Evan Bayh

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today I rise as an original cosponsor of the Child Support Miscellaneous Amendments of 1999. This bill will provide states, such as Indiana with additional time to either obtain a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services or comply with the state disbursement unit requirement without being penalized. It is important that states are provided with sufficient time to determine what system will allow them to collect and disburse child support payments most efficiently. For many states the most economical and administratively efficient means of delivering and collecting child support payments is to comply with the requirement and create a central state disbursement unit. However, the Department of Health and Human Services has recognized some exceptions to that general rule and granted those states a waiver. The State of Indiana has applied for a waiver but is awaiting the Secretary's determination of whether or not to grant the waiver request. This legislation will allow Indiana, and the other states in a similar predicament, the time they need to determine what system works best for them. In addition, the penalty these states face will be reduced. States will not be in jeopardy of losing all of their administrative dollars for child support collection. Without this legislation, the State of Indiana could lose as much as $33.5 million, undermining the state's ability to collect child support. While child support collection affects the budgets of the Federal and State Governments, it most importantly affects the children for whom it is intended. The system was designed so children would at least have the economic support of both their parents. It is important that Congress continue to find ways to collect child support owed to children from noncustodial parents. Child support administrative dollars help states accomplish that goal. There are other steps Congress can take to reconnect noncustodial parents with their children and encourage them to pay child support. As we continue to discuss the intricacies of child support collection, the need for a child to have the emotional and financial support of both parents should be incorporated into the discussion. I look forward to having that discussion in the near future. I thank Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan for their leadership on this issue and for acknowledging the need to provide states with more time to implement a child support collection and disbursement system that works. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, as November has been designated Native American History Month, I am honored to congratulate a museum in my own state for its efforts to recognize Native American artists and encourage the creation of new Native American fine art. The Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art recently launched an unprecedented 10-year program to strengthen the recognition and study of Native American artists who are making a valuable contribution to our nation's fine arts. The long-term goal of the program is to create a national alliance of scholars, curators, artists, teachers, and collectors who would further the notice and study given to Native American fine artists. Under the leadership of John Vanausdall, the museum's president and CEO, an international jury of scholars was appointed to select the first year's fellows and master artist from 106 qualified nominees. Jurors included: Gerald R. McMaster (Plains Cree), curator of contemporary Indian art at the Canadian Museum of Civilization; Bruce Bernstein, assistant director for cultural resources at the National Museum of the American Indian; and Kay WalkingStick (Cherokee), artist and professor of fine art at Cornell University. On November 13, the first five recipients of the Eiteljorg Fellowship of Native American Fine Art will travel to the Eiteljorg Museum where they will receive national acclaim. They will each be presented with a fellowship award of $20,000 and participate in the opening events for an exhibition of their art. I am pleased to announce the inaugural winners: Lorenzo R. Clayton (Navajo), Truman Lowe (Ho Chunk), Marianne Nicolson (Kwakwaka'wakw), Rick Rivet (Metis/Dene), and Jaune Quick-to- See Smith (Flathead). In addition, George Morrison (Chippewa) was named a master artist. I urge Americans to visit the exhibition which will be on view at the Eiteljorg Museum, located in the beautiful White River State Park in Indianapolis from November 13, 1999 through January 23, 2000. I commend the Eiteljorg Museum for conceiving this long-overdue honor to Native American artists. This wonderful program is due to the generosity of the Indianapolis-based Lilly Foundation, Inc. which has directed $490,000 to this worthy endeavor. Thanks to the efforts of the Eiteljorg Museum and Lilly, the future is bright for Native American artists, as this program will award $100,000 to five artists every two years. Our state is fortunate for their vision and I am honored to recognize their efforts in promoting Native American Art and preserving the culture of Native Americans.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, this week, with the passing of Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island, we lost a dear colleague and a friend. John Chafee was a real statesman. His passing is a tragedy, and a loss for America. As a new member of this body, I regret that my time serving with Senator Chafee was brief. Fortunately, the lessons I learned from working with him will last a lifetime. Senator Chafee was an all-too- rare voice for bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate. He was a force for common sense, and someone who always put politics aside and tried to do what was right for America. For those of us who value consensus over partisan politics, Senator Chafee's approach to service will remain the standard we strive towards. His central goal, he said, was to ``operate through consensus and cooperation wherever and whenever possible in order to get things done.'' And ``get things done'' he did: after what for most men would be a full and distinguished life in public service--World War II duty, company commander in Korea, Minority Leader in the Rhode Island State House, three-term Governor, Secretary of the U.S. Navy--after all that, John Chafee began his service in the U.S. Senate. In twenty-two years as U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, John Chafee's most remarkable accomplishments came when he managed to bring others to the middle-ground on contentious issues such as budget and tax policy, environmental protection, and health care. Senator Chafee understood the responsibility we shoulder here when we write a budget for the nation, and he had the vision to act responsibly on behalf of future generations. He was a leader in efforts to reduce the federal budget deficit. In 1996 he co-chaired the Centrist Coalition which produced a bipartisan balanced budget plan. More recently, as Democrats and Republicans fought bitterly over their respective $300 billion and $800 billion tax-cut proposals, I had the pleasure of working with Senator Chafee as part of a bipartisan group fighting to pass a reasonable $500 billion tax cut. For me, working with Senator Chafee reinforced the value of his consensus-building approach, and my desire to emulate that approach. Senator Chafee was a longtime advocate for clean air and water, wetlands conservation, and open space preservation. As a result of his dedication to preserving our natural heritage, Senator Chafee was the recipient of every major environmental award. As a senior member of the Finance Committee, Senator Chafee worked successfully to expand health care coverage for women and children, and to improve community services for persons with disabilities. John Chafee served his country for many years and in many roles. Perhaps his most important legacy is the way he served America: ``operating through consensus and cooperation wherever and whenever possible in order to get things done.'' We're all going to miss him very much.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I begin my brief comments this afternoon by complimenting our colleagues, Senators Bond and Mikulski, for a fine piece of work on this legislation under what were less than ideal circumstances, I am sure. I know they have labored long and hard to craft a bill that will meet the needs of our fellow constituents across the country. I, for one, appreciate their labors. I rise in the spirit of making this product even better. In particular, I rise in support of what I understand will be an amendment offered by Senator Kerry in the area of section 8 housing. I do so not only because I believe the merits of his amendment warrant our support, but also because I believe the American dream of quality affordable housing should be extended to every citizen across our country because I believe in the emphasis that we have been placing upon personal responsibility. Along with that must go the tools to ensure that every person has a chance to make personal responsibility become successful, and no one can deny that quality affordable housing is one of those basic building blocks of opportunity in our society. Finally, I rise in support of this prospective amendment because I believe in fiscally responsible solutions to the challenges that face America. Few can argue that quality affordable housing is a challenge that continues to face our great country. For well nigh a generation, there was a bipartisan consensus across our land for quality affordable housing for all Americans. This consensus was interrupted in 1995, when additional section 8 housing opportunities were frozen in place after more than 2 million Americans had been helped over the previous 18 years. Starting this fiscal year, we began to see a thaw in the freeze, but unfortunately the legislation now before this body would reinstitute that freeze. It is ironic that at a time of unparalleled prosperity for so