Evan Bayh

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise to support our amendment because it not only provides for substantial estate tax relief, but it also provides for substantial tax cuts for millions of American families, in providing for long-term care for sick and elderly dependents, and also provides for important tax relief for millions of American families who work hard, play by the rules, are self-employed, but struggle to meet the costs of health insurance. I express my appreciation to my colleagues, Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, and others, for their leadership in bringing us to this point, and for their support of these critical and important steps. I want to make clear that I strongly support the cause of providing for estate tax relief. That is why I am delighted to say that our approach provides, when fully implemented, that 99.3 percent of the American people--99.3 percent--will be entirely exempt from any estate taxes in our country. This means that fully 95 percent of farms that would currently be subject to the estate tax have their estate tax liability eliminated entirely, and 75 percent of small businesses currently subject to the estate tax will have their estate tax liability eliminated entirely. In a perfect world, I would also support the elimination of the other one-tenth of 1 percent of families in our country who will still be subject to the estate tax. But we have other priorities which must also be met. One of the foremost among these is the fact that currently 2.6 million families across our country struggle to provide care for a sick, elderly parent in their home. This figure is expected to skyrocket in the coming years because, among other facts, those in our country over the age of 65 will more than double during that period of time. We find too many families today caught in what we refer to as the ``sandwich generation,'' struggling not only to provide for their children, pay the mortgage, put food on the table, but also to care for a sick, elderly parent or grandparent. It is not right in our country that families must be forced to choose between caring for a child or caring for a parent. They deserve tax relief, too. That is exactly what our bill would do, providing up to a $3,000 tax credit every year, once fully phased in, to help alleviate those burdens, allowing families to meet all of their priorities, and particularly to provide for long-term care for a sick, elderly parent or other dependent. Likewise, it is not right that so many of our families currently work and struggle to provide for the cost of health insurance. Just last year, one million fewer Americans had health insurance, and many of these are self-employed. Under our approach, we would accelerate the full deductibility for the cost of health insurance for those who are self-employed to next year, providing an additional 2 years of tax relief for hard-working Americans. In conclusion, let me say this. It has been eloquently stated by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that death should not be a taxable event, and they are right. But it is equally true no family in our country should face the painful dilemma of providing care for their children or care for their parents. That is not right. They deserve our help. They deserve tax cuts, too. It is not right that hard-working Americans, who play by the rules, pay their taxes, and get up and go to work every day, struggle to make ends meet, and provide for health care. They deserve tax cuts. They deserve our help, too. That is exactly what our bill would provide. It meets our priorities, it is financially responsible, and it is true to our enduring values. That is why I encourage my colleagues to adopt this important amendment. I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, my friend and colleague, Mr. Durbin.

Mr. BAYH. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAYH. I thank Senator Schumer. Mr. President, I express my profound appreciation to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for his leadership on this critical issue. It is important to the families and the children of this country that we adopt this important amendment to make college tuition more affordable for all families across my State and the other States that constitute our great country. A college education today is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity. Helping to make college tuition more affordable, by providing for the deduction of the first $10,000 of college tuition, will help ease the burdens on many middle-class families across Indiana and elsewhere in our country. It will open up the doors of economic opportunity to the middle class and help to make our Nation a more decent, just, and honorable place as well. As we move to adopt this important amendment today, we will not only do what is right for our economy but we will also do what is right for our families and for our children. This is an example of cutting taxes in ways that help middle-class families deal with the challenges they face in their daily lives. It is an important issue, one that surely we can accomplish within the context of also moving to ease the burdens of estate taxes upon businessmen, farmers, and others across our State. I say to my colleague from New York, I again thank him for his leadership. This is a critically important issue. It is one whose time has come. I say to Senator Schumer, I cannot think of anything that would be more popular across the State of Indiana than acting today to help make the costs of college more affordable for middle-class families, for students and children across our State, by passing this important amendment. It has been my honor and privilege to work with the Senator on this important issue. I thank the Chair. Vote On Amendment No. 3823

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 United States Congressman John Brademas. I am honored to introduce legislation designating the United States Post Office located at 424 South Michigan Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``John Brademas Post Office.'' John Brademas was born on March 2, 1927, in Mishawaka, Indiana, a small town in Indiana's third congressional district, which he would later represent for more than two decades (1959-1981). John's father was a Greek immigrant restauranteur and his mother was a Hoosier school teacher. Upon graduation from high school, John joined the Navy and soon thereafter became a Veterans National Scholar at Harvard University, from which he graduated with a B.A., Magna Cum Laude, in 1949. From 1950 to 1953, he studied as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, England, receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social Studies. From 1955 to 1956, John Brademas served as Executive Assistant to the late Adlai E. Stevenson, where he assumed research responsibilities during the 1956 Presidential campaign. Three years later, John Brademas became the first native-born American of Greek origin to be elected to Congress. In the House, he quickly became a leader in the areas of education, the arts and humanities, as well as a staunch defender of the rights of the disabled and the elderly. During his service on the House Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman Brademas was largely responsible for writing major federal legislation concerning elementary and secondary education, higher education, vocational education, as well as support for libraries, museums, and the arts and humanities. Congressman Brademas was also the chief House sponsor of the Education for all Handicapped Children Act; the Arts, Humanities, and Cultural Affairs Act; and the Older Americans Comprehensive Services Act. In 1977, Congressman Brademas was chosen by his colleagues for the influential position of House Majority Whip, in which he served for his last four years in office. Among his numerous accomplishments, Congressman Brademas was responsible for attaining the necessary funding for the very same Post Office that I seek to name in his honor. Today, Congressman Brademas is President Emeritus of New York University, where he served as President from 1981-1992. During that time, he led the transition of New York University from a regional commuter school to a national and international research university. In addition to his responsibilities at New York University, he is the Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy and serves as co- chairman for the Center on Science, Technology and Congress at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also serves on the Consultants' Panel to the Comptroller General of the United States. During his long and distinguished service, both as a leader in government and a leader in higher education, John Brademas has provided inspiration and guidance to two generations of men and women committed to public service and to education. I want to thank Congressman Brademas for his enduring contributions to the State of Indiana and the nation. Mr. President, it is my hope that the Postal facility located at 424 South Michigan Street will soon bear the name of my good friend and fellow Hoosier, former Congressman John Brademas.

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 United States Congressman John Brademas. I am honored to introduce legislation designating the United States Post Office located at 424 South Michigan Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``John Brademas Post Office.'' John Brademas was born on March 2, 1927, in Mishawaka, Indiana, a small town in Indiana's third congressional district, which he would later represent for more than two decades (1959-1981). John's father was a Greek immigrant restauranteur and his mother was a Hoosier school teacher. Upon graduation from high school, John joined the Navy and soon thereafter became a Veterans National Scholar at Harvard University, from which he graduated with a B.A., Magna Cum Laude, in 1949. From 1950 to 1953, he studied as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, England, receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social Studies. From 1955 to 1956, John Brademas served as Executive Assistant to the late Adlai E. Stevenson, where he assumed research responsibilities during the 1956 Presidential campaign. Three years later, John Brademas became the first native-born American of Greek origin to be elected to Congress. In the House, he quickly became a leader in the areas of education, the arts and humanities, as well as a staunch defender of the rights of the disabled and the elderly. During his service on the House Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman Brademas was largely responsible for writing major federal legislation concerning elementary and secondary education, higher education, vocational education, as well as support for libraries, museums, and the arts and humanities. Congressman Brademas was also the chief House sponsor of the Education for all Handicapped Children Act; the Arts, Humanities, and Cultural Affairs Act; and the Older Americans Comprehensive Services Act. In 1977, Congressman Brademas was chosen by his colleagues for the influential position of House Majority Whip, in which he served for his last four years in office. Among his numerous accomplishments, Congressman Brademas was responsible for attaining the necessary funding for the very same Post Office that I seek to name in his honor. Today, Congressman Brademas is President Emeritus of New York University, where he served as President from 1981-1992. During that time, he led the transition of New York University from a regional commuter school to a national and international research university. In addition to his responsibilities at New York University, he is the Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy and serves as co- chairman for the Center on Science, Technology and Congress at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also serves on the Consultants' Panel to the Comptroller General of the United States. During his long and distinguished service, both as a leader in government and a leader in higher education, John Brademas has provided inspiration and guidance to two generations of men and women committed to public service and to education. I want to thank Congressman Brademas for his enduring contributions to the State of Indiana and the nation. Mr. President, it is my hope that the Postal facility located at 424 South Michigan Street will soon bear the name of my good friend and fellow Hoosier, former Congressman John Brademas.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Kennedy's skills training amendment. This amendment contains important measures to provide individuals with the necessary skills to succeed in the workforce. The amendment addresses the need to provide employment skills training to noncustodial parents, particularly fathers. The ``Fathers Work, Families Win'' initiative begins to address a very troubling epidemic, fatherlessness. The number of children living in households without fathers has tripled over the last forty years, from just over five million in 1960 to more than 17 million today. Although the work of single mothers is truly heroic, father absence has caused unnecessary burdens on women and has forced millions of children to overcome difficult social hurdles. For example, children that live absent their biological fathers are five times more likely to live in poverty. They are more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom, to commit a crime, to drop out of school, to be abused, to commit suicide, to abuse alcohol or drugs, and to become pregnant as teenagers. The $255 million requested for this initiative is dwarfed in comparison by the amount of money the Federal Government spends on dealing with the consequences of fatherlessness. There are several pieces to this puzzle, one of which is employment services. Too many fathers are unable to provide financial support for their children. Although many of these fathers have the desire to take responsibility for their children, they do not have the means. In short, these fathers are not dead-beat, they are dead-broke. The ``Fathers Work, Families Win'' initiative gives us a way to work through the current infrastructure to deliver employment services to fathers and noncustodial parents. Skill-building and employment services will help to increase the employment rate among noncustodial fathers and therefore, increase child support payments. Our challenge is to give fathers the tools necessary to be successful parents. While employment services for noncustodial parents is an essential component to making fathers responsible, it is not the only service that is needed to ensure these fathers become good parents. Senator Domenici and I have introduced a comprehensive package designed to address the fatherlessness epidemic. S. 1364, the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999 would provide states with funds to promote the maintenance of married, two-parent families, strengthen fragile families, and promote responsible fatherhood. In addition to the program grants available to states, states would receive funds for a media campaign. A media campaign would be an effective way to communicate the message of father responsibility across ethnic, racial, and income barriers. The bill also recognizes the need to remove federal disincentives to pay child support. We face a great challenge, but we must not let it overwhelm us. We must instead begin to put the pieces of the puzzle together. I commend Senator Kennedy for including the ``Fathers Work, Families Win'' initiative in his amendment. It is my hope that the Senate will enact this legislation and continue to pursue other solutions to the epidemic of fatherlessness.

