Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on another matter related to Haiti, I take this opportunity this evening to commend and thank my friend, Ambassador Tim Carney, for his 2-year service as U.S. Ambassador to Haiti. Tim and his wife Vicki proudly represented the United States. Day in and day out, they were committed to helping the people of Haiti overcome their dismal surroundings and their dire circumstances. Tim and Vicki worked to alleviate hunger and poverty throughout the island and encouraged practical economic reforms. Through the support and cooperation of Ambassador Carney and Vicki, the conditions of several Haitian orphanages continue to improve. Although the Carneys' assignment in Haiti has concluded, their commitment continues today. My wife Fran and I appreciate their friendship. We appreciate the support and help they have given to the children of Haiti. We look forward to continuing our work with them to help the children of Haiti.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this evening to celebrate the life of a great man from my home State of Ohio, a true renaissance man. I am talking about Erv Nutter, who died on January 6 of this year at the age of 85. I am honored to have known Erv and am humbled to have the chance this evening to say just a few words about what his friendship has meant to me and my family, to my community, and to my State. Ervin John Nutter was born in Hamilton, OH, on June 26, 1914, to parents he described as ``a Kentucky schoolteacher and a Wyoming cowboy.'' He was a running guard on the State championship Hamilton High School football team and later graduated from there. He attended Miami University in Oxford, OH, and then transferred to the University of Kentucky where, at the age of 21, he dropped out to take the Ohio examination for stationary engineers. Following that test, he became the youngest licensed engineer in Ohio, and then took a job at Proctor & Gamble in Cincinnati. In 1943, Erv returned to the University of Kentucky to earn his degree in mechanical engineering. After graduation, he took a job in the engineering division of the Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, where he was put in charge of aircraft environmental testing. Then in 1951, Erv Nutter founded the Elano Corporation, which fabricates metal parts for jet engines. He started the business in a Greene County, OH, garage. Elano grew and grew, and it grew ultimately into a multimillion-dollar business that has influenced aviation worldwide, through precision forming and bending of tubular assemblies for fuel, and lubrication and hydraulic systems for jet aircraft and missiles. I met Erv Nutter for the first time in 1973. I was right out of law school, on my first job, as an assistant county prosecutor in Greene County. I remember Sheriff Russell Bradley and then-county prosecutor Nick Carrera, and I were conducting a major drug investigation. It was going well. The only problem was, we had run out of money. So we went to some people in the community. One of the first people we went to was Erv Nutter. To keep that investigation going, we simply had to have some financial assistance. So we asked Erv if he would help. Without any hesitation, as Erv would always do--he didn't ask anything--he just said: Sure. If you boys think it's a good idea, if you think we need to do it, I'll do it. When it came to his community, Erv was always ready to lend a hand, whether with his financial resources or his time and energy. That was just Erv Nutter. Erv has been a role model for so many people throughout the years. Through his kindness and extreme generosity, he has taught invaluable lessons, such as the importance of giving back to our communities, the importance of building and trusting our neighbors, and the economic future of our villages and our cities. Through the years, he donated millions of dollars to the University of Kentucky and Wright State University. Today, two buildings at the Lexington campus bear Erv's name, as does Wright State University's indoor athletic complex. Erv Nutter was a blunt man. He was an open man. He was a man who would tell you what he thought, never afraid in any way to express his convictions or his strong beliefs. That is one of the things that made Erv Nutter so endearing. It has been said that the greatness of a man can be measured by the extent and the breadth of his interests and how he acts on those interests to make a difference in this world. Surely by that test, Erv Nutter was a great man. He was so passionate about his interests, and what interests he had: agriculture, technology, wild game conservation, education, sports, history, aviation, or working for a better government. Whatever Erv was interested in, he cared passionately about and he acted upon. And in each area, he made a difference. Sure, he helped financially but, more importantly, Erv gave his time and he gave his energy. He was a man of great passion. In 1981, Erv Nutter was named Greene County Man of the Year. He served as business chairman of the American Cancer Society, chairman of the Fellow's Committee at the University of Kentucky, member of the President's Club at both Ohio State and Wright State University, past president and trustee of the Aviation Hall of Fame--one of his great passions and his wonderful wife, Zoe Dell's great passions; the work with Zoe Dell continues to this day--as former chairman of the Ohio Republican