many Americans we should see a freezing of the opportunities in the area of affordable housing. While 1 million elderly are finding themselves in a position where more than 50 percent of their disposable income is spent on rent or substandard housing, 2 million families with children find themselves in this position. More than 22,000 Hoosier families in my capital city of Indianapolis alone find themselves in a position of devoting a majority of their household income to rent or to substandard housing. As we gather, 1 million Americans find themselves on waiting lists. The question before us is, How long must they wait. In some cities-- Philadelphia, Los Angeles and others--families find themselves in a position of waiting for years, waiting with dreams deferred, hopes delayed, opportunities lost, this at a time when our robust economy and market conditions are driving rents up, pricing too many American families out of the market for quality affordable housing. My answer to the question of how long they must wait is that the time is now to act. The time is now to act to extend the opportunity of quality affordable housing to every corner of the land, to prevent this from becoming the first generation of Americans to be divided into classes of haves and have-nots. Now is the time to put flesh on the bones of personal responsibility, to ensure every family that is willing to work hard, play by the rules and save has a chance to get ahead and realize the American dream of quality affordable housing. Now is also the time to put into place fiscally responsible solutions to the challenges that face our great land. This proposed amendment by Senator Kerry is fiscally responsible. We will be taking money that was saved from this year's budget in unused welfare-to-work vouchers and using it for 50,000 new section 8 vouchers, which are also important for making the welfare-to-work process a success. I add my voice as strongly as I know how to Senator Kerry, to the Secretary of Housing, to Senator Mikulski, and my other colleagues who believe if we are to be a great nation, and not just a prosperous one but a compassionate one, we must address the unmet needs of housing for those who are less fortunate across our land. I conclude my remarks by saying: If not now, when our land is filled with plenty, then when? I urge the adoption of this amendment. Again, I thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for their yeoman's work. I think we can make a good bill even better by adopting this amendment. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I respectfully request that the attached statement delivered by Governor Pedro Rossello, of Puerto Rico, before the Human Resources Committee of the National Governors' Association be printed in the Record. This statement was made in reference to S. 1364, the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999. The statement follows. Remarks by the Honorable Pedro Rossello, Governor of Puerto Rico and Co-Lead Governor on Fatherhood in the National Governors' Association, Delivered at a Meeting of the Committee on Human Resources of the National Governors' Association, Saint Louis, Missouri, August 8, 1999 Thank you, Mister Chairman. Governor Tom Ridge and I are extremely enthusiastic about the duties we have been discharging as the N-G-A's Lead Governors on Fatherhood. And in that regard, I certainly want to acknowledge the superb collaboration that we have received from the colleagues who serve with us as fellow members of the Governors' Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion. As has been documented by the N-G-A Center for Best Practices, the efforts we've been undertaking have yielded a rich harvest. That harvest encompasses: An intensification of public awareness campaigns--in nearly all of the states and territories--to promote positive father involvement; a sharper focus for programs, throughout the nation, that are aimed at developing the parenting skills of new fathers; and better targeted support services for disadvantaged or non- custodial fathers, so that they can learn how to improve their relationships with their children. During this past year, our Task Force also expanded its outreach, while joining with the National Fatherhood Initiative, as a co-sponsor of the 1999 National Summit on Supporting Urban Fathers. At the event 2 months ago, we helped spearhead the creation of a brand new Mayors' Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion. As a result, Governors and Mayors are now pooling their resources and putting their heads together on multi-sectoral approaches that can meet the challenge of promoting responsible fatherhood in those urban communities where absenteeism and neglect place very large numbers of children at risk. We Governors can take considerable satisfaction in the progress we have made since we last gathered to discuss the need for an aggressive campaign to foster conscientious fatherhood. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that we still have a long way to go in this important quest to improve the home environments and--by extension--the learning environments of countless thousands of girls and boys and teenagers . . . all across America. And with that in mind, I strongly recommend that this Committee renew its support for N-G-A Policy H-R 28, on the subject of Paternal Involvement in Child-Rearing. However, I would also submit that we must go further. In addition to re-committing ourselves to a policy statement which underscores our collective determination to enter the new millennium with stronger families and a brighter future for the nation's young people, we must likewise re-commit ourselves to a partnership with other elected officials who share those indispensable aspirations. So it is that I hope each and every one of us will emphatically endorse Congressional enactment of the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999. This bill, introduced less than a month ago by Senators Evan Bayh and Pete Domenici, will empower states and communities with new tools to encourage the formation--and the maintenance--of two-parent households, as well as the acceptance by absent fathers of personal responsibility for their children. This bipartisan legislation will provide states and communities with flexible funding to promote responsible fatherhood, through alliances with news media, charities, community-based organizations and religious institutions. The bill will also amend the ``high-performance bonus'' that was created by the 1996 Federal welfare reform statute; the amendment will establish that the formation and maintenance of two-parent families shall henceforward be taken into account as one of the factors considered when granting bonuses to states that are successful in obtaining private-sector jobs for welfare recipients. These and other provisions of the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999 will lend tangible support to our own pioneering efforts on behalf of fatherhood promotion. And I am confident that the initiatives contemplated under this bill can be put into effect without jeopardizing any of the existing appropriations that mean so much to our states and communities. In summary, then, I invite your attention and your allegiance to both the renewal of our N-G-A Policy-Plank, H-R 28, and to this very promising new Federal legislation measure. That concludes what I hope we can agree has been a report that was at once brief and to the point. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my great pride in becoming a founding member of the newly-formed Senate Wilderness and Public Lands Caucus. The protection of public lands is critical to the preservation of our national heritage, the protection of our environmental health and the endurance of the American tradition of respect for natural resources. In September of 1964, the Wilderness Protection Act was passed. It was a landmark in public land protection, establishing that some lands managed by the federal government should be preserved as wilderness for the benefit of all Americans. My father was among the Senators who worked to pass that legislation. Today, wilderness areas are under even greater pressure from increasing development and expansion. As Governor of Indiana, I worked to protect state lands by establishing the Indiana Heritage Trust, which preserved sensitive areas with the proceeds from sales of environmental license plates. That initiative resulted in the protection of more than 5000 acres of threatened lands. I am proud to join my colleagues in the Senate in starting the Wilderness and Public Lands Caucus and carrying forward the tradition of stewardship of federal lands reflected in the Wilderness Act of 1964. I would like to thank Senator Feingold in particular for his leadership and dedication to this issue. We have the obligation and the opportunity to protect the natural heritage that belongs to all Americans. The Wilderness and Public Lands Caucus will be an important asset in pursuing that goal by providing support and education regarding federal land management and wilderness areas.