Evan Bayh

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today with my colleague Senator Richard Lugar to introduce a bipartisan resolution honoring the University of Notre Dame women's basketball team for winning the school's first ever National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, Division I basketball championship. On April 1, 2001, this remarkable group of young women--led by senior All-American and native Hoosier Ruth Riley, have taken their place in Notre Dame's long and storied tradition of academic and athletic excellence with a victory over the Purdue University Boilermakers. This match-up made NCAA history, as it was the first time two teams from the same state appeared in the NCAA women's basketball championship game. I cannot think of a more fitting place from which these two special teams could hail than from Indiana, basketball's heartland. It is a wonderful tribute to these two teams and their fine universities, and an honor for the state of Indiana to gain that distinction. As Hoosiers across our state and basketball fans around the nation watched with excitement and anticipation, both teams put forth a tremendous effort that made for a spectacular game. These true competitors displayed immense talent and ability as they engaged each other relentlessly throughout the forty minute championship game. The determination and commitment of both the Fighting Irish and the Boilermakers exemplifies our Hoosier values and serves as a tremendous source of pride for the state of Indiana. Behind every great team is a great coach, and Notre Dame's Muffet McGraw is no exception. Coach McGraw provided the Fighting Irish with the stewardship needed for an outstanding record of thirty-four wins and only two losses during the 2000-2001 season, en route to the national championship. The Notre Dame community should be very proud of both Coach McGraw's leadership and her team's outstanding accomplishments as student athletes. In dramatic fashion, the Fighting Irish turned around a twelve point deficit and tied the game with one minute remaining. With 5.8 seconds remaining, Ms. Riley made two free throws to complete the comeback and secure a 68-66 victory for the Fighting Irish. Ms. Riley, who earned the tournament's Most Outstanding Player honors, was also named national Player of the Year and was a unanimous selection as first team All-American. Through hard work and determination, Ruth Riley and her teammates advanced the sport of women's basketball and provided inspiration for future generations of young female athletes.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will increase a working family's chances to remain self-sufficient and off of Welfare. Given the dramatic decline in the welfare caseload since 1996, the question remains whether individuals leaving welfare will remain off welfare. In order to fortify the successful welfare reform efforts of the last five years, I along with a bipartisan group of Senators have brought together a legislative package designed to honor work, personal responsibility and strengthen a family's chance to stay self-sufficient. The Strengthening Working Families Act includes six initiatives designed to support the efforts of families who have made it off welfare, but are at risk of falling backward--especially in a weak economy. The provisions of the package include: (1) Promotion of Responsible Fatherhood; (2) Distribution of Child Support Directly to Families; (3) Expansion of the EITC for Larger Families; (4) Restoration of the Social Services Block Grant; (5) Encouragement of Employer-sponsored Child Care; and (6) Reauthorization of The Safe and Stable Families Act. The Strengthening Working Families Act provides those who are trying to be responsible with a hand-up, not a hand-out. It honors our values, in this case the values of work and self-sufficiency, and strengthens families who take responsibility for their children emotionally and financially. This proposal to support continued personal responsibility comes as the first stage of welfare reform ends and Congress prepares to tackle welfare's hardest cases in the 2002 reauthorization of Temporary Aid to Needy Families, TANF. Since the welfare system was reformed to require that individuals take responsibility for themselves and their families, caseloads have declined. After peaking at 5.1 million families in March of 1994, the number of families on welfare has declined by more than half, to 2.2 million families in June of 2000. The employment rate for single mothers has increased from 57 percent in 1992 to almost 73 percent in 2000. Even among those remaining on the welfare rolls, work has increased sharply, from about 8 percent of adults in 1994 to 28 percent in 1999. This is a fiscally responsible approach that will be good for families and good for American taxpayers. As Governor, I reformed welfare in Indiana. In 1994, we spent $247.8 million in Indiana on direct welfare payments to families. By the year 2000, we reduced that number by sixty-six percent, to $83.8 million. If you help people find work and dignity, they become self-sufficient. A number of recent studies show that between 18 percent and 35 percent of those who leave welfare return to the rolls, however. While these rates are reflective of a good economy with ample employment opportunities, the next few months will indicate what will happen to the welfare rolls during a slowing economy. Many of those who left the rolls are in jobs sensitive to economic downturns: 46 percent are in the service industry and 24 percent work in retail. The total cost of the package is estimated at $11.5 billion; 80 percent or $8.5 billion of which is directed in tax cuts for working families and small businesses. The administration's budget blueprint includes funding for two titles of this bill: Title I, the fatherhood programs, were included at $64 million a year, $315 million over five years; as well as Title VI, the child welfare program, in its entirety. In particular, Title I of the bill which promotes responsible fatherhood mirrors S. 653, The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001, a bill I introduced earlier this Congress with Senator Domenici. Many of America's mothers, including single moms, are heroic in their efforts to make ends meet while raising good, responsible children. Many dads are too. But an increasing number of men are not doing their part, or are absent entirely. The decline in the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children over the last forty years is a troubling trend that affects us all. Fathers can help teach their children about respect, honor, duty and so many of the values that make our communities strong. The number of children living in households without fathers has tripled over the last forty years, from just over 5 million in 1960 to more than 17 million today. Today, the United States leads the world in fatherless families, and too many children spend their lives without any contact with their fathers. The consequences are severe, a study by the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency found that the best predictor of violent crime and burglary in a community is not the rate of poverty, but the rate of fatherless homes. The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001, does three primary things to help combat fatherlessness in America. First, it creates a grant program for state media campaigns to encourage fathers to act responsibly. Second, it funds community efforts that provide fathers with the tools necessary to be responsible fathers. Finally, the bill creates a National Clearinghouse to assist states with their media campaigns and with the dissemination of materials to promote responsible fatherhood. I want to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership on this bill. With her support not only does each individual piece of this legislation enjoy bipartisan support, the entire package is bipartisan. In addition, I want to thank Senators Bob Graham, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Herb Kohl, Tim Johnson, John Breaux, Hillary Clinton, John Rockefeller and Thomas Carper for their support. This bipartisan package to promote personal responsibility will allow us to continue to discuss the successes of welfare reform. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will increase a working family's chances to remain self-sufficient and off of Welfare. Given the dramatic decline in the welfare caseload since 1996, the question remains whether individuals leaving welfare will remain off welfare. In order to fortify the successful welfare reform efforts of the last five years, I along with a bipartisan group of Senators have brought together a legislative package designed to honor work, personal responsibility and strengthen a family's chance to stay self-sufficient. The Strengthening Working Families Act includes six initiatives designed to support the efforts of families who have made it off welfare, but are at risk of falling backward--especially in a weak economy. The provisions of the package include: (1) Promotion of Responsible Fatherhood; (2) Distribution of Child Support Directly to Families; (3) Expansion of the EITC for Larger Families; (4) Restoration of the Social Services Block Grant; (5) Encouragement of Employer-sponsored Child Care; and (6) Reauthorization of The Safe and Stable Families Act. The Strengthening Working Families Act provides those who are trying to be responsible with a hand-up, not a hand-out. It honors our values, in this case the values of work and self-sufficiency, and strengthens families who take responsibility for their children emotionally and financially. This proposal to support continued personal responsibility comes as the first stage of welfare reform ends and Congress prepares to tackle welfare's hardest cases in the 2002 reauthorization of Temporary Aid to Needy Families, TANF. Since the welfare system was reformed to require that individuals take responsibility for themselves and their families, caseloads have declined. After peaking at 5.1 million families in March of 1994, the number of families on welfare has declined by more than half, to 2.2 million families in June of 2000. The employment rate for single mothers has increased from 57 percent in 1992 to almost 73 percent in 2000. Even among those remaining on the welfare rolls, work has increased sharply, from about 8 percent of adults in 1994 to 28 percent in 1999. This is a fiscally responsible approach that will be good for families and good for American taxpayers. As Governor, I reformed welfare in Indiana. In 1994, we spent $247.8 million in Indiana on direct welfare payments to families. By the year 2000, we reduced that number by sixty-six percent, to $83.8 million. If you help people find work and dignity, they become self-sufficient. A number of recent studies show that between 18 percent and 35 percent of those who leave welfare return to the rolls, however. While these rates are reflective of a good economy with ample employment opportunities, the next few months will indicate what will happen to the welfare rolls during a slowing economy. Many of those who left the rolls are in jobs sensitive to economic downturns: 46 percent are in the service industry and 24 percent work in retail. The total cost of the package is estimated at $11.5 billion; 80 percent or $8.5 billion of which is directed in tax cuts for working families and small businesses. The administration's budget blueprint includes funding for two titles of this bill: Title I, the fatherhood programs, were included at $64 million a year, $315 million over five years; as well as Title VI, the child welfare program, in its entirety. In particular, Title I of the bill which promotes responsible fatherhood mirrors S. 653, The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001, a bill I introduced earlier this Congress with Senator Domenici. Many of America's mothers, including single moms, are heroic in their efforts to make ends meet while raising good, responsible children. Many dads are too. But an increasing number of men are not doing their part, or are absent entirely. The decline in the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children over the last forty years is a troubling trend that affects us all. Fathers can help teach their children about respect, honor, duty and so many of the values that make our communities strong. The number of children living in households without fathers has tripled over the last forty years, from just over 5 million in 1960 to more than 17 million today. Today, the United States leads the world in fatherless families, and too many children spend their lives without any contact with their fathers. The consequences are severe, a study by the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency found that the best predictor of violent crime and burglary in a community is not the rate of poverty, but the rate of fatherless homes. The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001, does three primary things to help combat fatherlessness in America. First, it creates a grant program for state media campaigns to encourage fathers to act responsibly. Second, it funds community efforts that provide fathers with the tools necessary to be responsible fathers. Finally, the bill creates a National Clearinghouse to assist states with their media campaigns and with the dissemination of materials to promote responsible fatherhood. I want to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership on this bill. With her support not only does each individual piece of this legislation enjoy bipartisan support, the entire package is bipartisan. In addition, I want to thank Senators Bob Graham, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Herb Kohl, Tim Johnson, John Breaux, Hillary Clinton, John Rockefeller and Thomas Carper for their support. This bipartisan package to promote personal responsibility will allow us to continue to discuss the successes of welfare reform. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001 with Senator Pete Domenici. Our bill aims to encourage fathers to take both emotional and financial responsibility for their children. Many of America's mothers, including single moms, are heroic in their efforts to make ends meet while raising good, responsible children. Many dads are too. But an increasing number of men are not doing their part, or are absent entirely. The decline in the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children over the last forty years is a troubling trend that affects us all. Fathers can help teach their children about respect, honor, duty and so many of the values that make our communities strong. The number of children living in households without fathers has tripled over the last forty years, from just over 5 million in 1960 to more than 17 million today. Today, the United States leads the world in fatherless families, and too many children spend their lives without any contact with their fathers. The consequences are severe, A study by the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency found that the best predictor of violent crime and burglary in a community is not the rate of poverty, but the rate of fatherless homes. When fathers are absent from their lives, children are: 5 times more likely to live in poverty; twice as likely to commit crimes; more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom; twice as likely to drop out of school; twice as likely to be abused; more likely to commit suicide; over twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs; and more likely to become pregnant as teenagers. I have had the opportunity to work with and visit local fatherhood programs in Indiana. I have talked to fathers as they work to re-engage with their children, learn how to be better parents, and gradually build the trust that allows them to be involved emotionally, as well as financially, with their children. I visited the Father Resource Program, run by Dr. Wallace McLaughlin in Indianapolis. This program is a wonderful example of a local, private/public partnership that delivers results. It has served more than 500 fathers, primarily young men between the ages of 15 and 25, by providing father peer support meetings, pre-marital counseling, family development forums and family support services, as well as co-parenting, employment, job training, education, and life skills classes. The fathers there were eager to tell me about the profound impact these programs have made in their lives, and the lives of their children. One said to me, ``After the six week fatherhood training program, the support doesn't stop . . . I was wild before. The program taught me self-discipline, parenting skills, and responsibility.'' Another said, ``As fathers, we would like to interact with our kids. When they grow into something, we want to feel proud and say that we were a part of that.'' And yet another, ``The program showed me how to have a better relationship with my child's mother, and a better relationship with my child. Before those relationships were just financial.'' While the program's emotional benefits to families are difficult to measure, we do know it is helping fathers enter the workforce. Over eighty percent of the men who have graduated from the program are currently employed. This type of investment is a fiscally responsible one, it helps get to the root cause of many of the social problems that cost our society and our government a great deal of money: The cost to society of drug and alcohol abuse is more than $110 billion per year. The social and economic costs of teenage pregnancy, abortion and STDs has been estimated at over $21 billion per year. The federal government spends $8 billion a year on dropout prevention programs. Last year, the federal government spent more than $105 billion on poverty relief programs for families and children. All this adds up to a staggering price. My legislation, The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001, does three primary things to help combat fatherlessness in America. First, it creates a grant program for state media campaigns to encourage fathers to act responsibly. Second, it funds community efforts that provide fathers with the tools necessary to be responsible fathers. Finally, the bill creates a National Clearinghouse to assist states with their media campaigns and with the dissemination of materials to promote responsible fatherhood. Senators Voinovich, Lincoln, Lugar, Johnson, Miller, Landrieu, Breaux, Graham, Lieberman, Kohl, and Carper also join me in the introduction of The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001. This legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Julia Carson, and has the endorsement of the Congressional Black Caucus. President Bush has included funding for responsible fatherhood in his budget blueprint and I encourage him to continue to make this initiative a priority. Collectively, I hope we are able to pass responsible fatherhood legislation prior to Father's Day this year. I know that government cannot be the lone answer to this problem. We cannot legislate parental responsibility. But government can encourage fathers to behave responsibly, inform the public about the consequences of father absence, and remove barriers to responsible fatherhood. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today along with my senior colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, to honor the life of a fellow Hoosier and distinguished veteran of the United States Air Force, Lieutenant General James T. Callaghan, who recently passed away. As those who knew Lt. Gen. Callaghan can attest, his strong commitment to his country is reflected in his long and distinguished service in the Air Force. Over his career, which spanned more than three decades, he served with valor in the Vietnam and Gulf Wars. During his service he received many combat awards, including the Silver Star, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and the Bronze Star. In the late 1980s, Lt. Gen. Callaghan commanded U.S. air troops in Korea and later during the Gulf War, he served as the southern commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Allied Air Forces. Lt. Gen. Callaghan exhibited extraordinary bravery and exceptional leadership on the eve of the Gulf war. He personally flew a test combat mission that night in an effort to assess the situation before committing his young troops to battle. In addition to his combat service, Lt. Gen. Callaghan aided the U.S. Armed Forces in many other capacities. He served as president of the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, as director of plans and policy for the U.S./European Command, and also held several high-ranking positions at the Pentagon. After retiring from the Air Force in 1993, Lt. Gen. Callaghan continued his service to his country and fellow citizens. He worked with many organizations in the Indianapolis area, most notably the Indianapolis 500 Festival Memorial Service Committee and Senator Lugar's Military Academy Merit Selection Board. Lt. Gen. James T. Callaghan was a true hero that the State of Indiana and nation will miss tremendously. Senator Lugar and I commend the late Lt. Gen. James T. Callaghan for his lifelong service to our Nation.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, we have spent the last week discussing the importance of tax cuts for all Americans. While we discuss fiscally responsible means to provide financial benefits to all Americans we need to remember there are millions of Americans that are taking on extra financial burdens by taking care of a loved one at home. These caregivers deserve financial assistance. America is aging, we are all living longer and generally healthier and more productive lives. In the next 30 years, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will double. For most Americans this is good news. However, for some families aging comes with unique financial obstacles. More and more middle income families are forced to choose between providing educational expenses for their children, saving for their own retirement, and providing medical care for their parents and grandparents. When a loved one becomes ill and needs to be cared for, nothing is more challenging then deciding how the care they need should be provided. Today, I rise again to make that decision easier and to strengthen one option for long-term care caring for a loved one at home. The bill I am reintroducing today, the