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 alleviate the strain experienced over the past five years as a result of an extremely heavy caseload. In the last year alone, the Southern District has seen a higher than average number of case filings with 585 filings per judge, compared to the national average of 493 filings per judge. The Federal Bureau of Prisons ``Death Row'' has recently been located at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, which is part of the Southern District. As a result, the Southern District anticipates a significant increase in the number of petitions in death habeas cases. In addition, the Southern District of Indiana includes our state capital of Indianapolis, the center of government and politics in the Hoosier State. The court has experienced an increase in the number of cases which raise political and public policy questions. The Southern District court is clearly overburdened. The legislation I introduce today is critical to ensuring the delivery of Justice in the Southern District of Indiana. There is wide agreement about the need for this additional judgeship and, in fact, the Judicial Conference has called on Congress to add a temporary judge. I urge my colleagues to give this legislation their serious consideration and support. I thank the President and I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the colloquy that just occurred in which Senator Stevens promised to return the $1.9 billion taken from the State Children's Health Insurance Program, S- CHIP, to fund the programs in the Labor Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, during conference. I thank Senators Roth, Stevens, Moynihan and Byrd for recognizing the importance of S- CHIP and the federal promise to the states. I applaud this agreement. This program allows states, like Indiana, to continue to enroll and provide services to children in low-income families. In Indiana, over 120,000 additional children have been enrolled in ``Hoosier Healthwise'' since S-CHIP was implemented in 1998. The removal of this funding would have had a devastating impact on Indiana. For every $1 million in federal funding taken from Indiana, 830 children would not be covered by Hoosier Healthwise. These children would be unlikely to obtain quality health care. This is not an issue that only affects Indiana. Thirty-five Senators from both political parties joined with me and Senator Voinovich to send a letter to Senators Lott and Daschle urging them to work to restore the $1.9 billion taken from the program. The National Governors' Association stated in a letter to the leadership that ``The Governors are united in their opposition to the proposed cuts in S- CHIP. This is not a formula fight; this is a weakening of the state- federal partnership that is so vital to the success of this program. It sets a truly disturbing precedent.'' We are grateful to Senators Lott and Daschle for recognizing the need for this funding to be restored. The Labor Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Bill contains worthy programs but funding for those programs should not have come from important efforts such as the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I am pleased that this issue will be resolved in the conference. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that letters from Senators, Governors, and 80 advocacy groups be printed in the Record.

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 alleviate the strain experienced over the past five years as a result of an extremely heavy caseload. In the last year alone, the Southern District has seen a higher than average number of case filings with 585 filings per judge, compared to the national average of 493 filings per judge. The Federal Bureau of Prisons ``Death Row'' has recently been located at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, which is part of the Southern District. As a result, the Southern District anticipates a significant increase in the number of petitions in death habeas cases. In addition, the Southern District of Indiana includes our state capital of Indianapolis, the center of government and politics in the Hoosier State. The court has experienced an increase in the number of cases which raise political and public policy questions. The Southern District court is clearly overburdened. The legislation I introduce today is critical to ensuring the delivery of Justice in the Southern District of Indiana. There is wide agreement about the need for this additional judgeship and, in fact, the Judicial Conference has called on Congress to add a temporary judge. I urge my colleagues to give this legislation their serious consideration and support. I thank the President and I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hatch amendment and in support of the approach taken by Senator Kennedy. I do so because I believe that an 18-month study is no adequate substitute for the prompt, vigorous, assurance of civil rights for every American. The crimes described in Senator Kennedy's approach are not ordinary offenses. They strike at the heart of a pluralistic society. They strike at all of us, not just the individual victims. We need to look no further, colleagues, than to the Balkans to see what happens when the genie of intolerance and hate is unleashed upon an unhappy land. We must not let that happen. We must not. We fought a civil war in our country to establish the basic principle that certain rights should be guaranteed to every American, regardless of their State of residency. We fight to reestablish that principle once again today. Mr. President, if a study is in order, let it be in addition to establishing these basic rights, not as a replacement therefore. Now is the time for action. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hatch amendment and to support Senator Kennedy in his approach.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Nathan Hatch for receiving the Senate's approval of his nomination to serve as a member of the National Council on the Humanities. Dr. Hatch has dedicated his life to academia. He currently serves as Provost of the University of Notre Dame and is also a Professor of History. As Provost, Dr. Hatch has focused on three areas: the establishment of academic centers of excellence, including the expansion of the Keough Institute for Irish Studies and the enhancement of the Medieval Institute; revitalization of undergraduate education through the creation of the Kaneb Center for Teaching and Learning; and the pursuit of outstanding faculty. Dr. Hatch is considered to be one of the most influential scholars in the study of the history of religion in America. His book, The Democratization of American Christianity, won both the Albert Outler Prize in Ecumenical Church History and the John Hope Franklin Prize for the best book in American Studies; it was also chosen by his peers as one of the two most important books in the study of American religion. Dr. Hatch is a remarkable asset for the University of Notre Dame and the State of Indiana. His experiences at Notre Dame will make him a valuable addition to the National Council on the Humanities. I applaud the Senate today for confirming this outstanding Hoosier. nominations of marianne battani and david lawson

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am somewhat disappointed that our colleague from New Hampshire has left the floor and taken with him the chart with the pictures of the 50 Governors of the States. For 8 years, my picture would have been on that chart, and, I must say, it is a much better looking group now that I am no longer there. All joking aside, if we are going to make progress on this very important issue, it is necessary for us to stop pointing fingers and instead work together to make progress. There was always a tendency, when we gathered as Governors, to point to Washington as the source of many of our problems. Now that I have the privilege of serving in this body, I see from time to time there is a tendency to look at the State and local levels in a similar spirit. The truth is, we need cooperation to make progress on this critical issue. I begin my remarks by giving credit to those who helped us lay the foundation for progress on the Lieberman amendment, which I believe very strongly offers our best chance for a bipartisan compromise and progress to help improve the quality of education for our students. I am pleased my colleague from Connecticut has returned to the floor. Without his courage, dedication, and devotion to this issue, we would not be here today, nor have the opportunity for the progress we now have. I publicly salute Senator Lieberman for his commitment to this very important issue. Secondly, I thank our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, who is still with us on the floor, and Senator Daschle, our Democratic leader, for their cooperation in including our accountability provisions within the Democratic alternative that was voted on last week. Also, I thank them for their understanding of our commitment to the importance of targeting resources to those children who are most in need and making progress on that very critical issue in the days and years ahead. I thank our colleagues on this side of the aisle, the moderate Democrats, the so-called new Democrats, cosponsors on this amendment with Senator Lieberman and myself who have now constituted a critical mass which has moved the discussion beyond stale partisanship and instead into a realm of reconciliation and progress that will enable us to make advancement in the cause of improving the quality of our children's education. Finally, to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I thank them for accepting our outstretched hands. We have had ongoing fruitful negotiations. They are not completed yet. There are still significant, outstanding issues that need to be resolved, but I hope we have helped clear the air around this place to create a climate in which real progress can be made and discussions can take place. We had cordial, substantive discussions on a bipartisan basis, leaving politics at the door and instead focusing on the challenge that concerns us all: providing a quality education for all of America's children, particularly those less fortunate. I care deeply about this issue because I believe improving the quality of education for all of America's children, along with the cause of keeping our nuclear arms under control and addressing the disintegration of the American family, is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It is one of the greatest challenges of our time because it is intricately tied up, bound up with addressing the important factors that face the American people today. First, the economy. In an information age, in a globalized world economy, premium upon knowledge, skills, and know-how is more critical to economic success than ever before. Money flows around the globe, technology flows around the globe, and information flows around the globe. People do move but not as much as those other factors I mentioned. If one looks at the long-term competitive advantage of nations, one of the very best things we can do to ensure the future economic vitality of our country is to guarantee that we have a workforce with the skills necessary to compete successfully with our competitors from abroad. I once heard Alan Greenspan speaking to the 50 Governors saying the single most important factor in determining the long-term productivity growth rate which, more than anything else, determines whether we are going to be prosperous as a country or not, is the skill levels of our workers today and the education levels of our children, the workers of tomorrow. So improving the quality of education is critically important to our long-term economic well-being as a society. What kind of society we will be will also be determined by whether we meet the education challenge today. The growing gap between