Evan Bayh

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Bryan amendment, which contains, in my opinion, a balanced approach to the Community Reinvestment Act as well as a bipartisan spirit enjoyed in the last session of Congress. I also want to say, to my colleague from the State of Texas, how much I respect his expertise in this area as well as his dedication to this cause. But I must also respectfully disagree and say to all those who are concerned about this issue that if there are problems with this amendment, in terms of the fines that can be imposed or other details, let's correct them. If, in the past, overly zealous advocates have used CRA as an excuse for extortion, then let's prosecute them. If there are other problems, let's correct them. Let's throw out the bathwater, not the baby. At the dawn of the 21st century, let us not turn back the clock and deny to thousands of Americans, because of the color of their skin, because of their race, because of their income, the right to access one of the basic tools for empowerment and progress, and that is credit and the ability to start a business or build a home. We cannot return to those days. I should also say I am somewhat disappointed that we have arrived at this impasse, because this is important legislation. It is my great hope we will ultimately get it enacted, because it is important to the financial services industry, insurance, banking, as well as other industries that need access to credit and to consumers across our country. This should not be a partisan debate. In fact, in the very recent past, it has been nonpartisan or even bipartisan. Unfortunately, it has become an issue that has broken down more and more along party lines. I especially regret this has happened in large part because of efforts to curtail and restrict the Community Reinvestment Act, which the vast majority of evidence has suggested works well, has served the American people well in the past, and I believe is critical to equal opportunity for all Americans as we advance to a new century and a new millennium. We are increasingly relying upon the use of market forces to create opportunity. We are asking the American people to be self-sufficient, to save, to work hard, to be personally responsible, and I support those trends. At the same time, we need to ensure that the market system works for all Americans and that every American, regardless of whether that person happens to come from the right side of the tracks or the wrong side of the tracks, be he or she Hispanic, African American, Native American or any other race, creed or religion in this society, that they have access to those tools in the marketplace that will allow them to be self-sufficient, to build a better way of life for themselves and their families. It is important that we pass this law, as I mentioned. It is one of the areas in which we are internationally competitive. It is important that we pass legislation that will allow our financial services industry to provide comprehensive services to their customers and to compete with our foreign competitors. It is important that consumers be allowed to have access to these services on a coordinated basis, on a one-stop shopping basis. It is better for consumers as well. It means jobs for your State and my State and the rest of the 48 States across the United States of America, not just in insurance, which is important to the State of Indiana, or investment banking or in securities or on the part of insurance company employees, agents, and brokers across this country. It means jobs for small businesses and industries in the State of Indiana and elsewhere that need access to low-cost credit, so that they can invest, be more competitive, more productive and create good-paying jobs across our country. This is an issue not just for Wall Street, but for Main Street and for all of our streets across this country. Unfortunately, there has been increasing partisanship. I think that is very, very important. Just last year this measure passed out of the Senate Banking Committee on a 16-to-2 vote. This year, unfortunately, it broke down exactly along party lines, 11 to 9. Earlier this year, this provision, very similar to the amendment I am supporting today, passed out of the House of Representatives Banking Committee 52 to 8, with the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats supporting a continuation of a vital CRA and equal financial opportunity for all Americans. The administration strongly supports this point of view. It is important to note that there is virtually no significant opposition from industry groups. I find it to be somewhat ironic that in the past, members of my own party have been accused of favoring legislation that would unduly hamstring business for ideological reasons. Today, the shoe seems to be on the other foot. Let me be very clear what this dispute that has brought us to this impasse is not about. It is not about the organization under which future banking, insurance and security services will be offered. This is not really a dispute about operating subsidiaries versus the affiliates and holding companies, although there is a very serious dispute between the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve on this issue. I am convinced that this can be resolved if we are given a chance. Our dispute in this impasse is really not about the unitary thrift and whether commercial entities should be allowed to get involved in the financial services sector. That is a legitimate issue and a concern that I am convinced that, too, can be resolved if we can only deal with the issue currently before us. No, Mr. President, the dispute that has brought us to this point involves the Community Reinvestment Act. I say to my colleagues and those listening and watching us at home that the Community Reinvestment Act has been good for America and good for Americans. It is working. Between 1993 and 1997--4 years--loans in low- and middle-income areas across our country for mortgages and building homes increased 45 percent, 45 percent in just 4 years; up 72 percent for African Americans; up 45 percent for Hispanic Americans; up 30 percent for Native Americans. In the same period of time, actually just last year alone, there were 525,000 loans to small business men and women in low- and moderate- income areas, with total capital investments of $34 billion. The Community Reinvestment Act has proven to be a boom for the American dream: families wishing to invest in home ownership, entrepreneurs wishing to start small businesses, Americans of every race, creed and religion wanting to participate in the American dream of a better way of life for themselves and for their loved ones. The Community Reinvestment Act has worked in my own home State of Indiana. I won't go through all the cases here. From Gary, East Chicago, Indianapolis, South Bend, Lafayette, Bloomington, from the north to the south, from the east to the west, in communities large and small across my State, more Hoosiers have opportunities to make investments, make a decent income through a good job, buy a home, or start a small business. It has been good for our country. It has been good for my State. Mr. President, I have a letter with me today that I think my colleagues will find to be of some interest. It was sent to me 2 days ago. It happens to be from the mayor of the city of Fort Wayne. The reason this may be of interest is that Fort Wayne is the second largest city in the State of Indiana. More than that, Paul Helmke, the mayor of Fort Wayne, happened to be my opponent in the race for the Senate last year. Paul Helmke is a card-carrying member of the Republican Party. He also believes in opportunities for the citizens of Fort Wayne, business investment expansion, and home ownership. The mayor of Fort Wayne, my opponent in the election last year, has written me asking me to support a vigorous and vital Community Reinvestment Act. I read from his correspondence: . . . In Fort Wayne, banks have fulfilled their CRA requirements in creative and meaningful ways that have allowed us to leverage their resources with public and other private influences to help in our urban revitalization efforts. . . . Perhaps the banking community would continue to see their investment in urban renewal as beneficial without the CRA requirements. But I do not think that it is wise to tempt fate. Mr. President, neither do I. Involved mayors, like Mayor Helmke, who was the head of the mayors association last year, and I believe concerned Senators should rise to vote in favor of a vital and continually vigorous Community Reinvestment Act. On April 22 of this year, the Los Angeles Times wrote: Before Congress voted to establish the CRA in 1977, many banks wrote off entire areas, refusing to lend to anyone who lived behind the red line. The unfortunate truth is that while the vast majority of bankers across our country are involved and caring and doing a good job, both before and afterwards, too often there were bankers who were willing to accept deposits from some parts of our communities and not make loans to those very same parts of our communities. That is what CRA has established. It is a very strong track record of change. Unfortunately, the bill, as unamended, before us poses a serious threat to the continuation of this progress we have seen across this country and in my State. My understanding is it would make 97 percent of all banks presumptively exempt from the requirements of CRA, 38 percent entirely exempt from the provisions of CRA, and would exclude the whole new areas banks hope to get into, entirely exempt, new users entirely exempt from the provisions of CRA. Mr. President, now is not the time to turn back the clock. I will summarize before yielding the floor. Access to credit today is as important an opportunity for Americans of every walk of life as rural electrification was in the 1930s. Access to credit today is as important to the future well-being of all of our citizens as universal service to telephones was in the fifties and the sixties. That is why I believe very strongly, as we ask Americans to be more responsible, to take charge of their own lives, as we encourage them to start homes and build businesses and to build for the future, we must give them the tools within the market economy to get the job done. That means equal access to credit as we approach the new millennium, not just to the few, not just to the powerful, but to Americans of every race, ethnicity, and those of even modest means. That, Mr. President, is why I rise in support of the Bryan amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in the affirmative for it. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, states have been struggling for years to ensure safe, responsible management of out-of-state municipal solid waste. As Governor of Indiana, I tried to ensure that Indiana's disposal capacity would meet Indiana's municipal solid waste needs. Efforts to institute effective waste management policies were--and continue to be--thwarted by two obstacles. The first is the massive and unpredictable amounts of out-of-state waste flowing into state disposal facilities. States' attempts to address that problem run into the second obstacle. The Supreme Court has established, in a series of opinions, that Congress must first provide the states the authority to regulate interstate waste. I rise with my colleague today to introduce legislation to do just that. Senator Voinovich and I, as Governors, participated in a cooperative effort to develop a set of principles for federal action on interstate waste. The Voinovich/Bayh interstate waste control bill is based on those principles. Mr. President, the need for controls in interstate waste is even more acute today than when I was a Governor. Current governors supporting our bill know this better than anyone. In Indiana, waste imports are again on the rise. After decreasing from 1992 to 1994, waste imports increased significantly in 1995 and doubled in 1996. Between 1996 and 1998, out-of state waste received by Indiana facilities increased by 32 percent to their highest level in the last seven years. In fact, in 1998, 2.8 million tons of out-of- state waste were disposed of in Indiana--that's 19 percent of all the waste disposed of in Indiana's landfills. Our Department of Environmental Management has predicted that the state will run out of landfill space in 2011--or earlier, so the time for action is now. Senator Voinovich and I believe we have crafted a comprehensive, equitable approach to interstate waste management. Our bill will give states the power to ensure manageable and predictable waste flows by freezing waste imports at 1993 levels. States bearing the greatest burden of interstate waste--those that disposed of more than 650,000 tons in 1993--could reduce imported waste to 65 percent of the 1993 level by 2006. Our bill will give states the power to set a percentage limitation on the amount of out-of-state waste that new or expanding facilities could receive and give states the option to deny a permit to a new or expanding facility if there is no regional or in-state need for the facility. Local governments would have more power to determine whether they want to accept out-of-state waste. They would be able to prohibit local disposal facilities that didn't receive out-of-state waste in 1993 from starting to take it until the local government approved. This presumptive ban on interstate waste would not interfere with facilities operating under existing host community agreements or permits. This bill is the culmination of the work we did as Governors and the coalition we are building as Senators. It attempts to forge a new and workable compromise between the needs and rights of importing and exporting states and gives the people who must live with waste planning decisions the power to make them. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important legislation forward.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, states have been struggling for years to ensure safe, responsible management of out-of-state municipal solid waste. As Governor of Indiana, I tried to ensure that Indiana's disposal capacity would meet Indiana's municipal solid waste needs. Efforts to institute effective waste management policies were--and continue to be--thwarted by two obstacles. The first is the massive and unpredictable amounts of out-of-state waste flowing into state disposal facilities. States' attempts to address that problem run into the second obstacle. The Supreme Court has established, in a series of opinions, that Congress must first provide the states the authority to regulate interstate waste. I rise with my colleague today to introduce legislation to do just that. Senator Voinovich and I, as Governors, participated in a cooperative effort to develop a set of principles for federal action on interstate waste. The Voinovich/Bayh interstate waste control bill is based on those principles. Mr. President, the need for controls in interstate waste is even more acute today than when I was a Governor. Current governors supporting our bill know this better than anyone. In Indiana, waste imports are again on the rise. After decreasing from 1992 to 1994, waste imports increased significantly in 1995 and doubled in 1996. Between 1996 and 1998, out-of state waste received by Indiana facilities increased by 32 percent to their highest level in the last seven years. In fact, in 1998, 2.8 million tons of out-of- state waste were disposed of in Indiana--that's 19 percent of all the waste disposed of in Indiana's landfills. Our Department of Environmental Management has predicted that the state will run out of landfill space in 2011--or earlier, so the time for action is now. Senator Voinovich and I believe we have crafted a comprehensive, equitable approach to interstate waste management. Our bill will give states the power to ensure manageable and predictable waste flows by freezing waste imports at 1993 levels. States bearing the greatest burden of interstate waste--those that disposed of more than 650,000 tons in 1993--could reduce imported waste to 65 percent of the 1993 level by 2006. Our bill will give states the power to set a percentage limitation on the amount of out-of-state waste that new or expanding facilities could receive and give states the option to deny a permit to a new or expanding facility if there is no regional or in-state need for the facility. Local governments would have more power to determine whether they want to accept out-of-state waste. They would be able to prohibit local disposal facilities that didn't receive out-of-state waste in 1993 from starting to take it until the local government approved. This presumptive ban on interstate waste would not interfere with facilities operating under existing host community agreements or permits. This bill is the culmination of the work we did as Governors and the coalition we are building as Senators. It attempts to forge a new and workable compromise between the needs and rights of importing and exporting states and gives the people who must live with waste planning decisions the power to make them. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important legislation forward.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for awarding Mrs. Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of her contributions to the nation. On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks got on a bus--a quiet, proud woman, bound unfairly by the laws of our country and the limits of her surroundings. But by the time the police took her off that bus, she was bound only by the strength of her will, a will that refused to be moved. Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus. Somewhere, in the brief moment that separates a spoken objection from an act of protest, Rosa Parks emerged as the ``first lady of civil rights,'' and the ``mother of the freedom movement.'' We look at this woman's accomplishment and we salute her for the civil rights movement she helped set in motion. We look back now, and we applaud the monumental force which is still a vital part of our society today. Back in the 1950's, in a small city, on an ordinary bus, she had neither titles nor honorifics. She was just Rosa Parks--and ``just'' Rosa Parks refused to let others limit what she was supposed to do. Her act was defined, not by its violence, but rather by its non-violent challenge towards a violent system. Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus. If our country's history has taught us anything, it is that small decisions of action can change our world. If Rosa Parks has taught us anything, it is that the courageous action of one individual can be more powerful than the shouted declaration of a crowd. Thus, I am honored today to join with my colleagues in honoring this great American whose courage, dignity, and character have continued to serve as an inspiration for the quiet but heroic actions that shape our world.