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, thank you. I am pleased to be on the floor of the Senate as a part of a bipartisan group once again--this time to advocate a tax cut for the American people that is fiscally responsible, that honors our values, and that can actually be done. I am disappointed we will not have an opportunity to vote on this proposal today because I believe it is in the best interests of the American people. Ultimately, I believe that if we are going to ever span the partisan chasm that stretches before us, it will be on the ground that I and others are staking out here today. This proposal is fiscally responsible. It allows for paying down 94 percent of the publicly held Federal debt--94 percent of the publicly held Federal debt. That is fiscally responsible. It, as the other proposals would do, extends the life of Social Security to the year 2053--54 more years--by adding $1.8 trillion to Social Security. That, too, is fiscally responsible. It extends the life of Medicare to the year 2020, adding $210 billion--allowing for that to extend the life of Medicare. As my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, pointed out, on some occasions none of the proposals that are before us permanently solve every issue of Medicare. All of them simply postpone the day of reckoning. Our proposal would do that and give us time for systemic reform. But, in the meantime, adding $210 billion to extend the life of Medicare is the fiscally responsible thing to do. Finally, it allows for $500 billion of tax reductions for the men and women of our country, completely removing from the tax rolls 3 million hard-working Americans and moving 4 million people from the 28-percent tax bracket to the 15-percent tax bracket. I have listened to the eloquence of my colleagues, many of whom have mentioned the important needs of our Government--and our Government does have important needs--many of whom have mentioned the funding priorities for Government spending programs which are important. I remind all of us about the needs of the American people, of families, working men and women. What about their needs too? Many working families across my State, even in this time of plenty with a strong economy, are having trouble paying the mortgage, putting something away for retirement, affording a college education for their children. These families--at a time when we are adding $1.8 trillion to Social Security, $210 billion for Medicare, and the other for discretionary spending--can very much use the $1,000 for an average family across my State to help meet their pressing needs. It is the right and appropriate thing to do. This proposal honors our values--our most basic values--and eliminates entirely the marriage penalty. No longer will people be penalized by the Federal Tax Code simply because they choose to get married. We should encourage marriage. We should not discourage marriage. This proposal makes child care, care for a sick parent, and health insurance for those who are without it more affordable. These are the right things to do. I think it is important to recognize that we can cherish our values and promote them by reducing taxes just as easily and sometimes better than through increased public spending. This proposal has room for a $45 billion drug benefit under Medicare, the same amount of public spending required of the President's proposal, and still we would have $180 billion for additional discretionary spending over the next 10 years. There has been a lot of talk and a good deal of disagreement about the appropriate level for discretionary spending increases. I must say, with all due respect, I cannot agree with my colleagues in the majority because I find the assumptions and accounting upon which their proposal is based are suspect at best. They ask us to believe they can hold to spending caps over the next 10 years that they have already admitted they cannot abide by in this very year. That simply is not possible. Yesterday I listened to one of my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee have an amazing colloquy with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in which he essentially said, Mr. Chairman, the reason I am supporting tax reductions is that I cannot keep from spending irresponsibly. He looked at the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and almost asked him: Mr. Chairman, stop me before I spend again. Colleagues, we have been elected to this body to make tough choices and set priorities. I believe we can and should. The prescription of the majority is one for increased debt and deficit. This is a path I choose not to travel. At the same time, I cannot find myself in agreement with those who show charts and list figures basically arguing for an inflationary increase for Federal spending as far as the eye can see, basically putting Federal spending on autopilot. I do not know of any working family in my State who has been guaranteed inflationary increases in their family income for 10 years. Why should we treat the Federal Government any better than ordinary citizens? Of course we should not. I asked the Chairman of the Federal Reserve yesterday about productivity increases. We are seeing amazing productivity increases in the private economy. Shouldn't the Government be asked to become more efficient and productive as well, thereby decreasing the need for annual increases in spending? Of course we need to set priorities and make difficult decisions, allowing us to live within our means, just as families across my State and country are asked to live within their means. This is a momentous debate. The consequences of our decisions will last for many years to come. I believe we have set the right balance of priorities, fiscal responsibility, honoring our values, doing right by future generations in a bipartisan way. I appeal to the President and my colleagues for support for this measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, to introduce the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act. This important legislation is designed to ensure that the manufactured housing industry continues to provide safe, affordable housing by modernizing the requirements under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. The bill also provides the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with the resources necessary to meet its obligations to manufactured homeowners. Manufactured housing has evolved significantly in the last twenty- five years; it's no longer the stereotypical mobile home. In fact, the vast majority of manufactured homes installed today are never moved once they have been sited. At an average cost of $40,000 for a new manufactured home, excluding land, manufactured housing is the fastest growing sector of the housing industry. One in every four new single family homes sold in the United States is a manufactured home. Manufactured housing provides many American families with the opportunity to not only own their own homes, but to live in safe, comfortable, and affordable housing. In addition, improvements in construction have led to the development of aesthetically pleasing homes. Most manufactured homes built today are manufactured to resemble traditional site built homes and are enjoyed by an array of Americans, including first time home buyers, senior citizens, and single parent families. Manufactured housing is an industry that not only provides affordable housing but also creates jobs. In my home state of Indiana, the manufactured housing industry employees more than 20,000 Hoosiers and has a total economic impact in my state of nearly $3 billion per year. The Manufactured Housing Program at HUD, which oversees the industry, has faced many administrative challenges in the last decade. Lack of resources has prevented the program from keeping up with the changing needs of manufactured housing. While the industry has voluntary implemented numerous code changes in recent years, many requests to review standards or regulations currently await action by HUD or have taken numerous years to process, because of inadequate resources at the Department. Ten years ago, the number of HUD employees assigned to this program was 34. Today, only 8 HUD employees are responsible for this program. With the rapid growth in housing technology, it is imperative that HUD not only address these standards but do so in a timely fashion, allowing the industry to remain competitive while providing homeowners with the most advanced housing technology. Our legislation will remedy this situation by modernizing the program by implementing procedures in which all proposed construction and safety standards are addressed and considered in a reasonable time frame. The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act requires that action on any proposed standard or regulation be taken within one year after it has been proposed to the Secretary. This is an important provision. It requires the Secretary to act, but protects consumers by authorizing the Secretary to reject any proposal which is deemed to be adverse to consumers. Finally, through the use of industry labeling fees, this legislation provides economic resources to the Secretary for the hiring of additional HUD program staff. The costs of operating this program and the re-staffing of the manufactured housing program will continue to be borne by the manufactured housing industry, not the taxpayer. I note that the industry is willing to bear this expense in order to improve the efficiency of the regulatory system. As we strive to ensure that all Americans have access to safe, affordable, and quality housing, we need to ensure that best practices are applied to the housing industry and that we support the modernization of housing technology. Manufactured housing is a valuable housing resource and provides access to home ownership for many Americans. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, to introduce the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act. This important legislation is designed to ensure that the manufactured housing industry continues to provide safe, affordable housing by modernizing the requirements under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. The bill also provides the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with the resources necessary to meet its obligations to manufactured homeowners. Manufactured housing has evolved significantly in the last twenty- five years; it's no longer the stereotypical mobile home. In fact, the vast majority of manufactured homes installed today are never moved once they have been sited. At an average cost of $40,000 for a new manufactured home, excluding land, manufactured housing is the fastest growing sector of the housing industry. One in every four new single family homes sold in the United States is a manufactured home. Manufactured housing provides many American families with the opportunity to not only own their own homes, but to live in safe, comfortable, and affordable housing. In addition, improvements in construction have led to the development of aesthetically pleasing homes. Most manufactured homes built today are manufactured to resemble traditional site built homes and are enjoyed by an array of Americans, including first time home buyers, senior citizens, and single parent families. Manufactured housing is an industry that not only provides affordable housing but also creates jobs. In my home state of Indiana, the manufactured housing industry employees more than 20,000 Hoosiers and has a total economic impact in my state of nearly $3 billion per year. The Manufactured Housing Program at HUD, which oversees the industry, has faced many administrative challenges in the last decade. Lack of resources has prevented the program from keeping up with the changing needs of manufactured housing. While the industry has voluntary implemented numerous code changes in recent years, many requests to review standards or regulations currently await action by HUD or have taken numerous years to process, because of inadequate resources at the Department. Ten years ago, the number of HUD employees assigned to this program was 34. Today, only 8 HUD employees are responsible for this program. With the rapid growth in housing technology, it is imperative that HUD not only address these standards but do so in a timely fashion, allowing the industry to remain competitive while providing homeowners with the most advanced housing technology. Our legislation will remedy this situation by modernizing the program by implementing procedures in which all proposed construction and safety standards are addressed and considered in a reasonable time frame. The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act requires that action on any proposed standard or regulation be taken within one year after it has been proposed to the Secretary. This is an important provision. It requires the Secretary to act, but protects consumers by authorizing the Secretary to reject any proposal which is deemed to be adverse to consumers. Finally, through the use of industry labeling fees, this legislation provides economic resources to the Secretary for the hiring of additional HUD program staff. The costs of operating this program and the re-staffing of the manufactured housing program will continue to be borne by the manufactured housing industry, not the taxpayer. I note that the industry is willing to bear this expense in order to improve the efficiency of the regulatory system. As we strive to ensure that all Americans have access to safe, affordable, and quality housing, we need to ensure that best practices are applied to the housing industry and that we support the modernization of housing technology. Manufactured housing is a valuable housing resource and provides access to home ownership for many Americans. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. I thank the Chair and my colleagues. I am pleased to be here, and I rise in opposition to Senate Resolution 160 because I believe that it represents bad public policy. It represents a lack of conviction and consistency on the part of the majority in this Chamber, and it represents a continuing erosion of the traditions of this great body which imperil the very vitality of our democracy. I say these things, although I have no doubt that if we asked many who are in the galleries today or the citizens in my State exactly what rule XVI involves, they would have very little awareness of this or of the significance of the change that has been proposed. I do believe that if the citizens of our country understood the importance, the symbolic changes this resolution represents, they would be concerned, indeed, because the citizens of our country do care about good public policy. The best avenue to ensuring that the people of our country have good public policy, with the fostering of vigorous, open debate, is the contest of ideas right here in the well of the Senate, where the good ideas triumph and the bad ones are weeded out. Someone said, the best disinfectant is sunshine. That holds true in the Senate as it does in other forums. We will not get the best Government that the people of our country deserve if the minority in this Chamber is not given the privilege of introducing our ideas before the American people and debating them in a free and open forum. Think with me for a moment of some of the ideas that would not have been allowed to come up over the last 6 months that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate if this resolution proposed before us today were adopted. The Patients' Bill of Rights is important to every citizen across our country. Mr. President, if you believe in the right to have access to a specialist, in emergency care, you should care about this resolution. If you believe in the right to have an effective appeal to the denial of coverage, you should support defeat of this resolution. Likewise, the juvenile justice bill, which we addressed in the tragic aftermath of the Columbine incident, would never have come before this Chamber if this resolution that we consider today were in effect. Something I worked very hard on, with a bipartisan group, to ensure that the States have access to the proceeds from the tobacco litigation, would never have come before this Chamber and would not have been a part of the emergency supplemental passed into law if this resolution we consider today had been in effect. Important issues of public policy, my fellow Americans, would not be heard on the floor of this great body, the greatest deliberative body in the history of man, if the resolution proposed before us goes into effect. Your well-being, the well-being of our country, and those about whom we care will be substantially affected if this resolution is adopted. We should not let that happen to future debates about education or the minimum wage or other things that we, as Americans, care about. Likewise, Mr. President, I am distressed to state it, but I believe this resolution represents a very real lack of conviction, a lack of conviction on the part of the majority now controlling this Chamber. If they truly have the best ideas, if their ideas are in the best interests of the American people, why not have them subjected to amendment and debate on the floor of the Senate? Moreover, I ask those here in our presence today, and those viewing us at home, if our ideas on this side of the Chamber are so weak, so lacking in merit, what is the fear in allowing us to debate them and vote on them in the Senate? My friends, I think the answer is distressingly clear. There are some Members of this body who do not want to cast the tough votes. They do not want to be forced to make the tough decisions. They do not want to have to address the compelling challenges of our time. They would rather limit debate and too often gag the Members of the minority from presenting our ideas. The answer to this, Mr. President, is simple: It is not to stifle debate, it is not to prevent votes. If you do not believe in having a vigorous debate on the floor of the Senate, why run for the office in the first place? As Harry Truman once said: If you can't stand the heat, you better not go into the kitchen. That is what this resolution is really all about. Next, this resolution, unfortunately, represents a real lack of consistency on the part of the majority. It is a flip-flop, more worthy of a gymnastics contest than a debate on the floor of the Senate. Just 4 short years ago, the majority voted to overturn the historic practice of not allowing legislation on appropriations. Now they propose to change it back. I could not blame Americans listening to our comments today if they thought what was really holding sway on the floor of the Senate had more to do with expediency in politics than consistency of principle. Unfortunately, Mr. President, it represents something that Americans have come to view as too often is the case in Washington today, and that is the pursuit of power above all else--certainly, the pursuit of power above principle, all too frequently. And that is not how it should be. I remind my colleagues, the majority, that the test of character is not how you behave when you are weak; the real test of character is when we see how you behave when you are strong. That is what we see today. I am afraid we are not passing this test if we go forward and gag and muzzle the minority from offering our ideas to the American people. Let me offer this observation in conclusion. I represent a State of 6 million souls. I believe I was elected to represent them on the floor of the Senate, to offer the ideas that will best serve to increase the opportunity that they will have in their lives. That is why I was sent to the Senate. It is not right to muzzle their elected Representative from offering the ideas that I believe will serve them best, or the Senator of Nevada believes will serve his constituents best, or the Senator from Minnesota or the other Senators in this body. I have hanging in my office a print entitled ``The United States Senate,'' circa 1850. It is a wonderful print that I believe embodies the history and the legacy of this institution at its finest. In the center of this print is Henry Clay, speaking on the floor of the Senate in the historic Old Senate Chamber. And listening intently to him on the floor of the Senate were some of the giants in the Senate: Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, Thomas Hart Benton. Future Presidents of the United States were in attendance listening to the debate. They were not debating an arcane subject that would be of no interest to the people of this country. They were debating the very union that is the foundation upon which our Nation is built. What would our forefathers think of the changes that have taken place in this Senate if they felt that the issues of union and disunion, States rights and Federal rights, the very liberties we hold dear, were no longer allowed to be debated on the floor of the Senate?