Care Assistance and Resource Enhancement Tax Credit, will provide caregivers with a $3,000 tax credit for the services they provide. I am reintroducing this bill in order to encourage families to take care of their loved ones, by making it more affordable for seniors to stay at home and receive the care they need, while saving the government billions of dollars currently spent on institutional care. Through this tax credit, we accomplish all that while emphasizing family values. There are over 22 million people providing unpaid help with personal needs or household chores to a relative or friend who is at least 50 years old. In Indiana alone, there are 568,300 caregivers. They do this work without any compensation. They do not send the government a bill for their services or get reimbursed for their expenses by a private company. They do it because they care. As a result of their compassion, the government saves billions of dollars. For example, the average cost of a nursing home is $46,000 a year. The government spent approximately $32 billion in formal home health care costs and $83 billion in nursing home costs. If you add up all the private sector and government spending on long-term care it is dwarfed by the amount families spend caring for loved ones in their homes. As a study published by the Alzheimers Association indicated, caregivers provide $196 billion worth of care a year. I held a field hearing in my state, Indiana, in August of 1999 to discuss ways to make long-term care more affordable. At this hearing, I heard from three caregivers who are providing care for a family member. Mrs. Linda McKinstry takes care of her husband who had been diagnosed with Alzheimers two years ago. Mr. and Mrs. Cahee are caregivers for Mr. Cahee's mother who also has Alzheimers. They all echoed the need for financial relief and support services. They spoke of the financial and emotional stress associated with taking care of a loved one. After hearing their stories, it became clear that their efforts are truly heroic and we should be doing all that we can at the federal level to provide what they need to keep their families together. At a time when people are becoming skeptical of the government, Congress needs to help people meet the challenges they face in their daily lives. This tax credit does that. It will serve 1.2 million older Americans, over 500,000 non-elderly adults, and approximately 250,000 children a year. I am encouraged by the inclusion of this tax credit in Senator Daschle's targeted tax package. I urge my colleagues to take notice of the work done by caregivers and join me in supporting this legislation and giving caregivers the gratitude they deserve.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, we have spent the last week discussing the importance of tax cuts for all Americans. While we discuss fiscally responsible means to provide financial benefits to all Americans we need to remember there are millions of Americans that are taking on extra financial burdens by taking care of a loved one at home. These caregivers deserve financial assistance. America is aging, we are all living longer and generally healthier and more productive lives. In the next 30 years, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will double. For most Americans this is good news. However, for some families aging comes with unique financial obstacles. More and more middle income families are forced to choose between providing educational expenses for their children, saving for their own retirement, and providing medical care for their parents and grandparents. When a loved one becomes ill and needs to be cared for, nothing is more challenging then deciding how the care they need should be provided. Today, I rise again to make that decision easier and to strengthen one option for long-term care caring for a loved one at home. The bill I am reintroducing today, the Care Assistance and Resource Enhancement Tax Credit, will provide caregivers with a $3,000 tax credit for the services they provide. I am reintroducing this bill in order to encourage families to take care of their loved ones, by making it more affordable for seniors to stay at home and receive the care they need, while saving the government billions of dollars currently spent on institutional care. Through this tax credit, we accomplish all that while emphasizing family values. There are over 22 million people providing unpaid help with personal needs or household chores to a relative or friend who is at least 50 years old. In Indiana alone, there are 568,300 caregivers. They do this work without any compensation. They do not send the government a bill for their services or get reimbursed for their expenses by a private company. They do it because they care. As a result of their compassion, the government saves billions of dollars. For example, the average cost of a nursing home is $46,000 a year. The government spent approximately $32 billion in formal home health care costs and $83 billion in nursing home costs. If you add up all the private sector and government spending on long-term care it is dwarfed by the amount families spend caring for loved ones in their homes. As a study published by the Alzheimers Association indicated, caregivers provide $196 billion worth of care a year. I held a field hearing in my state, Indiana, in August of 1999 to discuss ways to make long-term care more affordable. At this hearing, I heard from three caregivers who are providing care for a family member. Mrs. Linda McKinstry takes care of her husband who had been diagnosed with Alzheimers two years ago. Mr. and Mrs. Cahee are caregivers for Mr. Cahee's mother who also has Alzheimers. They all echoed the need for financial relief and support services. They spoke of the financial and emotional stress associated with taking care of a loved one. After hearing their stories, it became clear that their efforts are truly heroic and we should be doing all that we can at the federal level to provide what they need to keep their families together. At a time when people are becoming skeptical of the government, Congress needs to help people meet the challenges they face in their daily lives. This tax credit does that. It will serve 1.2 million older Americans, over 500,000 non-elderly adults, and approximately 250,000 children a year. I am encouraged by the inclusion of this tax credit in Senator Daschle's targeted tax package. I urge my colleagues to take notice of the work done by caregivers and join me in supporting this legislation and giving caregivers the gratitude they deserve.