haves and have-nots in our country is really an education gap, a knowledge gap, a skills gap, and if we are going to avoid, for the first time in our Nation's history, being divided into a country of haves and have-nots with an upper class and the lower class almost permanently shut out of opportunity, if we are going to avoid that, it will be because we give every child growing up in our country--even those from the wrong side of the tracks, even those growing up in homes less fortunate than others--the skills necessary to compete and succeed in the world in the 21st century. Finally, the vitality of our democracy is at stake. I believe strongly in something Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the Democratic Party, once said. Thomas Jefferson happened to be our very first education President as well. He was the founder of the University of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson once said that a society that expects to be both ignorant and free is expecting something that never has been and never shall be. Jefferson was right when he spoke those words in the early 1800s. If he were alive today, he would realize they resonate with more truth than even when he spoke them. The complexity of the issues we face today, the critical decisions that face the American people require an even greater level of understanding and knowledge than in Thomas Jefferson's day. Our economy, the nature of our society, and the very vibrancy of our democracy are all bound up in the way in which we resolve the educational challenges facing our Nation. This is why many of us have concluded we need to do better. The status quo is not good enough. The solutions of yesterday are inadequate to meet the challenges of tomorrow and the 21st century. My colleague from Connecticut spoke eloquently to many of these factors. I have behind me a chart representing some of the NAEP scores. As you can see, we must do better. Sixty percent of America's children--at least 60 percent--are below proficient when it comes to reading, the very gateway to opportunity and literacy. Seventy-five percent of America's children are below proficient in mathematics, the gateway to sciences and the hard disciplines. For America's less fortunate children, as the chart behind me demonstrates, the progress we need to make is even more significant if they, too, are to share in the fruits and the bounties that constitute the American dream. I used to be amazed at the number of freshmen entering college, particularly in our 2-year institutions and those that are not the flagship sites for our State universities, who, of course, had received high school diplomas but who had to go back in their first year of college matriculation to do high school work. Something had broken down. Something wrong had taken place that they received a high school diploma and yet had to go back and do high school work upon entering college. We are resolved we will do better. Our approach represents not only a significant break from business as usual when it comes to national education policy; it represents a significantly increased national commitment to the cause of improving America's education system for every child with a significantly stepped up Federal commitment. It is woefully inadequate that only one-half of 1 percent of Federal investment today goes into our schools. We must do better. Yet we do not want Federal micromanagement or intrusive Federal control. It has to be a cooperative effort with State and local communities. That is where our approach embodies what I would like to call the sensible center. Let's start with investment. We disagree with those who say no additional resources are necessary because we know we cannot expect our local schools to do the job unless we give them the tools with which to get that job done. Resources. Dollars are an important part of those tools to ensure that they can meet the challenge of giving every child a quality education. But we also disagree with our colleagues who say just more money is the only thing that needs to be done to meet the challenges in education. Instead, we combine significantly increased Federal investment in education with significant accountability and insistence upon results. We provide for a 50-percent increase every year in title I investment; a 90-percent increase in investment for professional development, to ensure that there are qualified, highly motivated teachers in every classroom; a 30-percent increase in investment for innovation, trying new ways to meet the challenges that confront us; and a 50-percent increase in investment for charter schools, magnet schools, and public school choice. We have struck the sensible center: Increased investment, yes, not just throwing more dollars on the problem but insisting upon better education for all of America's children. Accountability. We have also chosen the sensible center there between those who would have no additional accountability and those who would seek micromanagement from Washington, DC. Our approach focuses upon outcomes rather than inputs. We focus upon how much our children can read and write, add and subtract, rather than just how Federal dollars happen to be spent. Accountability is one of the linchpins in educational progress. It is at the heart of our approach. Streamlining. Some would call it consolidation. Again, we struck the sensible center between those who would seek no accountability for the expenditure of Federal dollars whatsoever--block grants; that is not something we support--and those, on the other hand, who would seek Federal micromanagement. Ours is the solution for the information age. We get away from an industrial age model in which the Federal Government would seek to find one or two solutions that work and impose them upon everyone. Instead, in an era of flexibility and speed, to meet the necessity of rapid change and innovation, we provide for dollars to be targeted at less advantaged students, spent in five broad categories keenly related to academic success but then allowing for the flexibility to tailor- make those investments in ways that will be most meaningful and most productive at the local level because every school district across America is not exactly alike, and, we, at the Federal level, need to recognize that. Senator Lieberman and I have spoken of the targeting. It is vitally important. Again, we need to target the additional investment at those children who are most in need. We provide a factor in our formula that will guarantee that no school district would see their title I funding cut. That, too, defines the sensible center. Finally, let me touch upon a couple of other factors. The importance of competition. We rejected the thinking of those who would go to a purely market-based system of vouchers because in a purely market-based system there are winners and losers. What of the losers? What of them? We have a national commitment to them to ensure that they, too, get the education they need because it would be a tragedy not only for them but for the rest of us if we allowed them to fall through the cracks of educational and lifetime opportunity. But at the same time, we embrace the forces of the marketplace in competition because we know that will provide for more parental choice, greater innovation, and, ultimately, more productivity within the public school system. So we have provided for the forces of the marketplace while retaining the genius of the public education system, which is a commitment to a better education not just for the few, not just for those who would succeed competitively in a marketplace but for everyone. Finally, let me say, once again, I am grateful for the progress that has been made. The seeds of progress have been firmly planted. We cannot yet tell whether they will bear fruit in this session of Congress or in the next. But I thank my colleagues who have brought us to this point, both within my own caucus and those on the other side of the aisle. If we are going to make progress on this important subject, it will be by working together, not pointing fingers or seeking to assign blame. So I will conclude by citing some words spoken by Winston Churchill, in a moment more dramatic than this, when he said: We have surely not reached the end, nor perhaps have we reached the beginning of the end, but at least--at least--we have reached the end of the beginning. So let us begin to make progress for America's schoolchildren. Let us agree, on a bipartisan basis, to increase our commitment to their academic future. Let us agree on the importance of accountability, the forces of competition within the public school system, and the need for professional development. Let us agree upon these things. Let us begin to move forward. If we do, it will not only improve the future for our children and the institutions of academic success across our country, but we will also begin to reinstill the confidence and trust of the American people in their ability to govern themselves. And that, perhaps, is the most important beginning of all. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to call attention to the remarkable letter sent to our Senate leadership by the nearly fifty members of the Council on Competitiveness. The letter points out the importance of basic scientific research to our economy, and shows how such public-sector investments have been on the decline. When so many prominent leaders agree on an issue of public policy, it is incumbent upon us to pay attention to their views. I believe that the recent increases in private-sector research are no substitute for the government's traditional role in funding the most basic research that may or may not yield important discoveries. It is this so-called ``market failure'' in basic research--those making the investments are not assured of positive outcomes, and cannot realistically capture all of the economic gains from new discoveries-- that makes the government's role so vitally important. What's more, the private sector's new investments have been increasingly focused on biotechnology and product development, while investment in basic sciences such as math, chemistry, and physics has experienced sharp declines. This has important implications for today's workforce, as well as the rate of innovation that will drive future increases in living standards. While advances in the health sciences, such as the Human Genome Project, are extremely exciting, there are areas in the physical sciences that are on the verge of generating important discoveries, and where government ought to be focusing additional resources. One area in which I am keenly interested is the area of nanotechnology. This groundbreaking area--which examines structures atom-by-atom and molecule-by-molecule, on the scale of just a few billionths of a meter--may lead to discoveries that will change the way almost everything, from building materials to vaccines to computers, are designed and made. Neil Lane, the President's science advisor, says that this area of science and engineering will most likely lead to tomorrow's breakthroughs. It's a very important new area, but one where the practical applications are a few years away. Basic research is the key to pushing the envelope forward. Yet despite the potential applications of these and other discoveries--and President Clinton's half-billion-dollar National Nanotechnology Initiative--recent trends do not bode well for the physical sciences. The Senate voted last year to double our investment in basic scientific research over the next decade, but the budget recently passed by this Congress places a higher priority on tax cuts and therefore will make such increases very difficult without forcing important cuts in other areas. Nevertheless, I hope that my colleagues understand that basic research is an appropriate role for government, and that such investment is clearly in the national interest. To be sure, the R&D picture as a whole--public and private