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I believe they would be distressed, as I am today, and as people would be today if they understood what was at stake here. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and to uphold the traditions of our Senate.

Mr. BAYH. I thank the Chair. It is an honor for me to be in the Chamber of this great institution once again with you serving as our Presiding Officer this afternoon. I thank my colleagues also for being here today. Before I begin my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my time, my colleague from Minnesota be recognized. He has very graciously allowed me to cut ahead of him in line this afternoon. I want him, if there is no objection, to be recognized at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, in a few short moments we will be proceeding to our final votes of our four day debate on the Republican and Democratic versions of the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am taking the floor this evening to explain why I oppose both these proposals and to express my support, again, for the bipartisan approach to managed care reform that I sponsored with my colleagues John Chafee, Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Arlen Specter, Max Baucus and Chuck Robb. One of the most difficult obstacles to meaningful health care reform is that there is an inherent tension between our two most important objectives. The first objective is to ensure the highest possible quality care. Regardless of our vantage point on the political spectrum, we can all agree that the United States offers the best quality health care in the world. Men, women and children flock here from every corner of the globe to gain access to our physicians and our hospitals. Maintaining this high standard of care must be at the forefront of any attempt to reform the means by which Americans pay for their health care. Seemingly at odds with the objective of highest quality care is the need to make sure that health care is affordable. The ability to cure disease or heal the injured is rendered almost meaningless if only a fraction of the population can afford it. Spiraling health care costs have a negative impact upon society in a variety of ways--some obvious and some not so obvious. I well remember the situation in Indiana when I took over as Governor. In the midst of our worst recession since the 1930s, our Medicaid costs were increasing by 20% per year, an increase that mirrored substantial annual hikes in the private market. One clear result was that workers around the state were losing insurance as business after business found themselves unable to pay for even basic health coverage. But for both the state government and for those businesses that maintained health insurance, the spiraling increases crowded out funding for many other significant initiatives and investments. On the state level, paying increased Medicaid bills meant less for education, transportation and child care. For private businesses the choices were equally stark--pay increased insurance costs and in so doing postpone expanding the workforce, offering pay increases, investing in research or modernizing factories and offices. In 1989, we began to make some very tough decisions in Indiana to bring the Medicaid budget under control; private businesses similarly began to turn to managed care. For the past ten years, those changes have helped to keep health care costs under control and have resulted in continuing insurance coverage without having to choose between offering health insurance or creating new jobs, or maintaining Medicaid or education funding. But today, there is ample evidence--acknowledged by Democrats and Republicans alike--that the pendulum may have swung too far towards keeping costs down, and as a result, we are jeopardizing the quality of health care that Americans receive. In trying to redress this imbalance, there are a few lessons that we learned in Indiana that were useful principles for me to keep in mind as this debate progressed. First, and perhaps most importantly, any significant reform had to be market-based. Any attempt to have the government control the health care system would be doomed to failure. The Chafee-Graham bi-partisan bill that I have supported since taking office is market based; it sets some basic ground rules but leaves that actual management of health care to the experts in the private sector-- the patients, the doctors and the insurers. Unfortunately, the Republican plan takes the concept of market-based reform to its illogical extreme. That plan falls far short of establishing even the most basic protections for people in managed care. Most egregiously, the Nickles-Lott bill would only cover a fraction--less than 30%--of the people who have private insurance. We have all accepted the idea that there ought to be some minimum protections and guarantees offered to those in managed care to prevent the abuses that we have witnessed over the past few years. But if all sides have accepted that principle, it seems very unfair that the majority would choose to leave nearly 120 million people out of the protections we all believe are necessary. I strongly support the elements of the Democratic approach that advance these principles--access to specialists, proper emergency care, access to obstetrician/gynecologists, independent reviews of denial of care--but the bipartisan bill wisely avoids the one element of the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights that I believe will drive health care costs up: expanded liability. If health care costs do not remain under control, there are serious ramifications for both the national economy and for the American taxpayer. The United States already pays more--expressed as a percentage of GDP--for health care than any other industrialized nation. A rise in these costs will have an appreciable negative impact upon our economic strength in an increasingly competitive global environment. With pressure from a unified Europe and resurgent Asia, the last thing this Congress ought to do is to help spur a dramatic rise in health care costs for a liability provision that is unlikely to make any American healthier. And the American taxpayer is at risk if health care costs spiral out of control because it is the taxpayer who will foot the bill if hundreds of thousands of people are suddenly forced into the Medicaid system if they lose their health benefits. We simply, as a nation, cannot afford a return to the days when health care costs increased by double digits every year. The bipartisan bill does allow some tightly controlled access to the Federal courts for suits that seek restitution for economic loss. It seems to me that before we expose health care plans and employers to unlimited liability and to punitive damages, we must at least try this limited, moderate approach. Mr. President today we will face a test of whether Washington can still work. The American people will be watching to see if their cynicism and apathy towards the political process in general and Washington, in particular, will be deepened or whether we can put partisanship aside and restore their confidence in our ability to govern for the benefit of the nation. Some in this chamber truly do not want to have any legislation that reforms the way in which HMOs operate; some do not want to have any legislation so that they can have an issue for the 2000 elections. Neither approach serves the American people very well and that is why I support the bi-partisan bill as the only possibility to actually get something done. The Democratic proposal will not pass the Senate; the Republican proposal will be vetoed by the President and that veto will not be overridden. Compromise is the only possibility before us for success in this area. The bipartisan bill strikes the right balance between additional patient protections and maintaining control of increasing health care costs. In the final analysis, we have a choice to make: do we choose to just give more speeches that won't help anyone, or do we try to get something done? Are we going to insist upon everything that we want, or will we put aside our partisan differences to get some of what the American people want? It is my hope, even if that vote doesn't occur today, that the members of this Senate will pass the test by finally putting aside the rancor and bitterness of the past four days, to put aside the desire to score debating points off each other, and to rally around this centrist, responsible bi-partisan bill that will give the American people the key components of HMO reform that they need and deserve.