforts in the vineyards of good public policy, there is no one who will bring a deeper, more heartfelt conviction to the cause of helping children, helping women, strengthening families, and strengthening America than Dr. Horn. I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote in support of his confirmation. Before, I yield the floor, I would also like to say how much I respect my colleague from Delaware. I thank Senator Carper for his efforts on behalf of the Responsible Fatherhood Act. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Senator Carper and I are both former Governors and have personally been in a position of actually implementing welfare reform, not simply enacting it into law. For that reason, I salute my dear friend and colleague, Senator Carper, and thank him for his presence as well today. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH. Before my colleague from Minnesota leaves the floor, I express my appreciation to him and compliment him for the passion he brings to the cause of helping those less fortunate in our society. There is no Member of this body who feels more strongly about empowering those who need opportunity in our country than Senator Wellstone. For that, I compliment the Senator and thank him for being such a valuable Member of this body. I also say, before the Senator leaves the floor, I find myself in strong agreement with his sentiments about the rights of women, particularly that they are not given incentives to stay out of relationships that are abusive, or assisting or providing incentives for men with a proven record of abuse from entering family relationships where they do not belong. I am not familiar with all of the statements he has made, but I can say from my own experience with Dr. Horn that it is my understanding he has distanced himself from several of these controversial statements. I can say from my personal experience with him in working on the Responsible Fatherhood Act that he has shown a great willingness to ensure that abusive men are not reinserted into family situations and, in fact, women are protected, as they should be. We should insist upon this, even as we try to promote men living up to their responsibility and doing right by not only their children but the mothers of their children. We had a recent conference at the Thurgood Marshall Center in Washington, DC, a lower income area, and we were heartened to see representatives from many organizations representing low-income America. I am glad the Responsible Fatherhood Act has been advocated by the Black Caucus. From my experience, Dr. Horn has shown great empathy toward the cause of helping children with a less fortunate background. I know it is entirely appropriate that the Senator comes to the floor and expresses his concerns. I thank him, before he gets on with his busy schedule, for his championing of the cause of the less fortunate, to express strong support for his dedication, particularly ensuring that women are not placed in abusive situations but, in fact, are protected from abusive men who would do them or their children harm. I express those sentiments before the Senator has to leave.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, before my colleague Senator McCain leaves the Chamber, I thank him for his leadership on this issue. He has demonstrated his courage in battle and in service to country and is doing so again by leading this important battle for patient care for all Americans. I thank Senator McCain for his leadership once again. I thank my colleague Senator Carper from Delaware. We served together as Governors for many years, and we now have the privilege of serving in this body. I thank him for his leadership on this issue, for his insight. There is no deeper thinker who cares more about the public policy details of what we do in the Senate than Senator Carper. He is new to this body but has already made a substantial contribution to the Senate and to the laws that govern our country. I express my appreciation to Senators Edwards and Kennedy for their leadership in this important battle on behalf of patients. I express my gratitude to two of our colleagues who are not on the floor at this time: Senator Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Kyl from Arizona. In particular, I thank Senator Nelson for his heartfelt work on the last amendment. Although unsuccessful, I know he cared deeply about striking the right balance. We share many of the same objectives, although we differ in terms of how we go about achieving those objectives. I salute Senator Nelson for his work in this regard. I hope our amendment will meet many of his concerns. I believe it does in terms of striking the right balance for the American people. Our amendment accomplishes both of the important objectives that the American people seek in debating and enacting this Patients' Bill of Rights. First, we ensure that all decisions that involve the practice of medicine, all decisions that involve medical discretion will be fully reviewable by an independent panel to ensure the quality of health care for all insured Americans across our country. Second, this amendment seeks to accomplish quality medicine at affordable cost, keeping the prices as reasonable as possible for consumers and patients across the country. We do this by removing unnecessary ambiguity from this bill, thereby ensuring that we can accomplish quality medical treatment but keeping the risks, the uncertainty, and therefore the costs to patients and consumers as low as possible. The bottom line will be quality health care for all Americans at an affordable cost. That is the balance all of us should be seeking to strike in this debate. That is the balance this amendment will help us to accomplish. Very simply, we seek to honor the original intent of this bill, that doctors should make medical decisions, that lawyers should draft contracts and practice law, but neither should be in the business of practicing the other's profession. We have removed through this amendment ambiguous language that ran the risk of one encroaching on the other's territory. Specifically, let me read the provisions that will remain in the bill. They are explicit and unambiguous. I quote from the legislation: Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit an independent medical reviewer to require that a group health plan or health insurer offering health insurance or health insurance coverage provide coverage for items or services for which benefits are specifically excluded or expressly limited under the plan or coverage in plain language of the plan document. Under the bill before this amendment, Mr. President, there had been several exceptions which had consumed the rule, making this clear exception for express limitations or prohibitions under the terms of the contract null and void. We put a period at the end of this language, removing the exception language, thereby making it very clear that the terms of the contract, in terms of contract language, will govern. This helps to keep the costs low because the uncertainty and the ambiguity will be removed. At the same time, there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity that medical decisions involving the practice of medicine, anything involving medical discretion, will be fully reviewable by the external appeals process, as it should be. In addition, there are other precautionary measures included in our amendment that I was interested in and I know the Senator from Delaware was interested in. He may elaborate on these provisions in just a few moments. These ensure that the independent reviewers are truly independent. We want to make sure they adhere to the provisions of this legislation, hopefully as amended by this amendment, and that we don't have the risk of panels exceeding their authority by changing the terms of the contract where they are expressly provided for, and there is no ambiguity in the language in terms of limitations or exclusions from the terms of the contract. Once again, this amendment will ensure that independent review panels do not exceed their authority, inappropriately driving up costs without improving the quality of health care for the American people. Finally, we have a rare opportunity to achieve bipartisan consensus