sectors combined--has been improving. R&D had reached a peak of nearly three percent of GDP in the early 1960s, and the number has recently risen close to its 1960s peak. But the overall federal investment in R&D is still relatively flat, because much of the recent gains have come from private industry. And as I already mentioned, much of that is in product development, rather than the most basic research. If we look exclusively at the federal role in basic research, the numbers show the trend even more clearly. The federal R&D budget as a percent of GDP was nearly two percent in the mid 1960s, and it is less than eight-tenths of one percent today. These declines have not been shared equally. Funding for the National Institutes of Health is much higher, and funding for the National Science Foundation is up slightly. But the other traditional big science agencies are significantly lower, with defense R&D cuts playing a central role. Defense R&D is down thirty percent over the past six years. Again, some claim that this problem is overstated, because the private sector has picked up the slack. But there are two problems. First, with such a short time horizon for corporations, the private sector often looks to short-term projects like product development, rather than long-term projects with unsure real-world applications. This makes basic research more dependent on the federal government. Second, public and private investment is only increasing in two areas, information technology and biotech/pharmaceuticals. Math, chemistry, geology, physics, and chemical, mechanical, and electrical engineering are all declining. The United States risks falling behind in the area of innovation, as other nations such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, and even Japan increase their investments in new ideas and new technologies. The shift in federal R&D resources to health and biotech is a major reason we see so many talented people in the life sciences, but fewer and fewer mathematicians, chemists, physicists, and engineers. You could make a very strong argument that the stagnation in U.S. degrees in physical sciences and engineering is related to the decline of federal research dollars in these areas, because R&D funds not only science projects, but also the graduate students and researchers who will be tomorrow's scientists, technical workers, and teachers. Consider the upcoming debate over increasing the number of H-1B visas, a special visa that allows foreign workers with special skills to work in the United States. Our national talent pool is being raided so heavily by the life sciences--in large part because the research money is there, meaning more opportunities for students--that the high tech industry desperately needs workers. By some estimates, hundreds of thousands of well-paying high-tech jobs remain unfilled because the U.S. talent pool is stretched so thin. While some in Congress-- including myself--are willing to allow more H-1B workers if there is additional money for job training and science scholarships, we also know that job training alone is not the answer to the high-tech labor shortage. We must put more research money into the physical sciences so that more young people are attracted to these fields of work. Another problem that we must deal with is entitlement reform. The constant growth of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare squeezes other areas of the budget and puts every program on the discretionary side in direct competition with each other. All discretionary programs, including research, are coming out of a smaller and smaller share of the pie. The numbers here are telling. In the early 1960s, discretionary spending--where all of the research money comes from--was two-thirds of the budget, while mandatory spending and entitlements accounted for only one-third. Today, this is completely reversed, with discretionary spending now accounting for only one-third of all spending. Some estimates show that if we don't make changes soon, the entire budget could go to entitlements just a few decades from now. We must all recognize that future increases in science and research will suffer if entitlements are not reformed. Michael Porter of Harvard University has done a great deal of research on what makes countries competitive in the global economy. He writes that continuous innovation is the key--but innovation requires research. For example, where will tomorrow's Internet come from? No one could have known that government's investment in this area would have such a huge impact on all of our lives. If we fail to shift our budgetary priorities to make investments in the future, we cannot promise our children an ever-growing economy. In closing, I am encouraged that the Council on Competitiveness has recognized the importance of basic science research to our economic well-being. I hope that the Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, will recognize that such investment is an appropriate role for government and is without question in the national interest, and that we will find ways to make the ``doubling bill'' a reality.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Targeted Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2000. I do so because I believe it affords us the best opportunity to deal with this problem in a way that will relieve this penalty from the vast majority of Americans. Approximately 80 percent of the Americans who currently pay the marriage tax penalty would have their penalty eliminated entirely under our approach. Secondly, I favor this approach because it allows us to deal with this problem in the most affordable manner, also giving us the freedom to address other important issues that have faced our great country. I support the Targeted Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2000 because it strikes the right balance between fiscal responsibility and a socially progressive policy, which I think is best for our country. I support relief of the marriage tax penalty for several important reasons. First, as a matter of basic justice. It is not right that two individuals should pay more in taxes simply because they are married. When our Tax Code falls into ridicule, compliance drops and the Government, as a whole, falls into disrepute. We should not allow this to happen. We can take an important step to preventing this from happening by dealing with the marriage penalty problem. Secondly, I support marriage tax penalty relief as a matter of social policy. Marriages and families are the basic building blocks on which our society is built. Too many marriages today end in disillusion. Too many families today are fractured because of the strains they face, often financial strains. If we can take action to strengthen families and marriages, to provide a sound and secure environment in which children can be raised, it is better for our country in a whole host of important ways. I support the marriage tax relief provisions I speak to today as a matter of economic policy. During prosperous times when we enjoy surplus, it is only right that we share some of that hard-earned benefit with those who have generated it in the first place: the taxpayers of our country. All of this is not to say we can afford just any approach to resolving the marriage penalty situation. We have to get it right. We have to do it in a way that is affordable and balanced with the other needs our country faces. This cannot be said of all the approaches currently before this body. Some of the approaches are poorly targeted, more than we can afford and, in fact, do not deserve the title of marriage tax penalty relief at all. I admire the work done by the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee; in particular, the leadership of the ranking member, Senator Moynihan, and Senator Baucus. Their approach is truly targeted to ending the marriage tax penalty problem. It is intellectually elegant, and I appreciate the work they have done in this regard. We have several practical issues we are working through, but their approach truly deserves the title ``marriage tax penalty relief.'' The same cannot be said of the approach taken by the majority. Their approach claims to be a marriage tax penalty reduction bill but, as has been alluded to by several other speakers, more than half of the benefits go to those who do not have a marriage tax penalty at all. Many things can be said about this proposal. Calling it a marriage tax penalty bill is not one of them. Secondly, it is too slow. It is phased in over a 7-year period. Why should we wait so long to give this important relief to the taxpayers of America? If it is truly a pressing problem, surely we can afford to act much sooner than that. Third, it is regressive in nature. More than half of the benefits under the approach taken by the majority go to those earning more than $100,000 a year. I have no trouble with the wealthy in our society. In fact, I wish we had more wealthy in the United States of America. But at a time when we have to make difficult decisions and allocate scarce resources among competing priorities, I think relief of the marriage tax penalty needs to be more squarely focused upon the middle class, an approach not taken by the majority. Finally, and most significant of all, is the issue of affordability. The approach taken by the majority would use fully $248 billion over the next 10 years to solve this problem, severely limiting our ability to deal with other pressing matters that face our country. If you care about a drug benefit for Medicare, not only is the majority position silent about your concerns, it in fact limits our ability to do something about your concerns. If you care about making college more affordable by including a college tax deduction or credit to lower the cost of college, not only does the majority position do nothing to address your concerns, in fact it makes addressing your concerns and reducing the burden of the college expense on working families more difficult to accomplish. If you care about caring for the elderly, a sick parent or grandparent, not only is the majority approach silent about your concerns, it in fact makes it more difficult to deal with this important and pressing matter. If you care about debt relief or about education reform, not only is the majority position silent about your concerns, it in fact makes it more difficult to consider. Fortunately, there is another alternative, one that is targeted, one that is immediate, one that is progressive, and one that is affordable. The approach I speak to today, as the approach taken by the Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee, is a true marriage tax penalty relief bill. No one who does not currently pay a marriage tax penalty will be eligible for a tax cut under this provision. It helps those who have the problem get relief, which is the way it should be. Secondly, the relief is immediate. In the first year of this approach, fully 51 percent of Americans who pay a marriage tax penalty will have their marriage tax penalty eliminated entirely. After 4 years, when this approach is fully implemented, more than 80 percent of the American people, everyone making under $120,000 a year, will have their marriage tax penalty fully eliminated--100-percent elimination of the marriage tax penalty for everyone making $120,000 a year in just 4 years, not the 7 proposed by the majority. Third, this approach is progressive. Everyone making under $120,000 will have the marriage tax penalty eliminated, and the majority, more than half, of the benefits go to those making between $50- and $100,000 a year. Working families, the middle class, those who are struggling most can make ends meet. Finally, on the issue of affordability, while the majority proposes $248 billion over 10 years to deal with this problem, our approach would take only $90 billion--more than 80 percent of the problem eliminated at only a fraction of the cost--thereby