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Richard Lugar to introduce the Southern District of Indiana Temporary Judgeship Act. This legislation creates an additional temporary judgeship for the Southern District of Indiana to help ease the strain that has resulted from an extremely heavy caseload of civil and criminal litigation. The Southern District is in dire need of an additional judge. Last year, the District's caseload was much higher than the national average and greater than any other court in the Seventh Circuit. In fact, there were 599 filings per judge, a number almost twenty percent greater than the national average of 474. In addition to an increase in the number of criminal cases filed in recent years, the Federal Bureau of Prisons death row, located at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, IN, is in the Southern District and houses approximately twenty-one inmates currently under a federal sentence of death. Hence, the Southern District also must be able to manage the habeas corpus petitions that are typically filed by death row inmates. Further, our State capital of Indianapolis is located in this district, and as a growing urban center, is significantly contributing to the number and complexity of the cases before the Southern District. Federal and local law enforcement are aggressively prosecuting drug crimes, but if we expect them to succeed in making our communities safer, we must give them the tools they need. An additional judgeship for the Southern District would be one such tool. There is wide support for an additional judgeship in this district. As early as 1996, the Judicial Conference recommended to Congress that the Southern District of Indiana receive a new temporary judgeship. In 1999, the Judicial Conference again urged Congress to create a temporary judgeship for this district. The legislation Senator Lugar and I introduce today follows this recommendation and aims to aid the Southern District in the timely and efficient adjudication of its cases. I urge my colleagues to give this legislation their serious consideration and support.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Richard Lugar to introduce the Southern District of Indiana Temporary Judgeship Act. This legislation creates an additional temporary judgeship for the Southern District of Indiana to help ease the strain that has resulted from an extremely heavy caseload of civil and criminal litigation. The Southern District is in dire need of an additional judge. Last year, the District's caseload was much higher than the national average and greater than any other court in the Seventh Circuit. In fact, there were 599 filings per judge, a number almost twenty percent greater than the national average of 474. In addition to an increase in the number of criminal cases filed in recent years, the Federal Bureau of Prisons death row, located at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, IN, is in the Southern District and houses approximately twenty-one inmates currently under a federal sentence of death. Hence, the Southern District also must be able to manage the habeas corpus petitions that are typically filed by death row inmates. Further, our State capital of Indianapolis is located in this district, and as a growing urban center, is significantly contributing to the number and complexity of the cases before the Southern District. Federal and local law enforcement are aggressively prosecuting drug crimes, but if we expect them to succeed in making our communities safer, we must give them the tools they need. An additional judgeship for the Southern District would be one such tool. There is wide support for an additional judgeship in this district. As early as 1996, the Judicial Conference recommended to Congress that the Southern District of Indiana receive a new temporary judgeship. In 1999, the Judicial Conference again urged Congress to create a temporary judgeship for this district. The legislation Senator Lugar and I introduce today follows this recommendation and aims to aid the Southern District in the timely and efficient adjudication of its cases. I urge my colleagues to give this legislation their serious consideration and support.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I convey my thanks and gratitude to my colleague from Vermont for his extraordinary leadership on this matter of utmost public importance. He has written another honorable chapter in the history of this body, and I am privileged to serve with him, as was my father privileged to serve before me. I rise today as someone who was invited to Austin, TX, several weeks before the new year to discuss with our new President the cause of bipartisanship when it comes to improving the quality of our public schools. I rise as someone who was in the White House several nights ago to discuss with the President bipartisanship when it comes to improving the quality of health care. I rise as someone who wants to work with this President to enact a fiscally responsible tax cut. I rise as someone who shares his conviction that faith-based organizations have much to contribute to the welfare and well-being of our country. I rise as someone who deplores the gridlock in recent years and politics of personal destruction and yearns to return to bipartisanship and principled compromise for the sake of the United States of America. Because of all these things and all we can accomplish together, I also rise to express my opposition to the President's nomination of John Ashcroft to be the next Attorney General of the United States of America. Let me say at the beginning I do not believe in pointing fingers or calling names. Some of the things that have been said about Mr. Ashcroft, such as he is a racist, are, frankly, not true, and unfair, and for that I have deep regret. We need more civility in this town. Frankly, I wished Mr. Ashcroft himself practiced more civility when he had the privilege of gracing this Chamber. But he is the wrong man for this job. He is the wrong man for several reasons: First, the unique character of the Justice Department. Mr. Ashcroft has said he will enforce the law, and I am sure that is true, but it begs the central question: What does Mr. Ashcroft consider the law to be? The law is not carved in stone and not subject to difference of opinion or dispute. Very able lawyers can have heated differences of opinion about what the law means, and in the Justice Department each and every day, hundreds of decisions, or thousands of decisions, will be made--some of which the public will never be aware--about which there are varying interpretations of the law. What will happen in those cases? It will be Mr. Ashcroft's interpretation; it will be Mr. Ashcroft's discretion; it will be Mr. Ashcroft's law that will be put into effect for the American people. I have no doubt whatsoever that he will bring some of his more strident views to bear on that office in ways that will cause great conflict and controversy for this President and the people of our country. I think about the Supreme Court. We are not dealing with a Supreme Court nominee here, but before my colleagues cast their vote, I ask how they would vote if Mr. Ashcroft had been nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States because, in many ways, the Attorney General has as much or more discretion as does a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. At least before a decision of the Supreme Court is handed down, a Justice must get four of his or her colleagues to agree. Very often, the Attorney General of the United States can make unilateral decisions and interpretations of the law. At least the Supreme Court is bound to some degree by precedent. The Attorney General very often addresses entirely new areas of the law for which there is no precedent, giving more discretion and more free rein to the views and ideology of that individual. In Mr. Ashcroft's case, I believe that will not serve our country well. I have been troubled by some of his behavior, and it has been outlined in the hearings Senator Leahy and my colleague, Chuck Schumer, who just left, so ably outlined in the Judiciary Committee, but I want to particularly mention the issue of Ronnie White. I disagree with those who say Mr. Ashcroft's opposition to Judge White was racially based. I do not believe that to be true. I believe it was based upon prior political disagreements when Judge White served in