on this amendment. Not only is Senator McCain helping to lead the charge once again, for which we are very grateful, but I listened with great interest and gratitude to something that the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, said last evening. He recited the very same language that I recited about exclusions and limitations in the contract. And then he said if you put a period at the end of those provisions and remove the exception language, that would be--to use his word--``great.'' Mr. President, that is exactly what we have done. We have placed a period there and removed the exception language, thereby removing the ambiguity, the risk, the unnecessary cost to consumers without a health care benefit. Senator Thompson, earlier today on the floor of the Senate, indicated that this action we have proposed in this amendment would also go a substantial way toward correcting what he thought was a potential defect in the legislation. So I ask all Senators, regardless of political affiliation, who seek to strike the right balance between quality health care on the one hand and affordability on the other hand to support this amendment. We have taken a step that some of those who have been concerned about the ambiguity in the language have encouraged us to do, thereby ensuring quality affordable health care for every American. We can accomplish that with this legislation, with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote in the affirmative. I yield the floor, and I thank my colleagues for their patience and attention.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will help thousands of American workers with the financial burden associated with sending a daughter or son to college. In this climate of labor shortages, U.S. companies are looking for innovative ways to maintain and attract a dedicated and qualified workforce. Some companies have creatively turned to providing college scholarships for their employees' children. My legislation would allow employees to deduct these scholarships from their gross income. Under current law, an employee generally is not taxed on post-secondary education assistance provided by an employer for the benefit of the employee. My bill would extend this treatment to employer-provided education assistance for the employees' children, up to $2,000 per child. As many of my colleagues know, employer-provided education assistance is considered an integral tool in keeping America's workforce well trained and equipped to deal with the changing face of the New Economy. Current law not only allows companies to keep an up-to-date labor pool, but also allows many workers to move from low-wage, entry level positions up the economic ladder of success. Extending tax-free treatment to the children of employees not only will help working families, but will contribute to our Nation's competitiveness in an increasingly dynamic global economy. My legislation is very simple. It allows employees whose companies provide educational scholarships for employees' children to exclude up to $2000 from gross income per child. An employee may not exclude more than $5,250 from gross income for employer education assistance. This is the limit established under Section 127(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code for employer education assistance. In essence, there would be ``family cap.'' Workers could deduct a $2,000 scholarship for their child and could also exclude up to $3,250 of educational benefits for themselves, however, the combined amounts could not exceed $5,250. In today's economy, American companies are no longer looking purely for a high-school diploma, but require that their workers have some sort of post-secondary education or training. Many working families struggle in providing this basic start which will help their children get well-paying jobs. This piece of legislation is also a modest proposal. The Joint Committee on Taxation has scored this provision at $231 million over 10 years. I look forward to working to make sure that this provision is fully offset in a responsible manner. I hope my colleagues will join me to help ease the burden of American families with the soaring costs of higher education.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will help thousands of American workers with the financial burden associated with sending a daughter or son to college. In this climate of labor shortages, U.S. companies are looking for innovative ways to maintain and attract a dedicated and qualified workforce. Some companies have creatively turned to providing college scholarships for their employees' children. My legislation would allow employees to deduct these scholarships from their gross income. Under current law, an employee generally is not taxed on post-secondary education assistance provided by an employer for the benefit of the employee. My bill would extend this treatment to employer-provided education assistance for the employees' children, up to $2,000 per child. As many of my colleagues know, employer-provided education assistance is considered an integral tool in keeping America's workforce well trained and equipped to deal with the changing face of the New Economy. Current law not only allows companies to keep an up-to-date labor pool, but also allows many workers to move from low-wage, entry level positions up the economic ladder of success. Extending tax-free treatment to the children of employees not only will help working families, but will contribute to our Nation's competitiveness in an increasingly dynamic global economy. My legislation is very simple. It allows employees whose companies provide educational scholarships for employees' children to exclude up to $2000 from gross income per child. An employee may not exclude more than $5,250 from gross income for employer education assistance. This is the limit established under Section 127(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code for employer education assistance. In essence, there would be ``family cap.'' Workers could deduct a $2,000 scholarship for their child and could also exclude up to $3,250 of educational benefits for themselves, however, the combined amounts could not exceed $5,250. In today's economy, American companies are no longer looking purely for a high-school diploma, but require that their workers have some sort of post-secondary education or training. Many working families struggle in providing this basic start which will help their children get well-paying jobs. This piece of legislation is also a modest proposal. The Joint Committee on Taxation has scored this provision at $231 million over 10 years. I look forward to working to make sure that this provision is fully offset in a responsible manner. I hope my colleagues will join me to help ease the burden of American families with the soaring costs of higher education.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my vote against the Sessions amendment. I do believe that we need a more uniform standard of discipline for disabled students, however, I do not believe that it is prudent for the Senate to consider such an important policy matter in such a short amount of time. I share several of the Senator's concerns about the need to revisit the discipline language in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but I do not believe the reauthorization bill for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the appropriate vehicle. The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is expected to be considered next year. I look forward to having a fuller debate on this complex issue at that time.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. I need to be briefer than normal. I support this amendment for the practical reason that States will continue to pay for 94 percent of State and local education expenditures. If we are going to make the progress we need to make for America's schoolchildren, we need States leading the way along with the Federal Government. That means Governors cooperating and leading the way. I have never seen a major State education reform effort enacted without the aid and assistance of the Governor. This amendment will require the Governor and chief State school officer to work together. We need that to make this reform work.