freeing up billions and billions of dollars to deal with other pressing matters that face our society. Let me put this in perspective: the difference in cost of the majority's position versus our position is $158 billion over 10 years. The difference in cost would completely fund a Medicare drug benefit proposed by the President of the United States for every senior citizen across our country qualifying for Medicare, helping to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Even if you don't adopt the President's approach to a Medicare drug benefit and instead adopt the less costly provisions proposed by the majority--let's take the Republican drug benefit, costing around $70 billion over the next 10 years--you would still have the ability to fully fund that and, in addition, adopt a $10,000 tax deduction for people with children in college, allowing them to write off the first $10,000 of college tuition. In addition, you would allow a $3,000 credit for senior citizens who are being cared for by their children or grandchildren, lowering the cost of long-term care for the elderly in our society. You would allow for the $30 billion of education reform proposed by Senator Graham on the floor of the Senate just last year. Let me briefly review the affordability provisions. On the one hand, you have a so-called marriage tax penalty relief bill that costs $248 billion over 10 years, the majority of which goes to people who, in fact, don't pay the marriage tax penalty, or you can eliminate 80 percent of the marriage tax penalty, eliminate it entirely for everyone making under $120,000 and, in addition to that, fully fund the Medicare drug benefit proposed by the majority, and fully fund the college tuition deduction proposed by Senator Schumer, and fully fund the long- term elderly care credit proposed by myself and others, and fully fund the money for education reform proposed by Senator Graham. The choice is clear: a marriage tax proposal on the one hand that goes to largely benefit those who don't pay the marriage tax penalty or a marriage penalty relief proposal that eliminates the vast majority of that problem and adds a Medicare drug proposal and makes college more affordable and provides for long-term care for the elderly and invests funds in the quality of education. I believe the choice is clear. I thank my colleagues for their indulgence and, again, commend the Senate Finance Committee Democrats for their dedication to this issue and the hard work they have devoted to it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues. I particularly express my appreciation to Senator Graham, and my colleagues, Senators Edwards, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, and others, who are also speaking on the issue that has been near and dear to my heart for many years. It is the cause of improving the public education system in this country and the opportunity that we give to schoolchildren across the United States of America. Mr. President, for more than 100 years, our Republic has been dedicated to the proposition that every child growing up in our country--every child, not just a few, not just the privileged and the elite--should have access to a quality public education. In the 1960s, there was a growing recognition, particularly for those children in our country who are less fortunate, that the dream of a good education was a promise unfulfilled, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was born. We gather here today to say that for too many of our young people the dream of a good education is still a promise unfulfilled, the status quo is not good enough, that we must do better, that we must have a significant rethinking and rededication to the principle that a good education is essential for opportunity and for every child growing up in our country. That is what the Graham amendment is really all about. It begins with resources in the recognition that if we don't give our public schools the tools with which to get the job done, we can't possibly expect them to succeed. The Graham amendment calls for setting aside an additional $15 billion in resources for reform and improvement in public education over the next 5 years. This is about one-tenth of the size of the tax cut included in the budget resolution before us. While I favor cutting taxes, and in fact have sponsored and supported several of the measures that would reduce taxes in our country, I believe investing in education is just as important to the future well- being of this Nation. I don't think a Member of the Senate can possibly say that cutting taxes is 10 times more important than putting quality public school teachers in every classroom in this country, or 10 times more important than ensuring that the latest educational technology is available to our students, or 10 times more important than ensuring that remedial help is available to our young people who need to do better reading, writing, and basic science. Making these investments is vitally important to the important challenge of improving public education for every child. But Senator Graham's approach does not just throw money at the problem. It deals with fundamental reform and starts with accountability and a recognition that we need to focus not just upon how much money is spent but, instead, how much our children learn. We need to focus on outcomes of the process, just as we add inputs necessary to achieving additional success. We need to also focus on high academic standards that are important to the success of all of our children. This is important because there is a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in our society, and there is just as much gap in knowledge and learning as in anything else. We must ensure that every child gets good access to education and is held to these high educational standards to ensure that for the first time in the history of our Nation we don't experience the creation of an underclass characterized by people who do not have enough knowledge and learning to participate in the opportunities of the 21st century. Just briefly, this approach is targeted on things that are important, such as adding good teachers, the latest technology, and focusing upon students who are at greatest risk, which is at the heart of the challenge we face as a country. In closing, let me say this: The cause of educating our children is, by definition, the cause of shaping our future. But in doing so, we stay in touch with the fullest wellsprings of our past. It was Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, who, after his public career, founded the University of Virginia and dedicated his life to the cause of education, who once said that, ``a society that expects to be both ignorant and free is expecting something that never has been and never shall be.'' As we debate this amendment, I urge my colleagues to support it because, in doing so, we not only ensure the future well-being of our economy, not only what kind of society we will one day have, but the vitality of our democracy itself. I thank my colleagues for their forbearance. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter of great importance and urgency to me. We are at a crossroads in American education and that is why I join with my colleagues Senators Lieberman, Landrieu, Kohl, Lincoln, Breaux, Graham, and Robb in offering the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act. Since the middle of the 1800s, when Horace Mann and a group of others dedicated our country to the principle that every child should have access to a good public education, we have held that out as an ideal for our country. In the middle 1960s, there was growing recognition that for too many of our children, this principle was really a hollow dream. And so, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was born. We introduce our version of ESEA today in recognition of the fact that for too many millions of American children the dream of a quality public education is still sorely lacking. The consequences of any of our children not receiving a quality education are far greater than ever before. For the first time in our nation's history, the growing gap between the educational ``haves'' and ``have nots'' threatens to create a permanent underclass. If we do not address these shortcomings, the knowledge and information gap will lock many of our citizens out of the marketplace and prevent them from accessing opportunity in the New Economy. We stand here today in recognition of the fact that the solutions of the 1960s are inadequate to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and the years beyond. We stand here today to say the status quo is not good enough; that we must do better. Our legislation proposes dramatic change in a significant rethinking of business as usual when it comes to education policy here in Washington, D.C. We propose a substantial increase in our nation's investment in education, because we recognize that we can't expect our schools, particularly our poorer schools, to get the job done if we don't give them the tools to get the job done. We propose an increase of $35 billion over five years in Federal education spending, a 50 percent increase for Title I funding, 90 percent increase for professional development funding for teachers, over a 30 percent increase for innovative programs, and nearly a doubling in funding for Charter schools and Magnet Schools so as to give parents greater public school choice. This is a significant investment of public dollars. But we do more than just throw money at the problem, because we know that taxpayers, parents, and most of all our children, have a right to expect more from us. Instead, we focus on accountability. In return for increased investment, we insist upon results. We focus on outcomes, not incomes. No longer will we define success only in terms of how much money is spent, but instead of how much our children know. Can they read and write, add and subtract, know basic science? No longer will we define accountability in terms of ordering local school districts to spend dollars in particular ways, but instead in terms of whether our children are getting the skills they need to make a successful life for themselves. This is a significant rethinking from the things that have prevailed here in Washington for several decades. Our proposal also provides a substantial amount of flexibility. We don't agree with our colleagues on the far right in block grants which would allow money to be diverted from public education or to allow dollars to be diverted from focusing on our poorest students. But we do allow for local principals and superintendents to have a much greater say in determining how best to spend those dollars, because we believe that those at the local level who labor in the classrooms and the schools every day, can make those decisions far better than those of us who now work on the banks of the Potomac. It was Thomas Jefferson who said that a society that expects to be both ignorant and free is expecting something that never has been and never shall be. So we put forward this proposal because we know that the cause of improving public education is critically important to our economy, critically important to the kind of society that we will be, and essential to the vibrancy of our democracy itself.