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Richard Lugar, to introduce legislation awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the Reverend Theodore Hesburgh, president emeritus of the University of Notre Dame. This bipartisan effort recognizes Father Hesburgh for his outstanding contributions to the civil rights movement and to improving higher education. His efforts have provided benefits not only to the people of the United States but to the global community as well. Over the years, Father Hesburgh has held 15 presidential appointments and remains a national leader in the fields of education, civil rights and development of the world's poorest nations. Most notable among Father Hesburgh's many previous awards is the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, bestowed on him by President Johnson in 1964. Mr. President, Father Hesburgh has been a champion of the civil rights movement for more than forty years. He was a charter member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1957, and served as Chairman of the commission from 1969-72. His relentless pursuit of justice, peace and equality continue to inspire people around the world. Despite Father Hesburgh's commitment and obligations to Notre Dame and the various commissions he served, he still managed to give a sufficient amount of time and attention to global problems. Father Hesburgh served four Popes in many capacities, including as the permanent Vatican City representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna from 1956-1970. In 1971, he joined the board of Overseas Developing Council, a private organization supporting interests of the underdeveloped world, and chaired it until 1982. During this time, he led fund-raising efforts that averted mass starvation in Cambodia in the immediate aftermath of the Khmer Rouge. Notre Dame is perhaps most celebrated for its athletic prowess, but these on-the-field achievements should not overshadow Notre Dame's place as a world class institution of learning and scholarship. When Father Hesburgh stepped down as head of Notre Dame in 1987, he ended the longest tenure among active presidents of American institutions of higher learning. The accomplishments made during Father Hesburgh's tenure are perhaps best reflected in the significant gains made from the time he took over as the 15th president of Notre Dame in 1952, up until his departure. By the time Father Hesburgh left Notre Dame, enrollment had doubled, the number of faculty had tripled, and the number of degrees offered by the school had grown to over 2,500. Most strikingly, Father Hesburgh was responsible for making dramatic changes to the University's composition by admitting women to Notre Dame. He also established several of Notre Dame's prestigious institutions, both the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and the Kellogg Institute for International Studies. Today, even in retirement, Father Hesburgh continues to be a leading educator and humanitarian, inspiring generations of students and citizens, while generously sharing his wisdom in the struggle for the rights of man. That is why we rise today to introduce legislation in the Senate honoring this man with a Congressional Gold Medal for his outstanding contributions to the University of Notre Dame, our country and the global community.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Richard Lugar, to introduce legislation awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the Reverend Theodore Hesburgh, president emeritus of the University of Notre Dame. This bipartisan effort recognizes Father Hesburgh for his outstanding contributions to the civil rights movement and to improving higher education. His efforts have provided benefits not only to the people of the United States but to the global community as well. Over the years, Father Hesburgh has held 15 presidential appointments and remains a national leader in the fields of education, civil rights and development of the world's poorest nations. Most notable among Father Hesburgh's many previous awards is the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, bestowed on him by President Johnson in 1964. Mr. President, Father Hesburgh has been a champion of the civil rights movement for more than forty years. He was a charter member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1957, and served as Chairman of the commission from 1969-72. His relentless pursuit of justice, peace and equality continue to inspire people around the world. Despite Father Hesburgh's commitment and obligations to Notre Dame and the various commissions he served, he still managed to give a sufficient amount of time and attention to global problems. Father Hesburgh served four Popes in many capacities, including as the permanent Vatican City representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna from 1956-1970. In 1971, he joined the board of Overseas Developing Council, a private organization supporting interests of the underdeveloped world, and chaired it until 1982. During this time, he led fund-raising efforts that averted mass starvation in Cambodia in the immediate aftermath of the Khmer Rouge. Notre Dame is perhaps most celebrated for its athletic prowess, but these on-the-field achievements should not overshadow Notre Dame's place as a world class institution of learning and scholarship. When Father Hesburgh stepped down as head of Notre Dame in 1987, he ended the longest tenure among active presidents of American institutions of higher learning. The accomplishments made during Father Hesburgh's tenure are perhaps best reflected in the significant gains made from the time he took over as the 15th president of Notre Dame in 1952, up until his departure. By the time Father Hesburgh left Notre Dame, enrollment had doubled, the number of faculty had tripled, and the number of degrees offered by the school had grown to over 2,500. Most strikingly, Father Hesburgh was responsible for making dramatic changes to the University's composition by admitting women to Notre Dame. He also established several of Notre Dame's prestigious institutions, both the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and the Kellogg Institute for International Studies. Today, even in retirement, Father Hesburgh continues to be a leading educator and humanitarian, inspiring generations of students and citizens, while generously sharing his wisdom in the struggle for the rights of man. That is why we rise today to introduce legislation in the Senate honoring this man with a Congressional Gold Medal for his outstanding contributions to the University of Notre Dame, our country and the global community.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I commend my colleague from Pennsylvania for his very persuasive remarks. This is a major industry in both of our States. We both share a commitment to dealing with this issue. So I appreciate your leadership very much, I say to Senator Specter. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act. I would like to begin by commending our colleague, Senator Byrd, who had to leave for just a brief period of time for other pressing matters. I commend him for adopting an approach that is not just good for West Virginia, not just good for the steel industry, but good for the Nation. Senator Byrd's dedication to doing what is right for America, and not just the narrower parochial concerns, was evidenced very clearly in the colloquy we heard between Senator Domenici and Senator Byrd in which Senator Byrd was going to accommodate the national interests in allowing a supplemental appropriations bill to go forward at a time our Nation was involved in military action abroad. That is indicative of his lengthy record of national leadership. As further evidence that the approach favored by Senator Byrd and Senator Domenici, and others of my colleagues, is the correct approach, I am pleased to identify several Governors who have written to endorse this legislation. The list will demonstrate that it has broad regional support from the East to the West, from the North to the South. Not only my own Governor of the State of Indiana, but the Governor of Maryland, the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Governor of Illinois, the Governor of West Virginia, the Governor of Iowa, the Governor of Utah, and the Governor of South Carolina have written to express their strong, unequivocal support for taking immediate action to address this very critical situation. Likewise, I urge that this bill be passed expeditiously and without amendment. We have a crisis on our hands. It is very important that we not get bogged down in other extraneous matters but that we move this legislation forward unencumbered. I sometimes wonder what citizens think when they view us at our work here. We have prerogatives, of course. We have rights, of course. But it is important at this time, with the situation in the oil and gas industry, with the situation in the steel industry, that we move this bill forward cleanly and expeditiously and, I for one would hope, without amendment. I know something about this issue, having served as Governor of my State for 8 years and now in the Senate. Indiana happens to be the largest steel-producing State in the United States of America, producing more tons of steel than any of our 49 sister States. We currently have approximately 30,000 working men and women employed in the steel industry in Indiana. These are good-quality jobs, with high wages, high benefits, the kind of employment around which you can raise and support a family and a decent quality of life. Many communities in our State, particularly in northwest Indiana, are dependent upon the health and vigor of this industry for their very livelihoods. The last 20 years or so have not always been good times for the steel industry across our State or across our country. In my State alone, over the last 20 years we have seen tens of thousands of jobs disappear. Our market share has shrunk. Perhaps some of this was inevitable, but perhaps some was not. There was a point in time when the industry had to acknowledge its fair share of the blame for the state of affairs. They perhaps had been too complacent, had not made the investment in the latest technology and equipment to be world-class competitive. But those days and those arguments no longer apply. This industry and the workers who labor within it have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, in the very latest kinds of equipment, the latest technology. If you tour the steel mills across our State, and elsewhere, they are state of the art, world class, world competitive. We are in a position today where we can produce steel of the highest quality, at an internationally competitive price, if it is fair competition. But, as we all know, since last year the competition has been anything but fair. Given the collapse of currencies across Southeast Asia, many of those countries were desperate--desperate to export their steel and to gain hard currency under any terms, in any circumstances. A flood of illegal--and I stress ``illegal''--imports began to come across our shores. Just this week, our Government has indicated that Japan has been involved in illegal trade practices. And there were other countries cited for this activity before that. This is just the latest evidence of the kind of unfair and illegal trade competition we have been facing since at least last year. The consequences have been very damaging. We have had several companies go out of business, thousands of jobs lost; and once these