Mr. BAYH. Twenty-five seconds, Mr. President?

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise to add my voice to that of my distinguished colleague from the State of Ohio on behalf of the Voinovich amendment. I do so because I believe this amendment is necessary to make the most of the historic opportunity that lies before us to improve the quality of education for all of America's schoolchildren. This amendment is important. It is needed to make sure that our effort is comprehensive. One of the good things about the bill that has been authored to date is that it includes all the stakeholders necessary to improve the quality of public education. It includes teachers, administrators, those in higher education, parents, and others who are important to improving the quality of America's public schools. It will be strange if we do not include the chief executive officers of the States, those who are charged with the welfare and well-being of the citizens within their States. Most of the time--the vast majority of the time--there is no more important issue for the States' chief executives--the Governors --than the quality of education for America's schoolchildren. For this to be a comprehensive effort including all stakeholders, we must include the Governors of the 50 States. It is important for this amendment to be adopted in order for this effort to be coordinated. We will not reap the full fruits of our efforts if Federal policy heads in one direction which is completely uncoordinated and irrelevant to State policy heading in another direction. To maximize the potential of the reforms we seek to enact, to truly make historic progress, it is important that the State and Federal efforts dovetail together in a coordinated manner to give America's schoolchildren the very best opportunity to get the education they so richly deserve. Adoption of the Voinovich amendment is important for this ESEA reauthorization to maximize its effectiveness. I would like to observe that even with the additional funding we hope to achieve--which is so vitally important--still no more than 6 or 7 percent of the funds provided to America's local schools will come from the Federal level. Fully 94, 93 percent will continue to come from State and local governments. We are instituting, as a part of this process, historic accountability provisions. I anticipate they will identify many schools that need substantial improvement. They will identify many students who are at risk of being left behind if we do not give them the education they so desperately need. State and local governments will continue to be at the forefront of making that progress possible since they provide the bulk of the resources. It is vitally important that we include Governors in this process for the following reason: I have not seen a single State education reform effort anywhere in this country succeed without the active, vigorous participation of the Governor of the State. In real practical terms, it simply does not happen. It is the Governor who submits the State budget requesting more funding for education. It is the Governor who, very often working with the State legislature, and with the cooperation of the chief State school official, puts together the programmatic parts of any education reform effort. If we hope to use this opportunity to catalyze meaningful reform and progress at the State and local level, we simply must have Governors involved because, as a practical matter, it is the Governors who get the job done. As I said, I am not aware of a single major State education reform effort in this country that has been accomplished without the active involvement and participation of the Governor. That is why they at least need to be involved in the applications that are being submitted for the use of Federal funds as well. Finally, let me say a few words with regard to States rights. This amendment does not give the Governors unfettered discretion. It does not put the Governors in charge. It simply says that Governors must work, consult and cooperate with the State chief school officers. That is as it should be if we are going to reap the full fruits of this effort. It says to the States, with respect to their constitutions and laws, you do it as you see fit, but at least we would like to have the Governor consulted, if that does not run counter to a provision of State constitutional or statutory law. I have been interested over the last couple of years I have been privileged to serve as a Member of this body, having been a Governor for 8 years--just as my colleague from Ohio was the Governor of his fair State for 8 years--to occasionally hear the skepticism and the concern with which some members of the Federal Government view State governments in general and Governors in particular. This is interesting, considering a growing number of Members of this body happen to have been Governors once upon a time themselves. It was also interesting for me to observe and to listen, when I was a Governor in the Governors' meetings, to the skepticism and concern with which many Governors view the Federal Government and Washington, DC. Surely, in the spirit of the moment, when we are seeking more bipartisan cooperation between the parties--surely, at a time we are seeking more cooperation between the executive and the legislative branches--perhaps at this moment we can seek a new spirit of federalism as well, ensuring that the chief executives of the States, working in cooperation with the chief State school officers, make the most of this historic moment to truly have a reform of America's education system of which we can be proud and which will serve our children well. In order to accomplish that, Governors must be involved. That is what the Voinovich amendment will accomplish. That is why I am pleased to speak on its behalf. I thank my colleagues for their patience, and I am pleased to yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana for his graciousness. The decisions we are soon to make will affect the welfare of our Nation for many years to come. The estimates and assumptions that underlie these decisions are uncertain and unstable, at best. The last time we were called upon as a body to make decisions of this magnitude, we did not make them as well as we might have, for the assumptions and estimates were inaccurate, leading to the largest budget deficits, the largest increase in the national debt in our Nation's history and six separate tax increases to right the fiscal ship of state. We must do better than that. We owe it to those who have sent us to the Senate to do more than hope for the best. We owe it to them to do more than to hope things work out better than they did the last time. This amendment will ensure that we take the fiscally responsible course to preserve Social Security and Medicare, to balance the budget, and to pay down the debt. I urge adoption.