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter of great importance and urgency to me. We are at a crossroads in American education and that is why I join with my colleagues Senators Lieberman, Landrieu, Kohl, Lincoln, Breaux, Graham, and Robb in offering the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act. Since the middle of the 1800s, when Horace Mann and a group of others dedicated our country to the principle that every child should have access to a good public education, we have held that out as an ideal for our country. In the middle 1960s, there was growing recognition that for too many of our children, this principle was really a hollow dream. And so, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was born. We introduce our version of ESEA today in recognition of the fact that for too many millions of American children the dream of a quality public education is still sorely lacking. The consequences of any of our children not receiving a quality education are far greater than ever before. For the first time in our nation's history, the growing gap between the educational ``haves'' and ``have nots'' threatens to create a permanent underclass. If we do not address these shortcomings, the knowledge and information gap will lock many of our citizens out of the marketplace and prevent them from accessing opportunity in the New Economy. We stand here today in recognition of the fact that the solutions of the 1960s are inadequate to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and the years beyond. We stand here today to say the status quo is not good enough; that we must do better. Our legislation proposes dramatic change in a significant rethinking of business as usual when it comes to education policy here in Washington, D.C. We propose a substantial increase in our nation's investment in education, because we recognize that we can't expect our schools, particularly our poorer schools, to get the job done if we don't give them the tools to get the job done. We propose an increase of $35 billion over five years in Federal education spending, a 50 percent increase for Title I funding, 90 percent increase for professional development funding for teachers, over a 30 percent increase for innovative programs, and nearly a doubling in funding for Charter schools and Magnet Schools so as to give parents greater public school choice. This is a significant investment of public dollars. But we do more than just throw money at the problem, because we know that taxpayers, parents, and most of all our children, have a right to expect more from us. Instead, we focus on accountability. In return for increased investment, we insist upon results. We focus on outcomes, not incomes. No longer will we define success only in terms of how much money is spent, but instead of how much our children know. Can they read and write, add and subtract, know basic science? No longer will we define accountability in terms of ordering local school districts to spend dollars in particular ways, but instead in terms of whether our children are getting the skills they need to make a successful life for themselves. This is a significant rethinking from the things that have prevailed here in Washington for several decades. Our proposal also provides a substantial amount of flexibility. We don't agree with our colleagues on the far right in block grants which would allow money to be diverted from public education or to allow dollars to be diverted from focusing on our poorest students. But we do allow for local principals and superintendents to have a much greater say in determining how best to spend those dollars, because we believe that those at the local level who labor in the classrooms and the schools every day, can make those decisions far better than those of us who now work on the banks of the Potomac. It was Thomas Jefferson who said that a society that expects to be both ignorant and free is expecting something that never has been and never shall be. So we put forward this proposal because we know that the cause of improving public education is critically important to our economy, critically important to the kind of society that we will be, and essential to the vibrancy of our democracy itself.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his indulgence. This is my first opportunity to point to the fact that Senator Moynihan's mother was a longtime resident of our State. We are very proud of that fact, and I am pleased to note it today. Our colleague, Senator Gregg, is not with us, but I thank him for his leadership on this issue. It is not surprising to me that a former Governor is leading the way on a matter of such importance in terms of fiscal responsibility. Likewise, I commend our colleague, Senator Kerrey. I am not the least bit surprised that someone whose courage has been tested on the field of battle also has the courage to address one of the foremost challenges of our time--a challenge that is important to the future of our country, yet escapes the ability of many politicians to address. I salute Senator Kerrey for his leadership on this very important issue. I, too, rise in support of the cause of repealing the earnings test limit on the Social Security benefits. It is the right thing to do at this time with unemployment being so low and the economy so strong. This will inject much needed talent on the part of senior workers into the economy. It is only right that if people are living longer, we should enable them to earn more to support themselves. Since it doesn't have a long-term fiscal impact, it is the right thing to do from that standpoint. On this particular bill and on this particular vote, no profiles in courage will be written on the floor of the Senate today. I am concerned and I add my voice to others--a growing chorus--in calling for meaningful reform in the Social Security system and to ensure its long-term financial viability. The trends are disturbing. Over the last 40 years, the percentage of our Federal budget that has now gone to entitlement expenditures has doubled from about a third of Federal expenditures to two-thirds. Some projections are accurate. In the coming decades, fully 100 percent of Federal expenditures may be comprised of entitlements, leaving nothing left for things such as education, the environment, children's issues, health care, or national defense--literally nothing but entitlements, as important as they may be. Clearly, this is a course that we cannot sustain forever. Likewise, I note that the percentage of Federal revenues raised through taxes funding entitlements has also doubled over the last 20 years, from 16 percent to fully one-third of Federal revenues now raised from payroll taxes. These taxes are regressive in nature and fall heavily and disproportionately on the middle class. I believe in the importance of investment in education, science, research, and other important areas of our national budget, and it is because I believe in the importance of tax relief for the middle class that I believe very strongly we must embrace the cause of meaningful reform of entitlements in general, and particularly Social Security, if we are going to enable ourselves to meet these other important challenges as well. This is something that should unite the right and the left. Those on the right should be concerned about a return to the days of debt and deficit spending and the corresponding slowdown in economic growth that would inevitably result. Those on the right should be concerned about an increasing percentage of our Federal budget basically being put on fiscal autopilot. Those on the left should be concerned about shoring up and preserving not just temporarily, but in the long run, a fundamental part of our Social safety net, the Social Security system, a legacy of which we can rightfully be proud. And those on the left should also be concerned about maintaining the discretionary ability to invest in the other important things that will make our country a more prosperous and decent place in the years to come. Despite this seeming ground for compromise between the left and right, too often a consensus evades us. It is difficult in a democracy to make hard choices. Yet our constituents have a right to expect no less from us. It takes wisdom and courage on the part of those proposing this reform, forbearance upon our political opponents' part, and ultimately wisdom and understanding on the part of the American people. I wish to close my remarks by commending those who have risen to speak out in favor of the cause of meaningful entitlement reform. It is essential not only to preserving the benefits for those we claim to champion today; it is also important for proving the efficacy of our democratic institutions on the threshold of the 21st century. I thank my colleagues for their courage in taking up this issue. Senator Kerrey's voice will be missed in the years to come. I hope to add mine in my own humble way, and ultimately we will achieve this objective. I thank Senator Moynihan and yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues today in introducing this timely and important legislation to help the nation respond to growing concerns about the threats to public health and the environment caused by methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE. There is gathering evidence that MTBE, which is added to gasoline to reduce its impact on air quality, poses a threat to human health and the environment. Preliminary testing indicates groundwater has been contaminated in many areas of the country. The MTBE Elimination Act provides for a three-year phase out of the use MTBE. The legislation also provides resources for research, local testing programs, and labeling so that we can identify the size of the problem and move forward with meaningful solutions. Addressing the health and environmental threats posed by MTBE is only half of the answer. While we move to phase out MTBE, we also need to be making decisions about the future of the reformulated fuels program and the oxygenate requirement in the Clean Air Act. The Reformulated Gasoline Program has significantly reduced emissions of air pollutants from motor vehicles, including volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and mobile-source air toxics, such as benzene. It is important that we evaluate the options available for maintaining and enhancing these benefits. The first step is evaluating the obvious options, ethanol. In its assessment of oxygenate alternatives, the EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel found that ethanol is ``an effective fuel-bending component, made from domestic grain and potentially from recycled biomass, that provides high octane, carbon monoxide emission benefits, and appears to contribute to the reduction of the use of aromatics with related toxics and other air quality benefits.' The U.S. Department of Agriculture, in its report ``Economic Analysis of Replacing MTBE with Ethanol in the United States, ``concluded that ethanol production and distribution could be expanded to meet the needs of the Reformulated Gasoline Program by 2004 with no supply interruptions or significant price impacts. We do not have to choose between clean air and clean water. Evidence that MTBE presents a risk to water quality does not mean that we have to end our efforts for cleaner fuels. Ethanol is a clean, safe alternative that has the potential to serve a larger national market. As a country, we are beginning to recognize the benefits that biofuels can provide to the environment. Recent oil price increases also remind us of how important domestic sources of energy are to our national security. This bill is a necessary step in minimizing the public health and environment damage attributable to MTBE. I believe it can also be the start of a serious discussion on the opportunities that ethanol and other biofuels provide to maximize clean, safe and economically viable energy options for America.