companies shut their doors and close down, once their jobs are lost, in all likelihood they will be permanent losses to our economy, with consequences to these families and these communities that go way beyond the economic toll. This legislation is a balanced approach to dealing with this problem. It is fair to taxpayers, because the costs are offset with reductions elsewhere. It requires the loans to be repaid in only 6 and a half years, which is a relatively short period of time for major loans of this nature. There is a panel established to scrutinize every loan before it is given to make sure that the recipients are creditworthy and, in fact, that the taxpayers will be ultimately repaid. Before closing, I will say just a couple more words about this bill because, as I mentioned, the consequences are national. In my own mind, they deal with trade and other industries as well. I personally believe that free and fair trade and competition is good for our country. It is good for consumers--with higher-quality, lower-cost goods at their disposal. It is good for our economy, because it forces us to be competitive and productive. In the long run, it leads to the most efficient allocation of resources. But when trade is illegal, when other countries undertake steps that are not fair, are not just, and, any economist would say, in the long run do not lead to an efficient allocation of resources or a good deal for consumers or working men and women in this country, that is the kind of thing where we must take a stand. If I am to go back to the citizens of my State and argue why free trade is in our best interest, it must go hand in hand with vigorous enforcement of current law and helping those industries that have been targeted by illegal activity. I emphasize that the pernicious effects of this illegal dumping will last a long time after the dumping has stopped. Many of our companies have been permanently weakened. If we do not take these steps to allow them to get back on their feet, to allow them to overcome the consequences of this sort of illegal activity, who can say who will be next? Quite possibly, one of our foreign competitors will say: I'll pay a few fines in the short run, bear that short-run cost to permanently, in the long run, weaken American competitors. That is not right. This loan guarantee program will allow these companies that have been harmed by this illegal activity to get back on their feet, to regain their competitive standing, so that we will have free and fair competition moving forward. So, in conclusion, this is a bill of national consequence, not just to any one State or region; its interests go way beyond the steel and natural gas and oil industries to affect literally the long-term well- being and competitiveness of the American economy as a whole. That is why I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this legislation, to do it now, and to do it without amendment. Thank you, Mr. President, for your patience, your time. I thank Senator Domenici for his leadership on this issue, and many others as well. I am now pleased to yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH. The Senator could not have given me higher praise, Mr. President. For that, I am personally and eternally grateful. It has been a privilege for not only me but for my family to serve with you. You have always been a man of decency, courage and honesty. For that, we are very grateful. I look forward to serving with you for many years. On behalf of both my father and myself, I thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President today I rise as a co-sponsor of the Work Incentives Improvement Act, a bipartisan bill that removes the disincentives currently hindering those people with disabilities who wish to enter the workforce. We all owe our thanks to Senators Moynihan, Roth, and Kennedy for their leadership on this bill. When people want to work the federal government should not stand in their way. When people want to be productive members of our society, taxpaying citizens, the federal government should not stand in their way. Currently, 72% of Americans with disabilities want to work. However, nearly 75% of persons with disabilities are unemployed. We are sending the wrong message right now. The current set of rules make it more economically beneficial for someone with a disability to stay at home than to enter the workforce. There needs to be a transition period put in place to assist those with disabilities before we expect them to become financially independant. We do this with other programs and it is about time we apply such logic to this sector of our community. By passing this bill, if only 1% of the currently disabled Americans become fully employed, the federal savings in disability benefits would total $3.5 billion over the lifetime of the beneficiaries. Once again, investing in people creates a great rate of return. In Indiana there are 348,000 people between the ages of 16 and 64 who have a disability. I have heard numerous stories from Hoosiers with disabilities who want to work and are able to work. They have told me how work will mean more than a paycheck for them. It is an opportunity for them to be a productive and contributing member of the community, work towards self-sufficiency, and most importantly, to have a sense of pride in being needed. Let me tell you about Bob Neal, an employee of the Indianapolis Police Department. He is 42 years old and doesn't want to give up his job even though it would be much easier for him financially if he did. Bob has muscular dystrophy. When asked why he is still working he said ``I just figure if I stay home I'll get fatter than I am and get lazy and die earlier. I look forward to working. You gotta have a little pride somewhere. That is why I stay here, because of these people, I could go back to Illinois and never work again, but these people, they know me here.'' Bob's story displays the problem with the current predicament in which most people with disabilities find themselves. This bill will address situations similar to that of Bob Neal. It will provide access to health coverage and provide employment assistance while creating incentives to work. It is important to allow Medicare coverage for people with disabilities while they are working so their health can continue to improve. It is no surprise this bill has such overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. Today, I will vote in support of this bill with pride for those who take advantage of this newly created opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill and send the message that people with disabilities will no longer need to chose between working and remaining healthy.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today I rise as an original co- sponsor of the Prenatal Child and Infant Development Act, a bipartisan bill to provide states with the flexibility they need to address the needs of children during their formative years. Children are born into this world with all the potential they need to make their dreams come true. The ages of birth to 3 are the most critical for a child's development both mentally and socially. They have all the 100 billion brains cells they will need as adults. By age three, children have nearly all the necessary connections between the brain cells needed for the brain to function fully and properly. It is up to us, families, teachers, childcare providers, and communities to help our children live up to their potential. It is important that our children are ready to learn and we allow them the opportunity to maximize their potential. What income bracket a child is born into should not determine that child's future. If a child is not provided with proper health care, nutritional food, and a nurturing environment to grow up in, we are leading down a very dark path. Sadly, it has been confirmed that children who lack proper nutrition, health care, and nurturing during their first years also lack the adequate social, motor, and language skills needed to perform well in school and in life. That is why I have joined efforts with Senator Voinovich and Senator Graham and support the Prenatal Child and Infant Development Act. This initiative has bipartisan support because it is important legislation that addresses something we should all have in common, helping our children prepare for the future. A child birth to 3 years old that is in need of assistance can not do it on her own. Specifically, this bill will allow States to transfer up to 45% of the money they receive for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to the Child Care Development Block Grant or the Social Services Block Grant. The 15% increase in transferability will go towards increasing local early childhood development coordination councils and to enhance child care quality under the existing Child Care Development Block Grant. This new flexibility will allow states to spend the money needed to ensure our children are not sentenced to unfulfillment of their dreams just because they were denied child care services during their most vital development stages. In Indiana, there are over 488,000 children under the age of six. 70% of those children are in child care. Indiana is one of those states that has transferred the entire amount currently allowed from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds to the Child Care Development Block Grant for child care services and quality initiatives. Even after the State was able to provide services for 65,185 children, there still remains a need to help at least an additional 267,500 children. There is a need in my State to have the flexibility to transfer and utilize funds that otherwise are not being spent so these children can be served. One of the programs this new flexibility will allow to expand in Indiana is the Building Bright Beginnings Coalition. This coalition is focused on assisting children that are prenatal to four years old. They have reached over 150,000 parents of newborns through their publication ``A Parent's Guide to Raising Health, Happy Babies''. The coalition has implemented