Mr. BAYH. I move to waive the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. I am happy to yield time to my colleague from Maine.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I again thank my colleague from Maine who so eloquently outlined the case for this amendment. I am grateful to her and others on her side of the aisle who have joined with us in this cause. It is truly a bipartisan effort in an institution that all too often is characterized by too much partisanship and divisiveness. I thank my colleague, Senator Stabenow from Michigan, from whom we will hear in a few moments, who has been a steadfast supporter of fiscal responsibility in this effort. I also echo what Senator Snowe mentioned, that Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, endorses this approach. The Concord Coalition, one of the foremost institutions dedicated to fiscal responsibility and rectitude, endorses this initiative. The Progressive Policy Institute, also dedicated to sound economic policies and fiscal policies, endorses this approach. I rise because I support tax cuts. I rise because I support tax cuts that are fiscally responsible, that do not put our Nation on a path to return to the days of debt and deficit from which we have so recently extricated ourselves. I support tax cuts that accommodate our other important priorities, especially Social Security and Medicare, ensuring that our Nation will keep that commitment to our parents and our commitment to our children that we will fulfill our own obligations in supporting the retirement system of our parents and grandparents. I support tax cuts that honor our Nation's most cherished enduring values: thrift, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and not asking our children to pay the bills that we today incur, but, instead, taking care of our own obligations. That is why I, along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, am honored to support this amendment. This amendment will put tax cuts--meaningful tax cuts--for the American people into place immediately and irrevocably. It will pay down the debt more rapidly than the approach suggested by the administration and the one reported from the committee. This amendment dedicates the surpluses in Social Security and Medicare trust funds to the cause of debt reduction, thereby not only paying down the Nation's debt more rapidly, but ensuring the integrity and solvency of Social Security and Medicare. This amendment will strengthen our economy by paying down the debt more rapidly, to keep interest rates low, investment and productivity growth high, perpetuating the virtuous cycle of the last several years that has seen unprecedented economic expansion across our country--22 million new jobs and 2 million new businesses. I have supported tax cuts throughout my career, first as Governor, signing the largest tax cut in the history of our State; and I have previously supported tax cuts in this body. Indeed, I can support the tax cuts before us. I speak not only for myself but for many Americans when I say the uncertainty inherent in 10-year projections disturbs me because it raises a very real and present danger of returning to sizable debts and deficits. This would be a great problem for our country. It is something I believe we must address in a responsible way if we are going to have tax cuts that truly serve all of the priorities of the American people. The approach we have suggested is a commonsense approach. In the early years, when the surpluses are most reliable, the tax cut will go into effect immediately and be irrevocable. In future years, we will ensure the surplus that makes the tax cuts possible actually materializes, and that we don't dip into Social Security or Medicare, jeopardizing those systems, to make the tax cut possible. That needs to be our top priority. Again, we need to remind ourselves of the inherent uncertainty in 10- year projections. As the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, suggested, 10-year projections ``aren't worth the paper they are written on.'' And they are not. We owe it to the American people to take prudent steps to ensure the actions we take today, in fact, lead to the results that we promise tomorrow. Finally, two brief observations. Let me counter some of the criticisms offered with regard to our approach. First, the issue of uncertainty. In fact, a trigger amendment in the tax cut creates greater certainty. It creates greater certainty in the bond market by ensuring that interest rates can be low because the debt will actually be paid down and deficits will not return. There was a headline in the Wall Street Journal Friday saying that interest rates were beginning to rise because of concern that we might return as a nation to the time of deficits again. The trigger creates greater certainty by ensuring that we do not return to deficits and thereby reassures the bond market. It also ensures that we won't have future tax increases--one of the greatest causes of uncertainty that we can have. Following the tax cut of 1981, we had six separate tax increases in this country for the American people. That is real uncertainty. A trigger amendment will avoid that. As my colleague from Maine suggested, there is nothing in the trigger amendment that will lead to a tax increase. On the contrary, the phases of the tax cut that go into effect, because we can afford them, will be irrevocable. There is nothing that will repeal any tax cuts that have been put into place in this trigger amendment. On the contrary, it merely delays future phases of tax cuts until the surpluses that make them possible arrive. The only counterargument to that would be to suggest that we dip into Social Security and Medicare to pay for tax cuts--something I am sure the majority of my colleagues do not support. This will not go into effect should we run the risk of entering a recession. First of all, the greatest risk of deficits and a return to debt is not that we have a significant recession, but that estimates are merely wrong and the errors compounded over a 10-year period lead to a sizable error in our projections. For example, a mere four-tenths of 1 percent difference in GDP and productivity growth would lead to a trillion-dollar difference in the surplus estimates, running a real risk of returning to deficits and increasing the national debt. In case we do face the prospect of a recession, we have included a provision that would waive the trigger in the event the blue-chip forecast of the most prominent private sector economists