Finance Committee, and former chairman of the Beavercreek Zoning Commission. In 1995, at the age of 80, Erv was inducted into the Ohio Senior Citizens Hall of Fame, an honor for outstanding contributions and exceptional achievements begun or continued after the age of 60. Erv always was there for our community. Erv always was there for our State. In all that he did, he made a positive difference. Erv Nutter was a remarkable person, a person who affected countless lives for the better. His family knows that probably better than anyone else because there were so many things Erv Nutter did that he didn't tell anybody about. He just was there to be supportive and to make a difference. He just quietly helped out whenever his community asked. And many times when his community didn't ask, he did it anyway. The only thing Erv wanted was to make the world a better place for his children, his grandchildren, and for all of us. Erv Nutter took great pleasure in sharing his personal success with the whole community. I was particularly struck by Erv's humility. I remember that he once told the Xenia Daily Gazette he was the luckiest man in the world. He was lucky because he had had the opportunity to do so many things he had never, ever, in his wildest dreams, thought he would be able to do. He told the paper: No one can achieve success by himself. I think this is one of the most important things for people to remember today. Erv didn't seek credit. Rather, he appreciated his success and understood that his community was a great part of that success. We all admired Erv Nutter. We all respected him. As Chesterton once said: Great men take up great space, even when they are gone. Erv Nutter will continue to take up great space on this Earth, not just in buildings but in lives touched and lives changed. Erv Nutter will continue to live on through the great work he has done. He also will live through his wonderful family: his wife Zoe Dell, Joe, Bob and Mary, Ken and Melinda, Katie and Jonathan. We pay tribute to Erv tonight for what he has meant to our community.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on a happy note, I rise this evening to honor someone who has spent the last 30 years of her life serving the people of this country, of this Congress, of the State of Ohio; specifically, of the Seventh Congressional District in Ohio. I am talking about a dear friend of mine, Virginia ``Ginny'' Gano. I had the great pleasure and honor to work with her during my years as Congressman from the Seventh Congressional District in Ohio. Ginny is now in her 31st year of service to the people. She is truly an ambassador for the Seventh district and for the entire State of Ohio. Ginny grew up in Springfield, OH. She started working for Congressman Bud Brown at a very young age in 1969. In 1982, when I was elected to the House of Representatives, I asked Ginny if she would come work with me. I became the Congressman. Ginny agreed to stay on and work in our office. During that time, Ginny Gano was really invaluable to me and invaluable to our office and to the people of the district. She had and has an unbelievable wealth of knowledge and institutional memory. If you want something done, if you want to know something, you ask Ginny Gano. In 1991, she joined current Seventh District Congressman David Hobson's team. This evening--I am sure at this very moment--knowing Ginny, she is still at work in the Longworth Building serving the people in the district. Ginny is one of the hardest working people whom I have ever met. With her resources, her experience, and her knowledge, she can answer any question or just about any request made of her. She never says no. She is that good. She gets the job done. She just knows how to get it done. Whatever you want, Ginny will figure out a way of getting it done. One of the many things that Ginny has done over the years has been to work with interns in a Congressman's office. She goes to great lengths to make sure these young people who come out from Ohio to serve the people and to learn have meaningful experiences in Washington, that they feel at home, that they have someone to look out for them. Ginny has spent the last 30 years helping people in our district and has truly gotten to know the people of the Seventh District, and they know that she cares about them. She is the one constant in the office of the Congressman from the Seventh Congressional District. Whether it was Bud Brown, Mike DeWine, or Dave Hobson, Ginny Gano has been there. Ginny Gano is making a difference. One of the things I appreciate about Ginny so much is that she has a way about her that makes everyone feel at ease. Whether it is a group of schoolchildren from Greene County or maybe someone whom she bumps into in the Rotunda of the Capitol, a total stranger, it does not matter; Ginny is there to help them and she makes everyone feel welcome in our Nation's Capitol. Ginny is a caring and compassionate human being. Being around Ginny Gano just makes you happy. She is that type of person. Her smile, her spirit, her energy--you just feel good when you are around Ginny Gano. Ginny has dedicated some of her free time--the little free time she has--to something she loves: music. For years she has participated with a great deal of enthusiasm in the Capitol Hill Choral Society. She also has been a driving force behind the Ohio State society's selection of the cherry blossom princess every spring. My wife Fran and I are just so proud to call Ginny Gano a friend. I thank her for over 30 years of dedicated service to the people of the Seventh Congressional District of the State of Ohio. Ginny, thank you.