Mr. BAYH

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

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak not only on my own behalf but on behalf of my senior colleague, Dick Lugar, who, unfortunately, could not be with us at the last moment. I know he will be submitting his own remarks on behalf of the Lady Boilermakers and their outstanding victory in the NCAA women's basketball tournament this year. I know the rules prohibit me from pointing anybody out in the galleries, but I want to say how much I appreciate the presence of several constituents today; in particular, the mayor of West Lafayette, IN, several officials representing Purdue University, and several of our distinguished citizens from Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, and elsewhere across our State. Mr. President, basketball is perhaps synonymous with the State of Indiana, not only because we love to play the game, not only because we believe in physical fitness, but because of the character, the determination, and the other fine attributes associated with that sport that are necessary for success in it. This year's Purdue women's basketball team, perhaps better than any other, exhibits those character traits. They are an example of Indiana at its finest and the United States of America at its finest. So I rise today to salute them both as individuals and as a team for their accomplishments. Mr. President, this team was an example of near perfection. Their record was an outstanding 34 victories and only 1 defeat. They are the first women's championship team representing any Big Ten university in any sport. Their coach, Carolyn Peck, an outstanding individual, is not only the youngest coach to lead a winning team to the NCAA tournament, but she is also the first African American one to do it. One of their star players, Stephanie White-McCarty, is not only a first-team athletic all-American, but also an academic all-American. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, she represents the rest of the team very well in that regard. The team, as a whole, had a combined grade point average of 3.0, which is very good by today's standards, particularly with regard to the athletic community. Mr. President, once again, I salute the Lady Boilermakers for their outstanding contributions not only on the basketball court, but because of the outstanding individuals they are.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action.

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

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I take the floor today to bring to the attention of my colleagues Indiana's celebration of Medical Laboratory Week. In the world of health care, it is easy to forget that quality medical testing and exceptional patient care is a team effort. Doctors are the visible element in this complex harmony, but there is another, less visible, but equally important element involved. Medical laboratory professionals are highly-trained health personnel who perform and evaluate those medical laboratory tests necessary to detect, diagnose, and monitor treatment of diseases. They also help to prevent diseases, while at the same time tirelessly working to develop new methods of combating them. These dedicated men and women save countless lives each day through their firm commitment to a healthier community. Laboratory medicine is an honorable profession, in its constant and consistent dedication to the well-being of the greater community. Let us not forget that it is also an inseparable and invaluable part of health care without the often-unsung efforts of these fine people, medicine as we know it would not exist. I therefore ask my colleagues, as well as all citizens, to join me and the State of Indiana in recognizing and supporting the vital service provided by medical laboratory professionals.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievement of Daniel Tweedall from Evansville, Indiana. On February 28, 1999, Daniel Tweedall was announced the fifth place National winner in the 1999 Voice of Democracy Program. For his fine performance, Daniel will receive a $5,000 Scholarship Award provided by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Ladies Auxiliary. A Junior at Evansville Central High School, Daniel submitted his winning audio essay script entitled, ``My Service to America'' to the Indiana Veterans of Foreign Wars Voice of Democracy contest. This beautiful essay was judged the winner from more than 1,500 entries submitted by Indiana student competitors in the 1998-1999 competition. Daniel's essay then went on to its fifth place finish in the nationwide competition. More than 80,000 students participated in this year's contest. Daniel's moving essay described how the speech given by one of his government teachers following the drive-by shooting of the teacher's sister had inspired him to serve America as the teacher's sister had. Daniel explained how he chose to serve America through community service in such organizations as Habitat for Humanity. Daniel wrote, ``I know that every time I help the woman next door shovel her walk when it snows, serve a hot meal at the rescue mission, or simply walk down the street and smile at someone, the flame from my already burning torch warms the heart, making them want to do more for others and believe in the youth of America.'' Daniel now hopes he will inspire others to also serve our country through military service, public office, or community service. After graduation, Daniel plans to attend either DePauw University or the University of Notre Dame where he expects to pursue a career in medicine. Daniel is the President of his class, the vice-president of the school's speech team, and the Secretary of the school's Spanish club. In addition to Habitat for Humanity, Daniel is also involved in the Evansville Rescue Mission and Teen Power. I commend Daniel on his tremendous accomplishment. Not only has he won a very competitive essay contest, he has also demonstrated the finest qualities of leadership, national service, and community involvement. I hope that his example will inspire others to serve our country.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I, first, want to express my great respect for my colleague from Vermont, a man with whom I not only have the pleasure of serving, but he served with my father. The respect the Bayh family has for the Senator goes from generation to generation. It is a privilege to be on the floor with the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. No more than 10 minutes--general debate, not on the bill.

Mr. BAYH. If the Senator has a point he wishes to make, please feel free to go ahead.