predicts 4 consecutive months where the growth rate in this country will slow to an unacceptable level. Finally, regarding criticisms, let me say that this does not favor spending at the expense of tax cuts. On the contrary, as my colleague from Maine so ably pointed out, spending increases are held to the rate of inflation--half the rate of spending increases contained in the budget bill voted on last week, and much lower than rates in increased spending in recent years. If this had been the fact, spending would be much lower than today. Let me conclude by saying this. Let us go forward and enact significant tax relief for the American people. Let us enact this tax relief in a way that is fiscally responsible and would hold sure that our children and grandchildren do not live to rue the day of unintended errors that we made that could have been avoided. Let us enact these tax cuts in ways to preserve Social Security and Medicare. Let us enact these tax cuts in ways that will be true to the enduring values of self-reliance and self-sufficiency that have always made our Nation great. Finally, let me say we must learn the lesson of history. The last time this Chamber was called upon to make decisions of this magnitude, we, frankly, didn't do a very good job. The decisions that were made and the votes that were cast led to the largest deficits in the history of our country, the largest increase in the national debt in the history of our country, to a lower rate of economic growth and a lower standard of living for the American people. Let that not happen again. This amendment and the fiscal responsibility that it will bring to these tax cuts will ensure that all of the elements of prosperity for the American people will be put into law and that, it seems to me, is our responsibility. I will now be pleased to yield to my colleague and friend from the great State of Michigan, Senator Stabenow, who has been a steadfast supporter of this effort. She is new to this body, but she is already making a tremendous impact.

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

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to modify my amendment prior to the vote in relation to the amendment on Monday. Let me assure the managers that this modification will not substantially change the effect of the amendment. It is to make some minor technical corrections to the current draft.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from the great State of Maine and, in doing so, would like to thank her for her courage and steadfast support of this amendment. Without her support, we would not be where we are today.

Mr. BAYH. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I salute our colleague, Senator Schumer from New York, for his tenacious support of this very worthy endeavor. I say to the Senator, I would particularly like to congratulate you for the bipartisan nature of the support you have gathered for this very worthy undertaking. With Senator Smith, Senator Snowe, and others on the other side of the aisle, it is a cause that every American, regardless of party, can support. I rise in support of the Schumer amendment because it is good for the taxpayers of America, it is good for the children of America and their education, it is good for America's economy, and it is true to our values. It is good for the taxpayers of America because, in my State and in yours and others, one of the most pressing needs that American families face, after paying the mortgage and saving for retirement, is putting money away for the cost of a college education. The cost of that education has been rising faster than the rate of inflation now for many years, far outstripping the ability of many Americans, particularly those in the middle class, to afford it. So this tax cut will be good for American taxpayers and families because it helps them in a very significant way--$12,000 when fully phased in--in alleviating the tax burden each and every year. It is good for America's students because a college education today is no longer a luxury. It is a necessity to have many of the good paying jobs in areas involving information technology, communication technology, biotechnology, and the other rapidly growing parts of our economy. Those with a college degree earn substantially more than those without. This is good for America's children and America's students. It is also important for the long-term health of our economy. America's competitive advantage lies in those areas that require greater degrees of knowledge, expertise, and learning. So as we enable our children to do better, we also empower our economy to do better. Finally, this effort, thanks to Senator Schumer, is true to America's values. We are saying to the families of New York and Indiana and Oregon, and the other 47 States, that if your children work hard, if they dream the dream of a college education, we will stand by them. If you want to work hard and be self-sufficient, get a good job, we will help to make that dream become a reality. There is no more important American value than that. In conclusion, I again salute my colleague, Senator Schumer. This tax cut is good for taxpayers. It is good for our children and their education. It is good for America's economy, and it is true to our values. I ask my colleagues to support this very worthy endeavor. I yield the remainder of my time back to my colleague and friend, the Senator from New York.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the Senator from Ohio for his recognition of the need to provide incentives to attract individuals to the worthy cause of teaching in the critical early years of learning. As Senator Kennedy has already noted, we have over 100 amendments filed to this legislation which are not germane. While I support many of these amendments, including the Voinovich amendment on loan forgiveness for Head Start teachers, I think that it is important that the Senate stay focused on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I look forward to debating and supporting the Senator from Ohio during the debate on the reauthorization of the Head Start Program. However, today I will lend my support to Senator Kennedy's efforts to keep this education bill from languishing under the load of nongermane amendments.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for his inspirational work this morning. There is no one who cares more about the quality of the environment than Senator Harry Reid. I join with him in calling for taking up a brownfields bill. It would be good for my State and for all States in this Union. I very much appreciate his leadership on that critical subject.