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to talk this evening about an issue about which I have spoken before on the floor of the Senate, and that is the situation with the children in the poor country of Haiti. I rise tonight to remind my colleagues of a very important feeding program that is crucial to these children. The program I am talking about, of course, is the Public Law 480 title II Food Assistance Program which, according to the USAID mission in Port au Prince in Haiti, helps feed roughly 500,000 Haitian schoolchildren and almost 10,000 orphaned children through its Orphan Feeding Program. As we know, funding for the P.L. 480 title II program was included in the Senate fiscal year 2001 Agriculture appropriations bill, which we in the Senate recently passed. I commend and thank the chairman and ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl, and also the chairman and ranking member on the full committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, for their continuing ongoing support of Public Law 480. I am very pleased the committee included language in the Agriculture appropriations bill that will maintain the same level of USAID resources for the Orphan Feeding Program in Haiti as were provided for our current year. I urge my colleagues in conference to continue this language and continue this program. The reality is that the country of Haiti is a great human tragedy. The nation is in turmoil on a political, economic, and humanitarian level. Though the small island nation finally did hold its parliamentary elections in May after three previous postponements, and though voter turnout was certainly acceptable and the citizens were voting, the openness of these elections remains in serious question. The violence against opposition party members and supporters leading up to the May election cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of this election. Leon Manus, the president of the electoral council, resigned after the first round of elections and had to flee the country fearing for his life after having accused the Haitian Government of pressuring him to approve the questionable election results. The international community has severely and justifiably criticized both rounds of elections, with the European Union threatening economic sanctions. In spite of widespread criticism, in spite of OAS refusal to recognize the contested election results, Haitian officials proceeded with the runoff elections on July 9, and, as expected, a handful of Haitians turned out to vote, just a handful of people for the few legislative and local offices that were not already won by the ruling Lavalas Party. Prior to these elections, I spoke on the Senate floor about Haiti's distressing political and economic situation. I talked at that time about how it was incumbent upon the political elite and the ruling party in Haiti, the Fanmi Lavalas Party, to make and to take reforms seriously. As I said then, and I have said many times before, Haiti simply will not progress until its political leaders and the elite in that country take responsibility for their situation and commit to true democratic reform. Regardless of the recent election outcome, Haiti can succeed as a democracy if and only if the leaders of the nation, the political elite, the ruling elite, the economic elite, resolve to develop a free market system, resolve to reduce corruption, resolve to improve Haiti's judicial system and its election process, resolve to respect human rights and develop a sustainable agricultural system that can feed its people, and especially the poor children of Haiti. Despite the success--I have seen it; and there has been success--of some USAID programs to promote growth in Haiti's agricultural sector, past deforestation and a lack of education about how best to use the land for both short-term and long-term economic gain have slowed, almost to a standstill, any improvement in the agricultural sector. Because of that, I firmly believe that the United States should continue efforts aimed at teaching Haitian farmers viable ways to farm--agriculture that produces food for the Haitian people now and conserves the land for production in the future by generations to come--agriculture that shows farmers how sustainable agriculture is really in their best economic interest, both in the short run and in the long run. Efforts to work directly with farmers provide the greatest hope of preventing Haitians from abandoning agriculture for urban areas, such as Port-au-Prince. One of the biggest problems in Haiti is that so many people who are not making it in agriculture at all, who can't feed their family, understandably flee the countryside and go into one of Haiti's big cities, only to face worse poverty and create a more dire situation for their family. The only way that will stop is if Haiti can develop, with our assistance, with the assistance of the international community, a viable, sustainable agricultural program. As I have said, I have visited Haiti eight or nine times. My wife and I have seen many of these programs and have seen that they do, in fact, work. But until sustainable improvements are made in the Haitian agricultural sector, I believe we have a responsibility--I