the State legislature--but, frankly, when it comes to the Attorney General of the United States engaging in political payback, it is very troubling--and it was based also upon Mr. Ashcroft's desire to be reelected to this body, and the fact that he was willing to misinterpret the record of Judge White for his own political personal gain should concern us all. Not that political payback or sometimes interpreting or misinterpreting one's record is unique even to this Chamber and other political candidates across the country--it happens all the time--but it should not happen in the Justice Department of the United States, and it is not a characteristic we look for in the Attorney General of the United States of America. I was watching these proceedings last evening, and I will not name names, but I heard a speech of one of our colleagues who expressed his belief that behind opposition to Mr. Ashcroft was, in fact, an opposition to those who are devoutly Christian in their beliefs serving in positions of high public office. I say as one Senator, nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary. I have a deep respect for Mr. Ashcroft's religious convictions. I think he should wear them as a badge of honor. His devout faith is something we can all look to as a source of pride on his part. It is his secular views and what implementation of those views would mean for the American people with more polarization, more divisiveness, and, as a result, more gridlock, that troubles me. It has nothing to do with his religious views, just as those of John Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, and others had absolutely nothing to do with their fitness for public service. We need to state unequivocally on the record his religious convictions have nothing to do with the reservations that at least this Senator--and I believe the majority of my colleagues who stand in opposition--has expressed. Finally, it is quite clear that before long, Mr. Ashcroft will become the next Attorney General of the United States of America. He can take one of two lessons from the proceedings of these last several weeks. On the one hand, he can draw from these proceedings the conclusion that he should pay no attention to his critics; that there was no basis to any of the objections raised to his nomination; that he needs no reason whatsoever to reach out to those who have expressed their concerns; and he can operate as Attorney General as he will. On the other hand, he can decide to take the criticism not personally but seriously. He can decide to reach out to those who have raised objections to his nomination. He can reach out to those who have grave concerns about how he conducts himself in the very important position of Attorney General of the United States. He can dedicate himself to proving those who raised objections to his nomination were, in fact, in error and those objections were ill-founded. It is that course of action that I hope he will take because in the final analysis, any Attorney General of the United States of America must dedicate himself to ensuring that our country lives out the full meaning of our creed: Liberty and justice for all Americans--all--regardless of ideology, race, creed, or orientation. I hope it is that America to which Mr. Ashcroft will dedicate himself as the next Attorney General of the United States of America and prove that the concerns that have been expressed on the floor of this body were, in fact, misplaced. Mr. President, I appreciate the honor of addressing my colleagues once again. I yield the floor to my colleague from Vermont. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAYH

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

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Madam President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Injunction of Secrecy be removed from the following convention transmitted to the Senate on January 3, 2001, by the President of the United States: Convention on Safety of U.N. and Associated Personnel (Treaty Document No. 107-1). Further, I ask unanimous consent the convention be considered as having been read for the first time, that it be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed, and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate recesses today, it do so until 12 noon, Thursday, January 4, at which time the majority leader or his designee be recognized.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise proudly today to congratulate Clifford Pierce Middle School in Merrillville, Indiana for its selection by the U.S. Secretary of Education as one of the nation's outstanding Blue Ribbon Schools. Clifford Pierce Middle School is one of only two Indiana schools, and one of only 198 schools across the country, to be awarded this prestigious recognition. In order to be recognized as a Blue Ribbon School, Clifford Pierce Middle School met rigorous criteria for overall excellence. The teachers and administration officials demonstrated to the Secretary of Education the qualities necessary to prepare successfully our young people for the challenges of the new century, and proved that the students at Clifford Pierce Middle School effectively met local, state and national goals. Hoosiers can be very proud of our Blue Ribbon schools. The students and faculty of Clifford Pierce Middle School have shown a consistent commitment to academic excellence and community leadership. Clifford Pierce Middle School has raised the bar for educating our children and for nurturing strong values. This Hoosier school provides a clear example as we work to improve the quality of education in Indiana and across the Nation.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today I rise as the author of the Protecting Seniors From Fraud Act, a bipartisan bill to prevent fraud against seniors. The Protecting Seniors From Fraud Act is extremely important because seniors are disproportionately victims of telemarketing and sweepstakes fraud. Even though Americans over the age of 50 account for approximately 27% of the United States population, they comprise 56% of the ``mooch lists'' used by fraudulent telemarketers. Unfortunately, fraudulent telemarketers prey upon the trusting nature of seniors and as a result seniors lose approximately $14.8 billion each year. This can be prevented if seniors are educated about their consumer rights and are informed about methods that are available to them to confirm the legitimacy of an investment or product. According to a national survey, 70% of older fraud victims say it is difficult to identify when fraud is happening and 40% of older Americans cannot distinguish between a legitimate and a fraudulent telemarketing sales call. There is a need to educate seniors about the dangers of fraud and how to avoid becoming a victim of fraud. As a first step to educate seniors in my state of Indiana about fraud prevention, I held a Special Committee on Aging field hearing on protecting seniors from fraud. I heard testimony from two victims of investment scams in which both lost a large sum of their retirement. Mrs. Georgeanne MaCurdy lost close to $150,000 and Mr. Owen Saltzgaver lost close to $50,000. Mr. Saltzgaver said ``It was a scam from the beginning, I wish I knew,'' and Mrs. Georgeanne MaCurdy stated ``It is the first thing I think of when I get up in the morning and the last thing I think of when I go to sleep. I thought I could trust him.'' At this hearing I highlighted the Protecting Seniors From Fraud Act. This bill would