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and a great man, former Congressman Lee Hamilton. I am honored to introduce legislation designating the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 121 W. Spring Street in New Albany, Indiana, as the ``Lee H. Hamilton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse.'' Lee Hamilton was born in Daytona Beach, FL, on April 20, 1931, and raised in Evansville, IN. He attended Evansville Central High school, where he excelled both in the classroom and on the basketball court. As a senior, he led his team to the final game of the Indiana state basketball tournament, and received the prestigious Tresler award for scholarship and athletics. After graduation, Congressman Hamilton attended Depauw University, and earned his bachelor's degree in 1952. He went on to study for one year in post-war Germany at Goethe University, before enrolling in law school at Indiana University, where he received his Doctor of Jurisprudence Degree in 1956. In 1964, Lee Hamilton was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he went on to serve with distinction for 34 years. During his long tenure in office, he established himself as a leader in International Affairs, serving as the chairman of the House Foreign Relations committee, Intelligence Committee, and Iran-Contra committee. Mr. Hamilton was widely respected for his powerful intellect and impressive knowledge of foreign affairs, and remains unquestionably one of our nation's foremost experts on foreign policy. In addition to his record on foreign affairs, Mr. Hamilton also played an important role in reforming the institution of Congress itself. He cochaired the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress where he worked to reform the institution by instituting the gift-ban, tightening lobbying restrictions, and applying the laws of the workplace to Congress. Even with all his success in Washington, however, Mr. Hamilton never forgot his Hoosier roots. He always remained down-to-earth and accessible to his Southern Indiana constituents. Over the years, he was presented with a number of opportunities to ascend to other offices, including the U.S. Senate, Secretary of State, and the Vice-Presidency of the United States. He chose instead to retain his House seat and fulfill his commitments to the people of Southern Indiana. Today, Congressman Hamilton remains active in foreign policy and congressional reform. He currently heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, and serves as the director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. Congressman Hamilton has received numerous public service awards including the Paul H. Nitze Award for Distinguished Authority on National Security Affairs, the Edmund S. Muskie Distinguished Public Service Award, the Phillip C. Habib Award for Distinguished Public Service, the Indiana Humanities Council Lifetime Achievement Award and the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress' Statesmanship Award. It is only fitting that we recognize Congressman Hamilton's many years of service to the people of Southern Indiana by naming the New Albany Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in his honor. It is my hope that the Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse located at 121 W. Spring Street in New Albany will soon bear the name of my friend and fellow Hoosier, Congressman Lee Hamilton.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise this morning to address what I believe to be most important issue facing our country today; that is, improving the quality of education received by every child across this country. It will affect not only our future prosperity but the kind of Nation in which we live and the vibrancy of our very democracy. I thank all colleagues who helped bring us to this historic point, starting with my friend and colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, with whom I have enjoyed working on this issue for the last several years; our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Senator Gregg, Senator Frist, Senator Jeffords, and others; and the Democratic members on the HELP Committee, Senator Dodd and others, but principally Senator Kennedy. I want to say a special word about Senator Kennedy this morning. His dedication to improving the quality of America's educational system is truly remarkable. He has proven himself to be not only principled but pragmatic. He fights for what he believes in, but he is not willing to sacrifice real progress for America's schoolchildren for the older ideological ideas. Without his hard work and dedication, we would not be where we are today. I thank all of these leaders for bringing us to where we are. It has been a long road for me personally and a long road for many of us in this Chamber. My thoughts go back to 1989, my first year as Governor, when President Bush called us to a national summit in the city of Charlottesville. For only the third time in our Nation's history, all 50 Governors had gathered together to focus on a single subject. The first time was Teddy Roosevelt's focus on the issue of the environment. In this case, it was President Bush's first focus on the subject of education. We came out of that summit dedicated to the standards and accountability movement, and we established the National Education Goals Panel, of which I was an initial member. I had the privilege of serving, in later years, as chairman. From there I went on and had the privilege of serving as the chairman of the Education Commission of the States, a collection of State and local officials who work to improve the quality of our schools at the State and local levels. Finally, I had the privilege of serving on the National Assessment of Educational Progress Board, the NAEP Board, trying to devise the very best assessments for our children, authentic assessments, that tell us more than if they can memorize rote knowledge, but instead whether they can think and reason and express themselves intelligently. It has also been a long road for this Senate. I, again, thank Senator Lieberman and my colleagues at the Progressive Policy Institute, who helped fashion the principles that lie at the heart of the bill we will soon take up. We stand on the precipice of historic progress saying that the status quo that leaves too many of our children behind is no longer good enough. The consequences of failure today are greater