believe we have an obligation--to ensure that humanitarian and food assistance continues to reach this tiny island nation and most particularly, most importantly, continues to reach these children. That is why it is vital that we maintain current funding levels for the Public Law 480 title II assistance program for Haiti and other parts of the world as well. The simple fact is, this program is essential to the survival--literally the survival--of many thousands of Haitian children, especially those living in overcrowded orphanages. There are currently 114 orphanages throughout Haiti receiving USAID funds and caring for a vast number of children. Quite candidly, these represent just a small fraction of the total number of orphanages on this island. My wife Fran and I have traveled to Haiti repeatedly--eight times in the past 5 years. We visited many of these orphanages. We have seen the dire and dismal conditions. We have held the children and felt their malnourished bodies. But we have also seen what can happen with these children, and how so many dedicated people working in these orphanages can literally nurse these children back to life. The orphanages of Haiti feed and take care of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of orphaned and abandoned children. The flow of desperate children into these orphanages is constant, and these facilities face the increasing challenge of accommodating these children. It is these children who need our help the most. It is these children who are not capable of providing for themselves. That is why I am convinced that the Public Law 480 title II feeding program is absolutely essential. This low-cost program guarantees one meal per day to orphan children who otherwise would not receive any food at all. The school feeding program is also essential because the title II assistance program--the offer of a free meal to these children, and the parents who send their children to school--helps keep Haitian children in school. I again thank the committee for its support for and its commitment to Public Law 480 title II assistance for these children in Haiti. I urge my colleagues on the conference committee--and throughout this year, and into the next--to continue their support for this program.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Washington State on very eloquent comments about our dear friend, Paul Coverdell. I had the chance a few days ago to make some more extensive comments than I will tonight about Senator Coverdell. But I just want to add, I had the opportunity, as many Members of the Senate did, to travel to Atlanta this past weekend to participate in that very wonderful service for our dear friend. I don't think it really hit me that he was really gone until I got back this week to Washington and started contemplating this Senate body without Paul Coverdell and all that he meant to each and every one of us. He was our friend. We loved him very much. This body, this institution, is a poorer place because he is gone. Each one of us is richer because we were privileged to know this very gentle, this very kind, this very sweet, this very good man.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Thurmond, Biden, and Leahy.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to, the committee substitute amendment, as amended, agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany H.R. 1167.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendments of the House.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2940 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 27. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business for Coverdell tributes only until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. When the Senate convenes at 9:30 a.m., the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m. for statements in memory of Senator Paul Coverdell. Following morning business, the Senate will have a swearing-in ceremony for Senator-designate Zell Miller. After the ceremony and the remarks by the Senator-designate, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the energy and water appropriations bill. By previous order, following the cloture vote, the Senate will begin consideration of the conference report to accompany the Department of Defense appropriations bill, with a vote to occur at approximately 3:15 p.m. Assuming cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to the energy and water appropriations bill, the Senate will then begin 30 hours of postcloture debate. As a reminder, cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to the PNTR China legislation during today's session. It is hoped an agreement can be made to schedule that vote for tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this is a sad day for all of us. It is a sad time in the Senate. Paul Coverdell was, first of all, our friend. He was someone who, if we took a secret poll in this Senate, I think many Members would say, was their best friend. That tells us something about this man. He was a kind, he was a gentle, he was a sweet man. This Senate will not be the same without Paul. It will not be the same because of that kindness, because of that spirit, because of that unbelievable energy he brought to any task he took on, and did he take on the task. Whatever it was, Paul would do it and do it effectively. He was one of the key people in making this Senate run. Candidly, he was that person not because of