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of my senior colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, to honor a fellow Hoosier, Mr. Jack Butcher. Mr. President, as you know, the game of basketball is synonymous with the great state of Indiana. Our affection for the game goes much deeper than the sport itself. We love the game of basketball because of the values that it instills: spirit, teamwork, dedication, and most important, hard work. We rise today to honor Coach Jack Butcher of Loogootee, Indiana, for his great success in the game of basketball, and for his outstanding service and contributions off the court. Coach Butcher has spent the last 43 years of his life coaching, teaching and influencing the young men and women of Loogootee High School. He has taught countless students lessons about hard work and dedication that one cannot learn from a book. On December 28, 1999, Mr. Butcher achieved a remarkable milestone in Indiana basketball history, winning his 760th career game, and becoming the all-time winningest coach in Indiana high school basketball history. Mr. President, once again, Senator Lugar and I would like to commend Coach Jack Butcher for his outstanding contributions both on and off the hardwood. His legacy will be permanently embedded in the record books and in the hearts and minds of the people of Loogootee.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, 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 to make that decision easier and to strengthen one option for long-term care--caring for a loved one at home. The bill I introduce today, the Care Assistance and Resource Enhancement Tax Credit, provides caregivers with a $3,000 tax credit for the services they provide. I am introducing this bill in order to encourage families to take care of their loved ones, make it more affordable for seniors to stay at home and receive the care they need, and save 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, last August 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 the support 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 encourage you to take notice of the work done by caregivers and join me in supporting this legislation and giving caregivers the gratitude they deserve. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of increasing the minimum wage. I am aware that the bankruptcy reform bill that we recently passed in this chamber contains an amendment that will increase the minimum wage by $1 over a three-year period. While I voted for passage of the final bill, the minimum wage amendment it contained was constructed in a way that is sure to draw a Presidential veto, thereby endangering not only a wage increase for working families but also the months of work that all of us have put into reforming our bankruptcy laws. The amendment that the bill contained was deeply flawed. I hope that the amendment will be stripped in conference so that we can send a bankruptcy reform bill to the President that he will sign. Then, perhaps we can move forward on a real increase in the minimum wage, perhaps in a package that contains some meaningful tax cuts for small business. Madam President, we are living in a time of unprecedented economic prosperity. A few days ago, we reached an important milestone: We are now enjoying the longest economic expansion in our nation's history. Economic growth has been so strong that in 17 of the last 24 quarters, real GDP grew at a rate of three percent or more. Innovation, productivity, and fiscal discipline have all contributed to this expansion. Unemployment is at historic lows, real wages are increasing for many, and we have replaced welfare with work in record numbers. But not everyone is realizing the prosperity many have enjoyed. While many workers in the economy have enjoyed sizeable raises, those workers at the bottom are still working hard just to make ends meet. Consider a minimum wage worker, working 40 hours a week. We want this worker to stay off of welfare, to be a responsible citizen and contribute to society, yet the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour allows this worker to earn just $10,700--nearly $3,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. Add to this the fact that most of these workers receive no pension or paid vacation, few receive child care, and many lack employer-provided health insurance. There is no question that it is very difficult in our society to be a worker at the very bottom of the income scale. It is important that we recognize the contributions that these workers make to our economy and our society, and that we act to ensure that the purchasing power of their income does not erode over time. Today's minimum wage is more than 20 percent lower in real terms than it was in 1979. The proposed increase to $6.15 simply restores the minimum wage back to its purchasing power in 1982. Would any of us deny that it's just as tough, or tougher, for a low-income family to make ends meet today as it was in 1982? Raising the minimum wage by $1 an hour will directly help more than 11 million workers and their families, as well as the millions more earning between the current minimum of $5.15 and the new minimum of $6.15 who will also see their wages rise. It will reward the responsibility of these workers with a more living wage. It will send the message that we understand that being a member of the ``working poor'' is one of the toughest places to be in America, with obstacles to reaching the middle class turning up at every turn. Raising the minimum wage would reduce one such obstacle. Nearly 200,000 workers in Indiana would benefit directly from a minimum wage increase. Some argue that raising the minimum wage will lead to higher unemployment. I am happy to say that has not been the case in Indiana. Since September 1996, the last time the Senate passed a minimum wage increase, 133,000 new jobs have been created in my home state. Unemployment has dropped by 26 percent and now stands at 2.9 percent, significantly lower than the national average. The good news in this debate is that it appears we all agree the minimum wage should be increased. We have our differences over the timing but by and large both Republicans and Democrats realize it is time to make work pay. The bad news is that there is a poison pill buried in this legislation. At the same time that they seek to raise the take home pay of working families, the Republican minimum wage proposal contains a provision that could reduce the wages of approximately 73 million American workers who are eligible to receive overtime pay. This overtime pay repeal provision would allow employers to eliminate the requirement that bonuses, commissions, and other forms of compensation based on productivity, quality and efficiency be part of a worker's ``regular rate'' of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay. Eliminating this provision, and allowing bonuses to be excluded from overtime pay, would nullify the purposes for which the Fair Labor Standards Act was created. Employers would be provided an incentive to slash hourly pay rates or reduce the number of new jobs they create. Such cynical actions explain why so many Americans are frustrated with politics. Raising the minimum wage is something that most Americans regard as fair, given our economic prosperity, and 75 to 80 percent support an increase in every opinion poll. Yet some refuse to act in a way that genuinely responds to this concern. What's more, the bill in its current form will almost certainly provoke a presidential veto. Madam President, we have been down this road before. Both sides agree on an issue that needs to be addressed and then allow a partisan squabble to prevent us from getting it done. The American people did not send us here to spend all of our time arguing over our differences. They sent us here--and I came here--to find the common ground on which we agree. Now that the bankruptcy reform bill has passed the Senate, I urge my colleagues to work these issues out in conference. Let's begin the year focused not on what divides us but what unites us in the interests of America's working families. Madam President, I want to also take a moment to discuss the Hatch Amendment that is now part of this legislation. While I believe that the methamphetamine provisions of this amendment are good and something I could support, I voted against this amendment last year for I do not support the voucher language contained in this amendment. I do not support diverting needed resources from our public schools for voucher proposals. Deserting our public schools is not the answer to the problem. I believe we need greater flexibility and greater accountability in our nation's schools. This voucher language is of great concern to me. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will do the right thing and remove the voucher language from this bill during conference.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, For years the American people have become increasingly cynical about our federal government and apathetic about political participation. There are many reasons for this unfortunate state of affairs. This year's budget exemplifies several. One reason is our inability to do what every family and business must do, balance our budget. After years of large, chronic deficits, last year we finally, if barely, balanced the federal budget. If great care is not taken, the budget will not be balanced for long. Another reason is Washington's unwillingness to be honest with the American people. This budget is only the latest example. Proponents claim it is balanced. It is not. They say it does not raid social security, but it does. It purports to meet certain ``emergencies'', when no reasonable person could possibly consider them such. It's time we ended this ``business as usual'' in Washington and began to regain the trust of the American people. I oppose this bill because it spends too much and uses gimmicks that will make future budgets even more difficult. It ignores the greatest financial challenge facing our nation, entitlement reform, and makes matters even worse by taking money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for spending today. It foreshadows a return of chronic deficits. If we must resort to such foolishness when times are good, what will happen when times are tough? It makes the prospect of meaningful tax cuts much more remote because it spends the surplus and then some. There are circumstances that could justify my support for this budget and some of the items that I object to. But none exist now. If meaningful entitlement reform had been included. If the economy were weak and the gimmicks were only temporary expedients, not the permanent fixtures they promise to be. If we had a few more years, not just one, of balanced budgets under our belt. There are several good things in this budget, things I strongly support: funding for 100,000 additional teachers in our classrooms, putting 50,000 additional police officers on our streets, relief for hospitals and other providers from excessive Medicare cuts, enhanced Land and Water Conservation funds, expanded biomedical research through NIH, expanded Head Start and increased After School Care. All of these have merit. All should be done. But we must have the honesty and integrity to pay for them, or the restraint to wait until we can, and not just perpetuate the cynicism created by annual budget charades. I look forward to voting for a future budget. One that preserves and strengthens the foundation of financial security so important to our nation's well-being. Even more, I look forward to that day when this Congress enjoys the respect and admiration of our fellow citizens. This budget will not hasten that day.