provide necessary resources to local programs part of the National Association of TRIADs, a community-policing program that partners law enforcement agencies with senior volunteers to reduce crime and fraud against the elderly. There are 725 counties with TRIADs nationwide. They help more than 16 million seniors. During the field hearing, Captain Ed Friend, the leader of the TRIAD program in South Bend, Indiana, testified about the importance of combating fraud and how the South Bend TRIAD program has been providing seminars to Seniors on fraud prevention. He made clear that without federal funding TRIADs' nationwide efforts would have to cease. The authorization for Federal funding provided in this bill should ensure the continuation of TRIADs' efforts. In order to assist TRIAD with those efforts, this bill also requires the Health and Human Services Department to disseminate information to seniors on fraud prevention through the Area Agencies on Aging and other existing senior-focused programs. In addition to educating seniors, this bill contains provisions which would include seniors in the crime victimization survey and would require the United States Attorney General to conduct a study of crimes committed against seniors. I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. These provisions would allow Congress to gather more information on crimes against seniors in order to react with appropriate legislative action. Education is one of many steps that needs to be taken to prevent fraud. I also introduced the ``Combating Fraud Against Seniors Act'' this year to increase enforcement measures and toughen penalties against those promoting fraudulent schemes through mass-marketing. Education and tougher penalties will hopefully protect seniors from fraud. Protecting seniors from fraud is of growing importance as our population ages and more seniors save more money for their retirement. Our seniors deserve to be informed and their investments deserve to be secure. I urge the Senate to consider this bipartisan legislation and pass it prior to adjournment.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise proudly today to congratulate Our Lady of Providence Junior/Senior High School in Clarksville, Indiana for its selection by the U.S. Secretary of Education as one of the Nation's outstanding Blue Ribbon Schools. Our Lady of Providence is one of only two Indiana schools, and of only 198 schools across the country, to be awarded this prestigious recognition. In order to be recognized as a Blue Ribbon School, Our Lady of Providence met rigorous criteria for overall excellence. The teachers and administration officials demonstrated to the Secretary of Education the qualities necessary to prepare successfully our young people for the challenges of the new century, and proved that the students here effectively met local, state and national goals. Hoosiers can be very proud of our Blue Ribbon schools. The students and faculty of Our Lady of Providence have shown a consistent commitment to academic excellence and community leadership. Our Lady of Providence has raised the bar for educating our children and for nurturing strong values. This Hoosier school provides a clear example as we work to improve the quality of education in Indiana and across the Nation.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a remarkable young athlete from the great state of Indiana. Yesterday, Americans watched with pride as 23 year-old Lindsay Benko and her teammates captured the gold medal in the 4x200 freestyle swim relay. The team did it in style, setting an Olympic record with their time of 7:57.80. With that victory, Lindsay became the first Hoosier to win a medal at the 2000 Summer Olympic games in Sydney, Australia. Lindsay hails from Elkhart, Indiana, a small town in the shadow of Notre Dame's famous golden dome. In a town where football rules, today it is Lindsay Benko who has captured the headlines and inspired pride in Elkhart and South Bend. Like so many other Olympic athletes, Lindsay has been preparing for her Olympic moment since she was very young, in fact, she has been swimming competitively since she was eight years old. Lindsay has dedicated her life to a sport she loves, and worked hard to be among the best. As early as her freshman year at Elkhart Central High School, she was a state champion. In high school, she won a total of eleven state titles, four in the 100 meter freestyle, four in the 200 meter freestyle, and three in the 400 meter freestyle relay. After graduation, Lindsay took her competitive fire and winning Hoosier spirit to the University of Southern California, where she won a total of five NCAA individual titles. Yesterday, Lindsay conquered her sport at a new level. She can now be called a world-class athlete and a world champion, but we will continue to proudly claim her as our own in the state of Indiana. Mr. President, I join my friends in Elkhart, South Bend and across Indiana in congratulating Lindsay Benko for her outstanding accomplishment, and wishing the best of luck to all of our nation's Olympic athletes as they compete in the 2000 Summer Olympic Games.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the humanitarian work of James Kelley of Fort Wayne, Indiana. For many years, Mr. Kelley has been known for his successes as an entrepreneur and philanthropist in Indiana. He founded the Kelley Automotive group in 1952 which now employs over 1200 employees in both Indiana and Georgia. His dedication to public service has been evident through his service on the boards of the Fort Wayne Chamber of Commerce, Junior Achievement, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, the Boys and Girls Club of Fort Wayne, the YMCA, Fort Wayne National Bank, the Fort Wayne Aviation Museum, and the Arthritis Foundation. Recently, Mr. Kelley has devoted his energies to developing a grain business in the Republic of Moldova. The Republic of Moldova is a small country approximately the size of Indiana with a population of 4.8 million people. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moldova has been struggling to successfully transition from a communist system to a democratic republic. One of the greatest challenges facing this burgeoning country is that of economic development. In 1999 the per capita income in Moldova was only $2,200 and inflation was at 43 percent. Through his purchase of a grain elevator and his partnership with the farmers of Moldova, Mr. Kelley has been able to loan local farmers feed, fertilizer, and fuel. In the near future, he plans to introduce modern farming techniques that will increase crop yields. The Kelley Grain company is considered to be one of the primary economic development initiatives in the nation, and Mr. Kelley's work has been recognized by both the former and current prime ministers of Moldova. In addition to his economic endeavors, Mr. Kelley has taken his philanthropic activities abroad as well. While in Moldova, he noticed a deficiency in their health care system and organized a medical team to travel to Moldova. While there, this team trained physicians and nurses in techniques to implant pacemakers, provided much needed supplies for cardiovascular surgeries, provided consultation and echocardiographic imaging at the cardiology center, visited pediatric wards and orphanages, and provided the rural city of Gaushen with antibiotics, blood pressure cuffs, and antihypertensive medications. I would like to commend James Kelley for his efforts and tireless dedication to helping the people of this struggling country. His humanitarian work in the Republic of Moldova can only enhance the relationship between our two countries. I am honored to be able to recognize his contributions and wish him continued success in the future.