his leadership position, which was significant, but the leadership position he obtained was a result of the fact that he was one of the key players in the Senate and he got things done. That effectiveness came because of his energy, because of his drive, because of his determination, but it also came because he could get along with people on both sides of the aisle. He knew people, he understood them, he liked people and people liked him back, and that made him effective. He was effective because he did not have a big ego. We all have big egos in the Senate, but Paul did not seem to have one. He did not seem to care if he got credit; another rarity, I suppose, among politicians. He just got the job done. He was always seeking some way to get it done. He did not seek the limelight. He did not worry about who got the credit. Each one of us brings different stories or remembers different things about Paul Coverdell. I worked with him on Central American issues, Caribbean issues, and Latin American issues. Paul Coverdell is from Georgia. It was not necessarily logical that he had to concentrate on this hemisphere or worry about this hemisphere, but he did. He did because he understood it affected the people of Georgia and it affected the people of this country. He brought his passion to deal with the drug problem to that concentration and work on this hemisphere. I worked with Paul when we worked on the Caribbean initiative, when we worked on the initial drug bill we passed several years ago on drug interdiction in this hemisphere, and I worked with him when we were able to pass the Colombia aid bill. I remember on both bills going to Paul at different times and saying: Paul, this is not going very well. What do we do? Not only did the leadership responsibility go to Paul Coverdell to get things done, but people who are not in leadership went to Paul to get things done. I remember Paul would look at you, as only Paul could, and say: Well, let's do this. And he would tick off three or four things. Basically then I had the plan. We got it done. That is what we are going to miss in this Senate. The last time I talked with Paul was as we were leaving for the weekend. I said: I am worried about what is going on in Colombia. Why don't you and I go down there. He said: Let's do it. So we were talking about a trip sometime in the next few months to Colombia to look firsthand at the problem. I know all of us at a later date will have more formal comments to make, but I wanted to pause here for a moment with my colleagues to say thank you for the life of Paul Coverdell. He is someone who made a difference every single day he was in the Senate. We will miss him very deeply. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act. This bill would eliminate much of the so-called marriage penalty contained in the current tax code by expanding the standard filing deduction for married couples filing jointly, widening the tax brackets, increasing the income phase-outs for the earned income credit, and extending permanently the preservation of the family tax credits. My main reason for supporting this measure is the simple fact that I do not believe that the federal government should be penalizing marriage. If two people meet and fall in love, they should not have to worry about whether their formal union will bring about adverse tax consequences. After all, newly married couples have enough to worry about, without the added burden of increased tax liability. Mr. President, one of the basic principles of our tax system is that it treats individuals in similar situations in the same way. In other words, if two individuals make the same amount of money and the rest of their lifestyles are similar, they pay the same amount of tax. When two people marry, these principles of fairness should remain in place, even if the basis of tax liability changes from the individual to the family. Two people, as a married couple, simply should not have to pay higher taxes than they would as singles. And furthermore, two couples who make the same income should pay the same amount of taxes. The proposal before us today adheres to those principles. The alternative offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, does not. Mr. President, I support the marriage tax relief proposal currently before us now--it is a step toward eliminating one of the most egregious examples of unfairness and complexity in the tax code today. I strongly urge my colleagues to support its final passage.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I ask if he concurs that the Secretary of Energy should participate in a full-scale demonstration of this technology that is planned for the near future.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues, Senator Gorton, Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee; and Senator Byrd, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, about a new and innovative technology. Mr. Chairman, are you aware of an emerging technology known as electro-catalytic oxidation (ECO), which has the potential to reduce emissions, as well as unusable byproducts at coal- fired power plants?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for his support of this important technology, and I would welcome the opportunity to more closely examine his proposals related to Clean Air reauthorization, and comment on them at a future time. I also thank the Chairman of the Interior Subcommittee and the senior Senator from West Virginia and would encourage them to consider the benefits of ECO to consumers of coal- fired power as well as coal producing states when this bill moves to conference with the other body. FY 2001 Interior Appropriations for Maine Projects