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today I rise as the author of the International Year of the Older Persons resolution to recognize the contributions of all the individuals, organizations and agencies that have worked hard to participate in the United Nations declared ``International Year of the Older Persons.'' Since 1999 has been declared the Year of the Older Persons, around the world seniors, organizations active in senior issues, and representatives of all generations have spread the message that collectively we should create an environment in which seniors can remain active in their communities during each and every stage of their life. This resolution pays tribute to all the United States' participants for representing our country in the various events held in celebration of the International Year of the Older Persons. They have been active throughout the year. It is time Congress added its voice and support the efforts of these organizations and individuals. This resolution serves as a first step in the role Congress can play to assist with the advancement of this year's theme and goals. The theme of the year, a ``society for all ages,'' recognizes that longevity is relevant to all stages of the life cycle, and that successful aging is a product of long-term planning, lifelong decisions. It is important for the world to reflect upon this theme. Too often in America we focus on the negative images associated with aging and not the contributions that are made when people remain productive throughout their lifetime. America needs to celebrate that Americans are living longer! We need to acknowledge that aging can be a positive process that benefits everyone in our communities. The most important goals of the year are to increase awareness about aging within countries and across national boundaries and to formulate policies and programs to promote the well-being of older persons. The principles highlighted by the resolution include independence, participation, care, self-fulfillment, and dignity. The purpose of the year is to empower people to spend their senior years happy and healthy. Although the goals and principles of this year have been advanced internationally, we need to particularly acknowledge that the United States has been well represented by several organizations such as the Federal Committee to Prepare for the International Year of Older Persons, the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, and the American Association for International Aging. While America's senior organizations have been deeply involved, it is my hope is this resolution will serve as a signal that it is important for Congress to take the goals set forth this year and continue the efforts to achieve them. Congress should take the leadership the United Nations has provided on this issue and continue to build momentum. We need to not only recognize and assist those spreading the message but implement legislation that actively addresses the needs of seniors. As a member of the Special Committee on Aging, I have learned about the issues that seniors face and have explored viable administrative and legislative solutions. I know America needs to be better prepared for its future aging population. Currently, about 12.8 million Americans report needing long-term care. By 2018, it is estimated that there will be 3.6 million elderly persons in need of a nursing home bed, an increase of two million from the current future. By 2030, the number of Americans in nursing homes will double and the cost of caring for them will quadruple. Part of creating a society for all ages includes addressing the needs of all ages. Long-term care insurance is an option that should be more widely discussed among younger people as they begin to prepare for their retirement or senior years. However, often we need raise awareness and encourage people to take responsibility. That is why I support a tax deduction for the purchase of long-term care insurance. In addition, with an increasing number of people needing long-term care, we should make various options for long-term care more available and affordable. While long-term care insurance for community-based care is one option, being cared for by a loved one at home should be another option. Therefore, in August, I introduced S. 1518, the Caregivers Assistance and Resources Enhancement (CARE) tax credit. It takes courage and dedication to take care of a loved one at home and the least we can do is make the process less financially burdensome. Research indicates that the services provided by family caregivers annually are valued at $196 billion. The care these families provide at home is not only more compassionate, it saves the government billions of dollars. Annually, we spend $83 billion in nursing home care and $32 billion in formal home health care, we should thank caregivers by providing them with some economic relief. There is still a great deal of work that can be done to take care of current seniors and prepare for the future. We need to have the difficult discussions and search for the solutions. I want to thank Senator Grassley and Senator Breaux for their support and involvement on this resolution and for their leadership on the Special Committee on Aging. I commend all the organizations and individuals who have worked so hard throughout the year to help spread the message associated with the International Year of the Older Persons. As America works the remainder of this year and in the years to come to achieve the goals set forth by the International Year of the Older Persons, we need to seriously consider what we in Congress can do to create a society for all ages.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Sarbanes. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support in favor of the Financial Services Modernization Act. I do so because of my heartfelt conviction that it will be good for the American economy, it will be good for the financial services sector of the economy, and it will also be good for consumers and the American people for many years to come. I will begin by expressing my gratitude and respect for the leaders who have brought us here today after so many years. Senator Gramm has performed admirably in getting this accomplished after so many years in the past it has failed. I salute him and commend him for his efforts. Quite frankly, there were some questions about the new chairman when he assumed this position: Would he be willing to make reasonable compromises necessary to get the bill passed? Would he take a broader view or be the captive of narrow parochial interests? Would he be flexible? All these questions, I am proud to say, have been answered in the affirmative. I wish to salute my colleague, Senator Gramm, for this historic accomplishment. Without his leadership, we would not be here today. It is a masterful bit of work. And I am proud of his accomplishment in this regard. I also wish to salute my colleague, Senator Sarbanes. Also, we would not be here today without his leadership. He has proven to be a tireless advocate and effective spokesperson for those who are less fortunate. He has proven to be a tireless worker in favor of the rights of privacy of America's consumers. We would not have a bill before the Senate today that could pass this body, that the President would sign, or, frankly, one that enjoyed wide support were it not for the tireless efforts of Senator Sarbanes. I compliment him as well. He has been a copartner in this historic accomplishment which we recognize today. This legislation is good for the American economy. The era of global competitiveness in the financial services sector is unquestionably an area in which our Nation is preeminent. The world looks to the United States to lead the way in areas such as banking, insurance, securities, and investment banking. Financial services contribute annually to a trade surplus for the United States of America at a time when our trade deficit is running into the hundreds of billions of dollars. But we cannot take our current preeminence for granted. I have had some experience in this regard. My colleagues may not know that Indiana was one of the very last States to adopt not interstate banking but across-State-line banking in the mid-1980s. As a result of the fact we didn't modernize our laws, once the walls came tumbling down, as they inevitably do, almost all of Indiana's financial institutions in the banking sector were gobbled up by institutions from other States. If we were similarly to hamstring America's financial institutions-- banking, insurance, and securities--with antiquated laws that kept them from having the flexibility needed to compete with our foreign competitors, the day might not be too far removed when those from Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and other nations would be gobbling up our financial institutions because they were too weak or incapable of competing. We shouldn't let that happen to our country. Hundreds of thousands of jobs across our country and tens of thousands of jobs in Indiana depend upon us getting this done. I am proud to say that we will. It is good for America's economy. It is also good for the broader economy. Manufacturing, agriculture, and other sectors depend upon access to a vital growing financial services sector. Access to capital is one of the key ingredients for financial success today. Because of this bill, greater efficiency in providing funds for expansion will exist, leading to greater investment, greater productivity, and a rising standard of living for America's working men and women. Access to capital is one of the key ingredients to success in the economy today. This legislation will ensure that the funds keep flowing from America's economy, making it more productive and more efficient for American workers and American shareholders alike. This legislation is good for consumers. Not only will it be convenient, providing one-stop shopping for working men and women across our country, where they go to a single place and meet their banking needs, insurance needs, security investment needs, and others, but it will also lead to greater efficiency, lower interest rates, and greater access to credit. It will also lead to greater innovation in the new marketplace with greater competition. I foresee a day not too far removed when services that we can barely imagine today will be provided more conveniently and efficiently to Americans across our country. Frankly, I approach this bill with some reservations as well. Some issues needed to be resolved or I would not be standing here today to express my strong support for this legislation. Foremost among these was the Community Reinvestment Act, an act that is necessary to guaranteeing access to capital for Americans of every walk of life, regardless of race, creed, or color. As I said when I previously took the floor to speak on this issue, access to capital today is as important as access to electricity was in the 1930s or access to a telephone was in the 1950s or 1960s. I recognize that issue has been positively resolved in the course of our negotiations. Second, the emerging issue of privacy is very important. I share the concerns of many Americans about what will happen to their most sensitive information in the new global marketplace. I am pleased to say that we have taken the first steps in this legislation to guarantee greater privacy for American consumers by requiring clear and plain disclosure about what information will be used within a company, and also allowing American consumers the right to opt out and prohibit companies that they do business with from sharing their financial information with third parties. This is an issue we have only begun to recognize. We must continue to follow it in the days to come. If it should be the case that greater protections are necessary, I will be one of those who will help to lead the way and look forward to leading the way to ensuring that. For the time being, I am pleased with the provisions currently in the bill and am proud to say we are taking a significant step forward. In conclusion, for 20 years, we have been laboring to modernize the law that governs financial services that was first enacted in the 1930s. A long string of people who have preceded us in this body have attempted this and have not been successful. But thanks to the leadership of Senator Gramm and the leadership of Senator Sarbanes, the ability of all involved to come together and compromise for the well being of the American economy, the American consumer, and the future of our country, today we celebrate the historic accomplishment. I intend to vote for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Again, I congratulate all who have brought us to this important accomplishment. Thank you. I yield the floor.