than ever before. We must do better. I believe we can. During the campaign last year, I was very pleased when President Bush adopted many of the principles that lay at the heart of our bill. That was an important step in the right direction. I give him credit for that. I am proud that the thinking in my own caucus has evolved on many of these critical issues. So there has been a convergence of thought, and now a consensus exists on the part of most of us of what needs to be done to improve the quality of our local schools. The principles and the values are the same, even if occasionally we have differences of opinion about how to embrace those principles and give them full meaning in the context of education today. We stand on the threshold of great progress, the most significant educational progress in a generation. Accountability lies at the heart of our agenda. We redefine the definition of ``success.'' No longer will we define success for America's schoolchildren merely in terms of how much we spend, but instead we will define success in terms of how much our children learn. There will be high academic standards and assessments to determine how every child is doing toward meeting those standards. Everyone in the process will be held responsible for making progress--every school, every school district, every State--each and every year. For the first time, there will be real consequences--real consequences--for academic failure. In relation to some of the new money dedicated to new administrative funding, if progress is not made, it will be reduced, because it only makes sense that if the funding is not achieving the progress for which it was intended, it should be redirected into ways which will achieve real progress. For the first time, America's parents will be given an important choice. If your local school is not doing well enough for several successive years, you will be allowed to send your child to a better performing public school. You will begin to have an option of receiving supplemental services, additional instruction on top of that provided in your local school, to give your child the reading, writing, and scientific knowledge that your child will need to be successful in meeting the challenges of the 21st century. We inject competition--true competition--into the system, embracing market forces for the innovation and additional accountability they can bring. We seek to achieve the best of both worlds, with charter schools, magnet schools, robust public school choice, but not withdrawing the important resources necessary to making our public schools flourish. We avoid the false choices of those who say that the only way to improve the quality of education is to abandon our public schools, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, those who say the status quo is good enough and that the answer to the challenges facing America's schools is simply to add more money. We embrace the notion of additional flexibility for our local schools and States. We cut through the redtape that too often has bogged us down at the Federal level. We only ask in return that our local schools and school districts give us additional progress for the flexibility that we provide. We invest in professional development. Every study I have ever seen-- I know the Presiding Officer has labored in these vineyards as a Governor, as did I--every study I have ever seen indicates the two most important variables in determining a child's academic success is, first, whether a parent is involved or engaged in that child's educational activities, making it a priority at the home; and, secondly, whether there is a well-prepared and highly motivated classroom professional teacher in that classroom, helping to provide the individual instruction every one of our children needs and every one of our children deserves. These are the principles that lie at the heart of our bill: increased accountability for everyone; more competition in parental choice within the context of public education; more flexibility for our States and local school districts; and investing in professional development, to ensure that every classroom has a motivated, highly trained teacher that every child deserves. But now, my friends, we come to the critical moment. Now we face the acid test which will determine whether our actions will truly live up to our words. We are all for reform. We are all for accountability. But will we do what it takes in a practical sense to make reform and accountability work? I believe we must. We are all for holding everyone else responsible--the classroom teachers, school principals, district superintendents, Governors; everyone else in this process--but will we hold ourselves, this institution, accountable? Will we hold this President and this administration accountable to doing what it takes to give meaning to the words that we speak? I believe we must. Last week I visited schools across my State, in Evansville, in South Bend, in Fort Wayne, in Indianapolis, in Floyd County. I saw the difference the Title I dollars are making in the lives of our children and in the quality of instruction taking place in our classrooms. It was a wonderful thing to behold. I compliment those teachers and principals and school superintendents who are using those dollars to give those children hope and educational opportunity. But as I visited those schools and saw what was working and making a difference, I was also saddened to remember that 6.8 million children-- 6.8 million of our young people--who are qualified to receive that assistance are instead receiving none. What about them? Will they be left behind? If we do not rise to this challenge, I am afraid they will. President Bush, during the campaign last year, pledged to leave no child behind. I commend him for that pledge. Now it is up to us and to him to redeem it. And so we must. We will enact a system of standards adopted by the States, assessments to determine how each and every one of our children are doing. We will insist upon results. But what do we do with the results of those assessments when they tell us so many of our children need to do better? Do we simply pat them on the head, wish them good luck, and say: Now you are on your own? Of course we must do better than that. Throwing dollars at our schools without accountability is a waste; but accountability without the means to truly improve the quality of instruction our children are receiving is nothing but a cruel hoax. I call upon my colleagues in this Chamber and our new President to join