Mr. BAYH. I thank the Chair. I express my appreciation to my colleagues here today and find myself in agreement with what my colleagues from North Dakota and Massachusetts have been saying on this amendment. Mr. President, my statement today is in the nature of general debate. I rise to give my first public remarks on the floor of the United States Senate. I rise at this time because as debate on the last budget of the 20th Century begins, we have an historic opportunity to build a strong financial foundation for the 21st. The projected budget surpluses give us a once in a generation opportunity we must not squander. We must seize this moment of good fortune and replace the debt and deficit, borrow and spend mentality of the recent past with a more responsible approach. We must get our priorities right: preserve Social Security and Medicare, pay off our debts, target tax cuts to help working families and make investments in education and national defense. I believe strongly that the first step toward this more prosperous future must be to save Social Security and stabilize Medicare. To achieve this, I wholeheartedly support preserving 100% of Social Security Trust Funds for Social Security and 40% of other surplus funds for Medicare. Let me address Social Security first. By ending once and for all the irresponsible practice of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, we will extend the life of Social Security by 17 years to the year 2049. We owe it to our seniors to ensure that their Social Security will be safe, and our younger workers have a right to know that the system will be there for them one day. Using surplus funds to save Social Security first is the fiscally responsible, socially compassionate way to achieve this. Medicare, quite frankly, presents an even more urgent challenge. Without action, it will be insolvent in only eight years. To prevent this, I support dedicating an additional $376 billion of the surplus over the next ten years to Medicare. This will more than double its solvency, to 2020. But let me be very clear. These investments alone are NOT the complete answer to either Social Security's or Medicare's problems. We must be willing to make the difficult decisions needed to save these vital services, not just once, but once and for all. It won't be easy. None of the solutions is popular. But using the surplus to strengthen both Social Security and Medicare in the near term will make long-term, systemic reforms possible. The American people are much more likely to embrace difficult steps taken gradually than they are the more draconian action that not using the surplus for Medicare would entail. Those who propose nothing for Medicare today, court fiscal disaster tomorrow. We must not let that happen, and under our approach it will not. Our approach to saving Social Security and stabilizing Medicare has enormous benefits in addition to securing the future for our elderly and keeping commitments to our young. Doing so will also dramatically reduce the national debt. Paying down the national debt has many virtues. Lower debt will reduce our interest payments. Last year, 15 cents of every tax dollar went for nothing productive. It merely serviced our national debt. Under the approach I favor, interest payments shrink to only 4 cents of every tax dollar in ten years--a savings to taxpayers of $452 billion dollars. And if we continue this approach, the debt will fall to its lowest level--as a percentage of GDP--since 1917. With spending under control, a balanced budget, and government no longer borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars, interest rates will fall. This makes it easier for private businesses to invest. New investments mean greater productivity growth, higher wages, and more secure jobs for America's working men and women. The bottom line is clear: a better standard of living for all Americans. This isn't just my opinion. Last month, I had the opportunity to question the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, about this very subject. He too believes that paying down the national debt is the best way to guarantee a stronger economy and a responsible federal budget. As one of the principal architects of our current economic good fortune, Alan Greenspan knows that paying down the national debt is preferable at this point in the economic cycle to either spending increases or dramatic tax reductions the nation cannot afford. As the Chairman told me, ``. . . all of the arguments that one can make for tax cuts you can make for reduction in debt, they are the same forces. . .'' In addition, by paying off our debts now, we preserve the nation's ability to borrow again in the event of a future emergency and hold open the option of more aggressive tax cuts should the economy slow. Simply put: paying down the national debt is the responsible, conservative, economically and fiscally sensible thing to do. It is the just and morally responsible thing to do as well. It is not right to ask our children and grandchildren to pay our bills. No generation in American history has done so, and we must not become the first. Our legacy to future generations must be more than an IOU. Paying down the debt will keep faith with America's past and create promise for America's future. Saving Social Security and Medicare by paying down the national debt is a significant undertaking, but if we act prudently, there is room for our nation's other important priorities, including targeted tax cuts. Throughout my public career, I have been a vigorous advocate for cutting the tax burden on American families. In fact, I believe that when it comes to tax cuts--the more aggressive, the better. As Governor of Indiana, I was proud to be able to give Hoosiers the largest tax cut in our state history. I strongly support targeted tax cuts here on the Federal level as well--tax cuts that will eliminate the marriage penalty, save family farms and businesses from the ravages of the estate tax, help families meet the expenses of child care or caring for an elderly parent, and create jobs and stimulate investment by reducing the tax on capital gains. There must be a balance among our priorities. We can't pursue one to the exclusion of all others. If we give into temptation, and recklessly pursue immediate gratification today, we will surely regret it tomorrow. And therein lies the difference between what we accomplished in Indiana and what some now propose in Washington. Our Hoosier tax cut plan was conservative, fiscally responsible, like the approach I support today. We never threatened to throw fiscal caution to the winds or require massive cuts in vital services for children or law enforcement. I will be the first to sponsor a tax cut bill--the bigger the better--but not one out of all proportion to our ability to pay for it, nor one that risks returning us to the days when America was drowning in a sea of red ink. We must cut taxes as aggressively as possible while still meeting our other important national priorities. Included in these important priorities are additional investments for national defense, education and law enforcement. These are the kind of areas where even modest investments today yield multiple benefits tomorrow. Because I strongly believe that government must make investments-- within its means, of course--in these important areas, I am troubled by the current budget resolution that would force drastic and unwarranted across the board budget cuts in many important domestic programs ranging from Head Start to the FBI. Mr. President, it is incumbent upon the Senate to resist the twin temptations of immediate gratification and postponing difficult decisions. Both parties, quite frankly, have been guilty of this for too long. Today it is the Budget Resolution that succumbs to these twin temptations, indulging us immediately with all the things we want while putting off until tomorrow the things we would rather not do but know we really must. This may be good politics. It is not good government. Despite the fact that we will not achieve a bipartisan solution this week, I am still heartened by how much closer both parties are today on fiscal issues than even in the recent past. It seems to me there is a national consensus growing, a consensus that cuts across party lines, that believes in some basic core principles: Saving Social Security and Medicare first, paying down the national debt, making targeted tax cuts for working families, and investing in our future. We can start down the road toward accomplishing these goals--something that is well within the grasp of this Senate--and, in so doing, build a better America. Also, we will be able to look our children and grandchildren squarely in the eye, secure in the knowledge that what we have done has not been just easiest for us, but also what is best for them. Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity, and for the indulgence of my colleagues, and yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss yesterday's overwhelming Senate vote in favor of the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. I was pleased to join with many of my colleagues in support of this legislation that will help to ensure that the United States does everything it can to defend itself from the threat of limited ballistic missile launches, both accidental and intentional. This legislation, which makes it the policy of the United States to deploy an effective national missile defense when technologically possible, takes an important first step toward providing a significant defense for all citizens of the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks. As most of my colleagues know, today, the United States faces a serious, credible, and growing threat from limited ballistic missiles that could potentially carry nuclear, biological or chemical payloads. This new threat is not from Russia, our partner in many important arms control agreements. Instead, this threat comes from the increasing proliferation of ballistic missile technology. In particular, certain rogue states pose the greatest threat as they continue to push for--and make great progress in acquiring--delivery systems that directly threaten the United States. I do not believe that the threat from these rogue states, most of which have demonstrated a complete disregard for the well-being of their own citizens as they relentlessly pursue the acquisition of this ballistic missile technology, can be understated. Mr. President, this new and emerging ballistic missile threat from rogue states was dramatically highlighted by the August 1998 Taepo Dong I missile launch in North Korea. This North Korean missile launch demonstrated important aspects of intercontinental missile development. Most importantly, the missile included multiple stage separation and the use of a third stage. This use of a third stage, in particular, was surprising to our intelligence community. Using a third stage gives this missile a potential range in excess of 5,500 kilometers, thus effectively making the Taepo Dong I an intercontinental ballistic missile. Unfortunately, America's intelligence community did not expect the North Korean's to have the capability to make such a three stage missile. In fact, the most recent U.S. intelligence reports made prior to this Taepo Dong I launch claimed that no rogue state would have this capability for at least ten years. Even before the North Koreans launched their Taepo Dong I missile last August, there were other disturbing reports that predicted the eminent ballistic missile threat to the United States. In July, the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, known as the Rumsfeld Commission, released its report. The Rumsfeld Commission was a bipartisan commission headed by former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other well respected members in the defense community. The Rumsfeld Commission warned of the growing ballistic missile threat that rogue states posed to the United States. The Rumsfeld Commission unanimously found that, ``concerted efforts by a number of overtly or potentially hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with biological or nuclear payloads pose a growing threat to the United States, its deployed forces and its friends and allies.'' The Commission reported further that, ``The threat to the U.S. posed by these emerging capabilities is broader, more mature and evolving more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the Intelligence Community.'' The launch of the Taepo Dong I missile and the findings of the Rumsfeld Commission are very troubling. It is clear that ballistic missile technology is progressing rapidly and proliferating just as rapidly and, consequently, the threat to the United States is real. It is no longer a perceived threat or a potential threat. It is not a threat that may come ten years down the road. This threat is tangible and it is here now. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to all Americans to do everything possible to defend the United States from this threat. Supporting this legislation, in my opinion, is an important step in providing a solid defense for the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks. Moreover, S.257 is a responsible way to address the threat that the United States faces. In contrast to previous legislative efforts, most of which micro managed this policy by setting a fixed date for deployment and by dictating the exact type of missile defense system to be deployed, this legislation more properly lays out broad U.S. policy. The bill simply--but clearly--calls for deployment of an effective system once the technology is possible. No date for deployment is set. No requirement for a specific type of ballistic missile defense is outlined. By not dictating such requirements, this legislation responsibly allows for flexibility for our military experts to develop and deploy the best possible missile defense system. This language helps ensure that the United State will not rush into deployment with a substandard system--at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars--just to be able to say we've deployed a limited missile defense. Instead, this legislation will help ensure that the United States has deployed a system that has been thoroughly tested and proven operationally effective. I fully support this flexible approach. Mr. President, let me briefly address the issue of cost. A lot has been said about how the original draft of this legislation could have bypassed future deliberations about how much the Pentagon should spend on missile defense. In effect, many critics of this legislation believed this bill would simply be providing a blank check for all future missile defense development and deployment efforts. I don't believe that is the case. This legislation does not preclude such important funding deliberations. However, I was very glad to support the amendment that Senator Cochran offered yesterday to make it absolutely explicit that Congress will fully debate the cost implications of a missile defense system in all annual defense authorizations and appropriations proceedings in the future. I plan to fully weigh the costs and benefits of missile defense in comparison to all other defense programs and to assess all potential threats to the United States at the time of those deliberations. Finally, I am also pleased that the bill now calls for the United States to continue working with the Russians to reduce nuclear weapons. I strongly supported the amendment offered by Senator Landrieu which added this policy statement to S. 257. The United States and Russia have made great progress in reducing nuclear weapons over the past decade and both countries need to continue to do so. I think this statement of policy calling for continued efforts to reduce nuclear weapons is extremely important. We need to make it clear to ourselves, to all American citizens, to our allies, and to the world that not only does the United States plan to defend itself from the threat of limited ballistic missile attacks, but that the best protection we can offer our nation is a world in which the fewest possible weapons of mass destruction exist. Again, I thank Senator Cochran and all the cosponsors for introducing this important piece of legislation and for allowing the modifications to be made that garnered broad bipartisan support. I believe it is entirely appropriate for Congress to make it the policy of the United States to deploy an effective missile defense when technologically possible. The National Missile Defense Act will help allow this Government to keep its most important covenant with the American people--to protect their life and liberty.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today I rise as an original co-sponsor of S. 494, the Nursing Home Resident Protection Amendments of 1999, a bipartisan bill that would protect Medicaid patients from being dumped out of nursing homes in favor of patients who pay only through private funds. When a senior citizen enters a nursing home facility he or she does so with the intention of making it their new home. It may not have the memories or immediate comfort level of the home they are used to, but for each elderly person that must enter a nursing home, they are exchanging the feelings of familiarity connected with their old home for the security and peace of mind that only comes with constant medical attention. In the recent past, some nursing home companies took actions that jettisoned these residents from the beds of their new homes based solely on their method of payment. Those who had the economic capability to pay with private funds were allowed to remain in the facility while those that needed governmental assistance in payment, paying with Medicaid dollars, were told to leave. The eviction is not just a matter of the inconvenience of finding a new home, it is a matter of life and death. Studies show that death rates among nursing home patients who are transferred or evicted is two to three times higher than normal. In some circumstances people were left without any real ``home'' to go to. Someone's method of payment should not determine whether or not they can continue to live in their new community or receive necessary medical attention. Once a facility has decided to accept a resident they should not be able to remove them based on whether they pay with private dollars or Medicaid. That is discrimination. Therefore, I decided to co-sponsor this bill and join the efforts of Senator Bob Graham and others to prevent this discriminatory and traumatizing