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the ``Omnibus Long-Term Care Act of 2000.'' This bill brings together very important initiatives for making long-term care more affordable for Americans. In particular, this bill contains a $3,000 tax credit for caregivers and a tax deduction for the purchase of long-term care insurance. There are over 22 million people providing unpaid help with personal needs or household chores to a relative or friend who is at least 50 years old. In Indiana alone, there are 568,300 caregivers. The government spent approximately $32 billion in formal home health care costs and $83 billion in nursing home costs. If you add up all the private sector and government spending on long-term care it is dwarfed by the amount families spend caring for loved ones in their homes. As a study published by the Alzheimers Association indicated, caregivers provide $196 billion worth of care a year. As a member of the Special Committee on Aging, I held a field hearing in Indiana on making long-term care more affordable. At this hearing, I learned first hand the importance of this tax credit. Jerry and Sue Cahee take care of Jerry's mother who has Alzheimers. At the hearing Jerry Cahee shared the following: ``Mother is a wonderful and friendly person to everyone--except her caregivers. We have discovered that life, aging, and illness are not fair. We have discovered that love is hard--that love is not enough to make the difference. We know that memories are all that we have left of the happy times in Mother's life. To care for her, make her last days comfortable, to meet her ever increasing medical needs, to offer her the security of a loving safe home, and to let her know that she is loved--these things have become our purpose for living. The financial drain has been difficult, the emotional strains are enormous.'' Paul Severance, the Director of United Senior Action, a senior advocacy group in Indiana represented his constituency at the hearing when he stated ``The burden on families who are trying to provide long- term care at home is tremendous; they typically face substantial expenses for special care, such as nursing visits, they often have lost wages because of the demands of caring for a loved one; and there can be a great cost to their own health as a result of the constant demands of caregiving.'' In addition to the tax credit, a deduction for the purchase of long- term care insurance makes it more affordable for Americans to purchase long-term care policies that can provide them with the coverage they will need. Congress needs to continue to explore ways in which to ensure long-term care options are available for all Americans. I am encouraged by the introduction of this bill and the bipartisan support it has received. It is my hope that we can work together to implement this legislation and make it more affordable for seniors to receive long-term care. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of eliminating the marriage penalty for working families. Eliminating the marriage penalty--which results when a married couple pays more in taxes than they would if they had remained single--is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, the approach the majority offers is fiscally irresponsible and provides more than half its benefits to couples who pay no marriage penalty. By contrast, the approach I support provides tax relief only to those who actually pay marriage penalties, and it allows us to provide additional, targeted tax cuts. A few months ago, I introduced my own approach to the marriage penalty problem, the Targeted Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2000, S. 2043. My bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit--up to a maximum of $500 in 2001, rising to $1,700 in 2004--that reduces or eliminates the marriage penalty on a couple's earned income. My bill provides immediate marriage penalty relief to millions of American families, completely eliminating the penalty for 59 percent of families that face a penalty in the first year. Plus, it provides tax relief only to those families who currently pay more when they marry than they would if they had remained single, which is the true measure of the marriage penalty. Because it is more targeted to those with marriage penalties, my bill is also more fiscally responsible. The Targeted Marriage Penalty Relief Act costs $80 billion over ten years--$33 billion in the five-year reconciliation window--or just over $10 billion a year by the year 2010. It costs only one-third as much as the Republican plan, yet it eliminates the marriage penalty within four years for more than 80 percent of families. In other words, Mr. President, my bill is targeted, simple, and affordable, as is the Democratic alternative offered by Senator Moynihan. Both approaches allow us to honestly deal with the marriage penalty while also providing enough room for other priorities, such as prescription drug coverage, a college tuition tax credit, or a long term care tax credit. Given the likelihood that the Democratic alternative will fail, and the Republican bill will be vetoed by the President, it is my hope that my proposal will eventually receive serious consideration. Compare the advantages of both the Democratic alternative and the Bayh approach to the Republican bill that we are debating here today. The Republican bill is expensive, costing $248 billion over ten years and $56 billion over five years. If allowed to continue until the year 2010, it would cost more than $40 billion every year. The bill is poorly targeted, with nearly 60 percent of the total tax relief going to couples who today pay less in tax when they marry, rather than more. In addition, the Republican bill provides immediate relief only to a small number of families because it phases in over a seven-year period. In fact, the Republican bill has not even completely phased in by the end of the five-year budget window, thereby hiding its true cost. I appreciate the argument made by the other side of the aisle that with significant surpluses on the horizon, some of that money ought to be returned to taxpayers. I also agree that we ought to do something about the marriage penalty, because people should not have to pay more tax simply because they fall in love and get married, as the two Senators from Texas point out often with both irony and humor. But unfortunately, eliminating the marriage penalty is not the only challenge we face. The majority's proposal severely hampers our ability to cut other taxes, pay down the debt, and make needed investments in Medicare and education. It provides most relief for those who pay no marriage penalty and offers incomplete relief for those who do. I support a better, more balanced approach and look forward to the day when it is adopted.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. I thank the Senator from Illinois and I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and friend, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feingold and Senator Durbin for their eloquent advocacy of this important issue. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, and Senators Durbin, Feingold, Mikulski, Kohl, Biden and Graham, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.