with us, to join with us in a historic effort of improving the quality of instruction for our children who need it most, to join with us in embracing reform, but also what it means in a tangible, practical dollars-and-cents way of making reform work. Our actions in this great Chamber must be more than a facade of reform. The bill that we enact and that the President signs must offer more than an illusion of progress. We must not individually or collectively participate in perpetuating a hoax upon America's schoolchildren. It is important for me to acknowledge that from time to time on this side of the aisle there has been a diversity of thought on this subject. But when it comes to the commitment of resources to make the reform work, to make progress become a reality, we stand united and determined. This debate is not about accountability versus spending. We are all for accountability. We are all for reform. This debate is a question of priorities and whether we will do what the American people have been asking of us for so very long now; and that is, to make the quality of our children's education our No. 1 priority. I believe we must. The President's tax package this next year calls for devoting $68 billion to the cause of tax relief. That is a cause which I embrace, as do many of my colleagues. We believe some tax relief for the hard-working taxpayers of America is in order for a variety of reasons, but it is not our only priority. The President's proposal, as it currently stands, calls for investing $2.6 billion in improving the quality of education, 25 times more for reducing taxes than investing in the quality of our children's education. I support tax cuts. I support tax relief, but it is not 25 times more important than our children's education. We can and should have both. We should not be forced to make this unnecessary choice between two alternatives, both of which can be accommodated if the administration will be more forthcoming with resources. In conclusion, this debate is about education reform, and it is about the resources to make education reform work. More important than that, it is about the credibility of this institution and those of us who are privileged to comprise it. Will we do more than read the polls and put together a construct to satisfy our constituents, to make them believe we are doing something about improving the quality of education for our children, when, in fact, we are not; or will we make the difficult decision and allocate the resources that are necessary to live up to the challenge we face, to fulfill the expectations they have a right to expect of us? I believe we should. I call upon the Members of the Senate and the administration and this President to join with us to redeem the pledge he made in the campaign, the pledge that all of us embrace of leaving no child behind and to devote the resources to our schools to make accountability, reform, and progress be more than empty words but a reality in the daily lives of our schools. I am privileged to be in the Chamber with my colleague from California with whom I have worked on this issue and so many others. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and a great man, former Congressman Lee Hamilton. I am honored to introduce legislation designating the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 121 W. Spring Street in New Albany, Indiana, as the ``Lee H. Hamilton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse.'' Lee Hamilton was born in Daytona Beach, FL, on April 20, 1931, and raised in Evansville, IN. He attended Evansville Central High school, where he excelled both in the classroom and on the basketball court. As a senior, he led his team to the final game of the Indiana state basketball tournament, and received the prestigious Tresler award for scholarship and athletics. After graduation, Congressman Hamilton attended Depauw University, and earned his bachelor's degree in 1952. He went on to study for one year in post-war Germany at Goethe University, before enrolling in law school at Indiana University, where he received his Doctor of Jurisprudence Degree in 1956. In 1964, Lee Hamilton was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he went on to serve with distinction for 34 years. During his long tenure in office, he established himself as a leader in International Affairs, serving as the chairman of the House Foreign Relations committee, Intelligence Committee, and Iran-Contra committee. Mr. Hamilton was widely respected for his powerful intellect and impressive knowledge of foreign affairs, and remains unquestionably one of our nation's foremost experts on foreign policy. In addition to his record on foreign affairs, Mr. Hamilton also played an important role in reforming the institution of Congress itself. He cochaired the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress where he worked to reform the institution by instituting the gift-ban, tightening lobbying restrictions, and applying the laws of the workplace to Congress. Even with all his success in Washington, however, Mr. Hamilton never forgot his Hoosier roots. He always remained down-to-earth and accessible to his Southern Indiana constituents. Over the years, he was presented with a number of opportunities to ascend to other offices, including the U.S. Senate, Secretary of State, and the Vice-Presidency of the United States. He chose instead to retain his House seat and fulfill his commitments to the people of Southern Indiana. Today, Congressman Hamilton remains active in foreign policy and congressional reform. He currently heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, and serves as the director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. Congressman Hamilton has received numerous public service awards including the Paul H. Nitze Award for Distinguished Authority on National Security Affairs, the Edmund S. Muskie Distinguished Public Service Award, the Phillip C. Habib Award for Distinguished Public Service, the Indiana Humanities Council Lifetime Achievement Award and the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress' Statesmanship Award. It is only fitting that we recognize Congressman Hamilton's many years of service to the people of Southern Indiana by naming the New Albany Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in his honor. It is my hope that the Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse located at 121 W. Spring Street in New Albany will soon bear the name of my friend and fellow Hoosier, Congressman Lee Hamilton.