event from happening to even one more person. I fully agree that the nursing home industry is a vital element in the continuum of care available to the elderly, and that a balance must be struck between encouraging private operators to make the investment necessary to operate these vital facilities and protecting patients and their families from unfair treatment. The reality is that nursing homes are a business and it must be economically feasible for them to operate. However, once a nursing home accepts a patient they should fulfill their promise and allow the patient to remain a part of the nursing home community regardless of payment status. This issue is of particular concern to me since Indiana seniors experienced this unfair treatment. Approximately sixty elderly patients from one nursing home facility in Indiana, Wildwood, were told to leave because of their method of payment. In some cases, after they had worked hard to save for their future and were forced to spend every dollar to support themselves in the nursing home. Even spending every dollar they saved did not ensure them security since, once that money was depleted and they received government assistance, they were told their money was not good enough to keep them in the facility. Robyn Grant was the Indiana State Long-Term care Ombudsman for eight years. She recently testified on behalf of the National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform before the House Subcommittee on Health and Environment in regard to this issue. Ms. Grant relayed the letter of a daughter of a resident who was evicted because they were paying with Medicaid. That woman wrote that ``You have destroyed lives and emotions and torn apart families. Yes, many of these people though not blood related, considered their companions and friends as family. Your facility was their home. Physical and emotional health was gravely endangered by the insensitive actions of the nursing home company.'' Current law must be changed so there is no propensity for seniors to be torn apart from their newly found families in the future. Nursing homes should have the ability to chose what payment programs in which they will participate. However, if a facility decides to accept Medicaid patients, they must uphold the promise they made to those seniors. This bill would prevent a nursing home that decides to withdraw from the Medicaid program from evicting residents who were accepted prior to the facility's withdrawal. In addition, if a facility is a private-pay only, it would be required to notify the resident upon her entrance to the facility that she could be evicted after her private funds were exhausted. The Nursing Home Resident Protection Amendments of 1999 would protect the 68% of nursing home residents who rely on Medicaid at some point during their stay. This bill will not cost anything, but will have a significant positive impact on the lives of seniors faced with the need to enter a nursing home. We owe it to all our citizens to keep them informed and protected from discriminatory practices. This bill does that and I urge my colleagues to join us in turning this legislation into law.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. I am pleased to join with a bipartisan group that includes thirty-three of my colleagues and almost all of the nation's governors, to ensure that all states have the flexibility to encourage education reforms of the highest standards in our schools. This legislation enjoys the support of the National Education Association, the National School Board Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors' Association. As many of my colleagues know, the Ed-Flex Program was established in 1994 under the Goals 2000 Program. It originally authorized 6 states to participate in a demonstration program that would allow States the ability to waive certain Federal regulations and statutes for local school districts and schools in return for high standards and accountability. In 1996, Congress expanded the Ed-Flex Program in the Omnibus Appropriations Act to include six more states. While this waiver authority may seem broad, Ed-Flex States may only grant waivers for selected Federal programs. Most importantly, these states may not waive Federal requirements relating to health, safety, civil rights, parental involvement, allocation of funds, participation by pupils attending private schools, and fiscal accountability. With over 14,000 school districts in this nation, there cannot be one education reform plan that fits every community. Ed-Flex allows states and local education agencies to commit to common goals and purposes and yet allows them to choose the best path to achieve these results. Ed- Flex is not a cure-all for education reform. It is just a common-sense, practical tool that allows local school districts and schools to get back to the business of educating our youth and away from the business of filling out forms. Most waivers granted under Ed-Flex have dealt primarily with the use of Title I funds on a school-wide basis and the allocation of Eisenhower Professional Development Funds for teaching disciplines other than math and science. These are common sense changes that have allowed local school districts and schools to use Federal dollars in a smart and efficient manner. Ed-Flex has also encouraged several states to streamline their own regulations and statutes, thus providing their schools with better guidance and clarity on state requirements. Some of the requirements of Federal programs have produced nonsensical results. For instance, in my home state of Indiana, the town of Elwood operates two separate elementary schools. One of these schools meets the 50 percent threshold for Title I so it can implement Title I programs school-wide. However, the other school just misses this threshold and must restrict Title I resources to only Title I students. That particular elementary school in Elwood, Indiana would be cited by the State Board of Accounts if they were to allow non-Title I students the use of their computer lab which was paid for with Title I funding. These Federal requirements have not only produced two systems of elementary education for this town, but has created confusion over what sort of educational programs can be implemented. This kind of strict regulation is not only absurd, but counterproductive to school reform. As long as Title I students are being targeted for additional assistance, there is no reason a school should be prohibited from sharing its resources with all of its students. In twelve states, Ed- Flex has allowed local education agencies and schools to operate Title I programs on a school-wide basis thus equalizing the standard of learning for all students. Some have raised the issue that Ed-Flex does not address the major concerns of our nation's school districts. While Ed-Flex will not on its own solve our education problems, it can spur our States and schools to creatively approach old problems in a new way. As a former Governor, I know first-hand how easing strict Federal requirements can help states achieve positive results. Any school teacher will tell you that there is no one lesson plan from which to educate all of our nation's students. Just as each child is unique in his or her capacity to learn and grow, so too our are nation's school districts unique. No matter how well-intentioned, the Federal Government cannot continue down the path of a one-size fits all educational system for our nation's children. Education is now and will continue to be the primary responsibility of local communities and states. Educators, community leaders, and parents are the best judges of what is good education policy for their schools. Each community has different needs and by expanding the Ed-Flex Program, we can allow them to partner with the Federal Government to achieve some truly outstanding results. For example, a Maryland school district was able to identify a trend in math and science performance of middle school students who came from two elementary schools. After looking at the assessment results and the demographic make-up of the student population, they were able to use the waiver authority to implement comprehensive planning and greater resource coordination. The result has been improved reading and math instruction for this school district's elementary and middle school students. Our nation's schools will face many challenges in the next century. Dilapidated school buildings, overcrowding in the classrooms, and a shortage of qualified teachers will place great demands on our country's educational systems. While Ed-Flex alone will not solve all of these problems it can ease the burdens placed on our educators so they can rise to meet the challenges of the future. I am pleased to vote in favor of final passage of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act which expands this successful program so that all states, not just twelve, have the opportunity to waive Federal requirements that present an obstacle to innovation in their schools. I thank Senators Frist and Wyden for re-introducing this effective tool of reform. I believe this bipartisan approach is a step in the right direction towards helping our nation's schools achieve positive results.