the ``See and Demand Quality Child Care'' campaign consisting of public service announcements, billboards, pamphlets, and a toll-free telephone line for parent information in cooperation with local resources and referral agencies. It also makes loans available to child care providers who are considered non-traditional borrowers, and it has formed an institute that creates a public private partnership with higher education as well as the health, education, and early childhood communities. In the short time this program has been in place, it has helped over 100,000 parents of newborns be better informed, over 10,000 new public private partnerships have been formed, and it has directly impacted the lives of over 15,000 children. We need more programs like this and in order for them to exist States need more flexibility with their funding streams. These quality initiatives are administered by Indiana's Step Ahead Councils. Step Ahead Councils are the types of councils this bill hopes to promote. Indiana has had a council in each of its 92 counties since 1991. These councils allow for locally focused solutions and initiatives to locally based challenges with child care, parent information, early intervention, child nutrition and health screening. Local responses to local problems can create better solutions. This bill encourages such local involvement. In addition, there are several other important goals this bill helps to accomplish. It will allow more programs to address the needs of prenatal to three year olds, it will increase satellite training for Head Start and other childhood program staff, it will increase direct child care and health services, and will encourage States to implement training programs for childcare providers. As a Senator and a father of two 3\1/2\ year old boys, I am proud to support this bill and publically voice the need to invest in all children. There is no better way to utlize a dollar than to invest it in our future. Thank you Senator Voinovich and Senator Graham for initiating this legislation, I urge my colleagues, when the time comes, to support this bill and the message behind it.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today I rise as an original co- sponsor of the Prenatal Child and Infant Development Act, a bipartisan bill to provide states with the flexibility they need to address the needs of children during their formative years. Children are born into this world with all the potential they need to make their dreams come true. The ages of birth to 3 are the most critical for a child's development both mentally and socially. They have all the 100 billion brains cells they will need as adults. By age three, children have nearly all the necessary connections between the brain cells needed for the brain to function fully and properly. It is up to us, families, teachers, childcare providers, and communities to help our children live up to their potential. It is important that our children are ready to learn and we allow them the opportunity to maximize their potential. What income bracket a child is born into should not determine that child's future. If a child is not provided with proper health care, nutritional food, and a nurturing environment to grow up in, we are leading down a very dark path. Sadly, it has been confirmed that children who lack proper nutrition, health care, and nurturing during their first years also lack the adequate social, motor, and language skills needed to perform well in school and in life. That is why I have joined efforts with Senator Voinovich and Senator Graham and support the Prenatal Child and Infant Development Act. This initiative has bipartisan support because it is important legislation that addresses something we should all have in common, helping our children prepare for the future. A child birth to 3 years old that is in need of assistance can not do it on her own. Specifically, this bill will allow States to transfer up to 45% of the money they receive for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to the Child Care Development Block Grant or the Social Services Block Grant. The 15% increase in transferability will go towards increasing local early childhood development coordination councils and to enhance child care quality under the existing Child Care Development Block Grant. This new flexibility will allow states to spend the money needed to ensure our children are not sentenced to unfulfillment of their dreams just because they were denied child care services during their most vital development stages. In Indiana, there are over 488,000 children under the age of six. 70% of those children are in child care. Indiana is one of those states that has transferred the entire amount currently allowed from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds to the Child Care Development Block Grant for child care services and quality initiatives. Even after the State was able to provide services for 65,185 children, there still remains a need to help at least an additional 267,500 children. There is a need in my State to have the flexibility to transfer and utilize funds that otherwise are not being spent so these children can be served. One of the programs this new flexibility will allow to expand in Indiana is the Building Bright Beginnings Coalition. This coalition is focused on assisting children that are prenatal to four years old. They have reached over 150,000 parents of newborns through their publication ``A Parent's Guide to Raising Health, Happy Babies''. The coalition has implemented the ``See and Demand Quality Child Care'' campaign consisting of public service announcements, billboards, pamphlets, and a toll-free telephone line for parent information in cooperation with local resources and referral agencies. It also makes loans available to child care providers who are considered non-traditional borrowers, and it has formed an institute that creates a public private partnership with higher education as well as the health, education, and early childhood communities. In the short time this program has been in place, it has helped over 100,000 parents of newborns be better informed, over 10,000 new public private partnerships have been formed, and it has directly impacted the lives of over 15,000 children. We need more programs like this and in order for them to exist States need more flexibility with their funding streams. These quality initiatives are administered by Indiana's Step Ahead Councils. Step Ahead Councils are the types of councils this bill hopes to promote. Indiana has had a council in each of its 92 counties since 1991. These councils allow for locally focused solutions and initiatives to locally based challenges with child care, parent information, early intervention, child nutrition and health screening. Local responses to local problems can create better solutions. This bill encourages such local involvement. In addition, there are several other important goals this bill helps to accomplish. It will allow more programs to address the needs of prenatal to three year olds, it will increase satellite training for Head Start and other childhood program staff, it will increase direct child care and health services, and will encourage States to implement training programs for childcare providers. As a Senator and a father of two 3\1/2\ year old boys, I am proud to support this bill and publically voice the need to invest in all children. There is no better way to utlize a dollar than to invest it in our future. Thank you Senator Voinovich and Senator Graham for initiating this legislation, I urge my colleagues, when the time comes, to support this bill and the message behind it.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I echo the words of the Senator from Maryland in complimenting my friend from North Carolina for his eloquence and his insightful presentation on a continued, strong CRA. I observe and I can tell that he has taken his advocacy skills from the courtroom to the floor of the Senate, and the American people are better for it. I compliment the Senator on his statement, which is built upon what the ranking member said in the statement he read from the Conference of Mayors. The Senator from North Carolina has become a dear friend and someone I have admiration and great respect for. I have heard the Senator mention on many occasions his dedication to ensuring that not just big cities or large institutions have opportunities, but that the farmers and small rural areas across North Carolina are afforded the same opportunities as those in the large cities and in the large financial institutions. My question is this: Very often, this financial modernization bill is portrayed as something that just Wall Street and big institutions are interested in. The Senator touched on this briefly, and there is one thing I was hoping he can expand on. I wonder if his experience in North Carolina is the same as ours in Indiana, which is that CRA can be an engine for making sure that farmers and small businesses in rural areas are afforded the same kinds of opportunities as the mayors indicated the cities enjoy.

Mr. BAYH. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BAYH. Fort Wayne.

Mr. BAYH. I say to the Senator, I appreciate your question. As a matter of fact, one of the things that has been most impressive about this issue has been the uniformity of opinion among our banks in my State, large and small. They find that CRA has not been a significant impediment to their doing business, and really the industry groups are not in opposition at all. As a matter of fact, they support the intent behind this very, very important provision. So we have a situation here where many of our community groups, including our mayors--as a matter of fact, I should mention for the Record I spoke to the mayor or Gary last night, as well, who believes very strongly that a city like Gary, which has been struggling to get back on its feet, needs this provision. The banks are not opposed and, in fact, find it to be a very positive element.

Mr. BAYH. I would be glad to yield to my colleague from North Carolina.