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to join with my colleague Senator Hagel to introduce the Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999. We are joined in this endeavor by Senators Lott, Kerrey, Bennett, Bryan, Johnson, Grams, Conrad, Burns, Brownback, DeWine, Murkowski, Roberts, and Inhofe. Let me begin by expressing my thanks and appreciation to Senator Hagel for spearheading this reform effort over the past two years. The Home Loan Bank System is not something that is on the lips of every Senator or every constituent and I commend him for mastering this difficult subject and for devising some changes that will allow this somewhat-obscure system to have a tangible positive impact upon the lives of people who might not even be aware that the system exists. Mr. President, the core element of our legislative proposal today would be to allow community banks--defined as those institutions with assets of less than $500 million--to access the low cost capital of the Home Loan Bank System in order to make loans to small businesses, farmers and other types of loans that benefit their community. These small banks generally serve rural communities and small cities. The plain fact is that while, overall, the national economy is robust, there is still demand for credit and capital in rural communities that cannot be met by the existing financial structure. These communities, unfortunately, do not always attract the attention of the large banks and securities firms that have come to dominate the financial landscape. And since the community banks that serve these communities are constrained in the amount of lending they can do by the amount of deposits that they can raise from a limited geographic area, fueling economic growth requires us to develop additional sources of private sector funding. By opening up the Home Loan Bank System to these small, community banks, this legislation will, hopefully, not only allow the banks to meet the loan demand of their town or small city, but will also have the added effect of keeping interest rates down--or even lowering those rates-- for these kind of loans. Let me also emphasize, Mr. President, that these benefits will accrue to these communities without a single dime of taxpayer money. Making these changes to the Home Loan Bank System frees up access to capital using existing private sector mechanisms. Mr. President, let me briefly outline why it is necessary for Congress to modernize the Federal Home Loan Bank System, and why opening up the system to these small banks is consistent with the mission that Congress endowed the system with in 1932. The Federal Home Loan Bank System was created in 1932 to serve as a public/private mechanism that would both regulate the thrift (S&L) industry and would help the industry obtain low-cost capital for the purpose of making home mortgages (at the time, the primary mission of Savings & Loans). Borrowing by the individual home loan banks is backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, thus allowing them to borrow at the lowest possible rates. In turn, the bank makes that money available to its members in the form of ``advances.'' In 1989, as part of the clean-up of the S&L crisis, the Home Loan Bank System was dramatically changed. It was stripped of its regulatory authority (which was transferred to the newly created Office of Thrift Supervision) and of its authority to administer the deposit insurance fund (called FSLIC at the time and which was transferred to the FDIC which now administers the SAIF). The banks retained authority to provide low-cost capital to the thrift industry, though membership was also opened up to commercial banks. A Federal Housing Finance Board was created specifically to make sure that the activities of the 12 banks-- which were still controlled by their members--conformed to safety and soundness regulations. The Banks were also required to buy REFCORP bonds. As a result, the banks must pay a total of $300 million each year out of their earnings. The banks must also pay $100 million each year as part of the Affordable Housing Program. The REFCORP formula required a payment of a certain percentage of each banks annual earnings; if that failed to meet the annual $300 million payment, a further allocation system went into place with the heaviest burden placed on those banks with the greatest number of S&L failures. This legislation keeps in place all of the safety and soundness regulations put into place by FIRREA and FDICIA. But it would reform some of the basic management of the individual banks so that basic administrative decisions are placed in the hands of the men and women running the bank, rather than emanating from the Finance Board here in Washington. The bill also seeks to rationalize the capital structure of the individual banks so that the need to engage in non-advance investments is reduced and so that banks' capital reserves are secured by permanent--rather than tradeable--stock. With the rise of the secondary mortgage market--primarily driven by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--and the entry of other entities like mortgage brokers into the mortgage market, many people have been looking for ways to allow the banks to play a more relevant role in today's society. Expanding the Home Loan Banks ability to provide low- cost capital to the smallest banks in principally rural areas is both a benefit to the banks and to communities that are still experiencing a credit crunch. In 1932, Congress correctly surmised that creating funding for housing was the cornerstone of rebuilding towns, villages and cities gripped in the vise of the Great Depression. Today, with the housing market flush with capital, it is appropriate for Congress to use this longstanding tool of community development--the Federal Home Loan Bank System--to address the pressing and serious capital needs of rural America. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Hagel and myself to work towards enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to join with my colleague Senator Hagel to introduce the Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999. We are joined in this endeavor by Senators Lott, Kerrey, Bennett, Bryan, Johnson, Grams, Conrad, Burns, Brownback, DeWine, Murkowski, Roberts, and Inhofe. Let me begin by expressing my thanks and appreciation to Senator Hagel for spearheading this reform effort over the past two years. The Home Loan Bank System is not something that is on the lips of every Senator or every constituent and I commend him for mastering this difficult subject and for devising some changes that will allow this somewhat-obscure system to have a tangible positive impact upon the lives of people who might not even be aware that the system exists. Mr. President, the core element of our legislative proposal today would be to allow community banks--defined as those institutions with assets of less than $500 million--to access the low cost capital of the Home Loan Bank System in order to make loans to small businesses, farmers and other types of loans that benefit their community. These small banks generally serve rural communities and small cities. The plain fact is that while, overall, the national economy is robust, there is still demand for credit and capital in rural communities that cannot be met by the existing financial structure. These communities, unfortunately, do not always attract the attention of the large banks and securities firms that have come to dominate the financial landscape. And since the community banks that serve these communities are constrained in the amount of lending they can do by the amount of deposits that they can raise from a limited geographic area, fueling economic growth requires us to develop additional sources of private sector funding. By opening up the Home Loan Bank System to these small, community banks, this legislation will, hopefully, not only allow the banks to meet the loan demand of their town or small city, but will also have the added effect of keeping interest rates down--or even lowering those rates-- for these kind of loans. Let me also emphasize, Mr. President, that these benefits will accrue to these communities without a single dime of taxpayer money. Making these changes to the Home Loan Bank System frees up access to capital using existing private sector mechanisms. Mr. President, let me briefly outline why it is necessary for Congress to modernize the Federal Home Loan Bank System, and why opening up the system to these small banks is consistent with the mission that Congress endowed the system with in 1932. The Federal Home Loan Bank System was created in 1932 to serve as a public/private mechanism that would both regulate the thrift (S&L) industry and would help the industry obtain low-cost capital for the purpose of making home mortgages (at the time, the primary mission of Savings & Loans). Borrowing by the individual home loan banks is backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, thus allowing them to borrow at the lowest possible rates. In turn, the bank makes that money available to its members in the form of ``advances.'' In 1989, as part of the clean-up of the S&L crisis, the Home Loan Bank System was dramatically changed. It was stripped of its regulatory authority (which was transferred to the newly created Office of Thrift Supervision) and of its authority to administer the deposit insurance fund (called FSLIC at the time and which was transferred to the FDIC which now administers the SAIF). The banks retained authority to provide low-cost capital to the thrift industry, though membership was also opened up to commercial banks. A Federal Housing Finance Board was created specifically to make sure that the activities of the 12 banks-- which were still controlled by their members--conformed to safety and soundness regulations. The Banks were also required to buy REFCORP bonds. As a result, the banks must pay a total of $300 million each year out of their earnings. The banks must also pay $100 million each year as part of the Affordable Housing Program. The REFCORP formula required a payment of a certain percentage of each banks annual earnings; if that failed to meet the annual $300 million payment, a further allocation system went into place with the heaviest burden placed on those banks with the greatest number of S&L failures. This legislation keeps in place all of the safety and soundness regulations put into place by FIRREA and FDICIA. But it would reform some of the basic management of the individual banks so that basic administrative decisions are placed in the hands of the men and women running the bank, rather than emanating from the Finance Board here in Washington. The bill also seeks to rationalize the capital structure of the individual banks so that the need to engage in non-advance investments is reduced and so that banks' capital reserves are secured by permanent--rather than tradeable--stock. With the rise of the secondary mortgage market--primarily driven by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--and the entry of other entities like mortgage brokers into the mortgage market, many people have been looking for ways to allow the banks to play a more relevant role in today's society. Expanding the Home Loan Banks ability to provide low- cost capital to the smallest banks in principally rural areas is both a benefit to the banks and to communities that are still experiencing a credit crunch. In 1932, Congress correctly surmised that creating funding for housing was the cornerstone of rebuilding towns, villages and cities gripped in the vise of the Great Depression. Today, with the housing market flush with capital, it is appropriate for Congress to use this longstanding tool of community development--the Federal Home Loan Bank System--to address the pressing and serious capital needs of rural America. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Hagel and myself to work towards enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the State tobacco settlement protection bill, a bill to protect state tobacco settlement funds from seizure by the federal government. I want to thank Senators Hutchison and Graham for their leadership on this issue. I stand today for fiscal responsibility, local control and fairness. I stand today to protect our children's health, to assist those who have become addicted to tobacco. This is really about fairness. Is it fair for the federal government, having sat on the sidelines during this uphill battle against Big Tobacco, to come in after the fact and claim a large share of the victory? If nothing else, this proves the old adage that victory has many parents, while defeat is an orphan. I have said repeatedly that the federal government does not have all the answers. Much of what has gone right in this country in the last several years is a direct result of moving decisions and power out of this city and into small towns and communities. I came to Washington to stand up for what is right, to protect Indiana's values, and to speak up when the federal government oversteps its bounds. Does the federal government have a right to take more than 60% of Indiana's tobacco settlement to spend on federal priorities? Absolutely not. Indiana's share of the settlement is $4 billion over 25 years, but the federal government's claim could take two and a half billion away. While the President's budget acknowledges the difficulty in collecting this money in the coming fiscal year, I am disappointed they have laid claim to a substantial share of state settlement funds in their budget for use on federal discretionary programs in years to come. The fiscally responsible approach is to ensure this money is spent wisely at the local level, not to allow it to be dumped into the black pit of the federal bureaucracy in Washington. Indiana began this fight to protect our kids from the dangers of an addictive, life-threatening habit. The State fought a lonely battle, without any federal assistance and invested considerable resources in prosecuting this case. The Governor of Indiana, Frank O'Bannon, is in the planning stages for using this money to improve public health, promote teen smoking cessation programs and children's health care, the purposes originally outlined in the lawsuit. But with more than 60% of the funds at risk it is hard to sketch out a reliable plan. The confrontation between states and the federal government that would result from an attempt by the Health Care Financing Administration to take these state settlement funds would only hurt the people in each of our states. It would tie us up in needless court actions over who has the legal right to these funds. That is wasted time. While the courts decide what to do with the funds, we lose the opportunity to cover uninsured children, start anti-smoking campaigns and improve the lives of Hoosiers and the people in all our states. Mr. President, I hope all my colleagues become a part of this bipartisan coalition. I hope we can all--Democrats and Republicans, States and the federal government--work together to ensure these funds are used in the states to improve health, deter smoking and educate kids about the dangers of this addiction. I look forward to working to pass this very important legislation this year.

Mr. BAYH

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the State tobacco settlement protection bill, a bill to protect state tobacco settlement funds from seizure by the federal government. I want to thank Senators Hutchison and Graham for their leadership on this issue. I stand today for fiscal responsibility, local control and fairness. I stand today to protect our children's health, to assist those who have become addicted to tobacco. This is really about fairness. Is it fair for the federal government, having sat on the sidelines during this uphill battle against Big Tobacco, to come in after the fact and claim a large share of the victory? If nothing else, this proves the old adage that victory has many parents, while defeat is an orphan. I have said repeatedly that the federal government does not have all the answers. Much of what has gone right in this country in the last several years is a direct result of moving decisions and power out of this city and into small towns and communities. I came to Washington to stand up for what is right, to protect Indiana's values, and to speak up when the federal government oversteps its bounds. Does the federal government have a right to take more than 60% of Indiana's tobacco settlement to spend on federal priorities? Absolutely not. Indiana's share of the settlement is $4 billion over 25 years, but the federal government's claim could take two and a half billion away. While the President's budget acknowledges the difficulty in collecting this money in the coming fiscal year, I am disappointed they have laid claim to a substantial share of state settlement funds in their budget for use on federal discretionary programs in years to come. The fiscally responsible approach is to ensure this money is spent wisely at the local level, not to allow it to be dumped into the black pit of the federal bureaucracy in Washington. Indiana began this fight to protect our kids from the dangers of an addictive, life-threatening habit. The State fought a lonely battle, without any federal assistance and invested considerable resources in prosecuting this case. The Governor of Indiana, Frank O'Bannon, is in the planning stages for using this money to improve public health, promote teen smoking cessation programs and children's health care, the purposes originally outlined in the lawsuit. But with more than 60% of the funds at risk it is hard to sketch out a reliable plan. The confrontation between states and the federal government that would result from an attempt by the Health Care Financing Administration to take these state settlement funds would only hurt the people in each of our states. It would tie us up in needless court actions over who has the legal right to these funds. That is wasted time. While the courts decide what to do with the funds, we lose the opportunity to cover uninsured children, start anti-smoking campaigns and improve the lives of Hoosiers and the people in all our states. Mr. President, I hope all my colleagues become a part of this bipartisan coalition. I hope we can all--Democrats and Republicans, States and the federal government--work together to ensure these funds are used in the states to improve health, deter smoking and educate kids about the dangers of this addiction. I look forward to working to pass this very important legislation this year.