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the very distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia and would note that the Senator from New Hampshire, the state were ECO was developed, is optimistic about the potential of the technology. Would the Senator agree? Mr. SMITH (of New Hampshire). I would agree with my colleague from Ohio and add that I applaud the innovative efforts that have led to the development of this emerging emissions control technology. As many of you know, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is currently working to develop a bill that will address the significant problem of the hodge-podge of overlapping Clean Air Act regulation on utilities. Our goal is to draft a comprehensive, multi-pollutant bill to provide a more sensible emission control regime on utilities while at the same time achieving greater reductions of pollutants than is currently possible under the Clean Air Act. New technologies, much as electro-catalytic oxidation will be critically important to our ability to successfully revise our approach to utility emission control. I would support any efforts to expedite the development of this technology.

Mr. DeWINE. As the senior Senator from West Virginia is aware, the early tests of this technology show a significant reduction of nitrogen oxide (Nox), sulfur dioxide (SO2), mercury, and fine particulate matter. Would the Senator agree that a cost-effective reduction of these emissions is in the best interest of coal-fired power consumers as well as the coal industry?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the ``Death Tax Elimination Act.'' This bill would reduce federal estate and gift tax collections over the next nine years, followed by full repeal in the tenth year. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor and made compelling arguments for the elimination of the death tax. Many have argued that the death tax is unfair and even immoral in a sense. The death tax penalizes the most productive in our society and discourages savings and investment. Mr. President, I agree with all of these arguments. Each of these arguments supply ample warrants for eliminating the death tax. And ultimately, I have concluded the estate tax stunts continued economic growth and provides only very limited federal revenues. Simply put, the negative economic and societal consequences of the death tax, coupled with-- at best--very limited contributions to federal revenues simply do not justify its continued existence. So, what exactly does the collection of this tax mean to federal revenues? In Fiscal Year 1999, the estate tax amounted to just 1.5 percent of all federal revenues, or $28 billion. While $28 billion sure sounds like a lot of money, when put in the context of overall federal revenue, it is difficult to comprehend just how inconsequential this amount really is. Given that, how can anyone make the argument that the estate tax is an essential part of our nation's tax code? Mr. President, I said before that the limited benefits of the death tax do not justify its negative economic and societal consequences. What are these negative consequences? Studies indicate that the death tax results in lower savings, reduced capital accumulation, slower economic growth, and fewer new jobs. These studies simply confirm what our own common sense should have already made plain: Confiscatory taxes, such as the death tax, discourage industry and hurt the overall economy. Throughout this debate, I have heard my colleagues quote seemingly contradictory statistics gleaned from different studies or economic experts. I am not going to engage in that sort of discussion. Instead, I am going to focus on the stories of some of my constituents in Ohio to help confirm the facts that many studies and my own common sense tell me are true. Like many of my colleagues, my office has received hundreds of letters from constituents and their families who have been or will be affected by the death tax. One farmer from a small town in Fulton County, Ohio wrote: ``. . . the `Death Tax' wrecks havoc on family farms when parcels have to be sold to pay estate taxes to the government. . . . We have paid our taxes on property, on our equipment, on our income and when its time to transfer our properties to our children, we do not want them to have the added burden of having to sell off assets to pay Uncle Sam.'' My staff followed up with this constituent to find out more about his story. This particular farmer, who is shy about having his name used, has been involved with agriculture his whole life. He grew up on a farm owned by his father. In 1969, he purchased land of his own for about $700 per acre. Since then, he continually has added land, and he now farms approximately 425 acres. In his words, he and his wife have sacrificed and ``skimped to make sure it works.'' He is now 53 years-old, with three sons, all of whom farm. When the time comes, he'd like to pass his farm on to his children. Unfortunately, his land and equipment are now too expensive to escape the death tax. Rather than become more efficient and perhaps grow his farm further, this farmer has begun the process of estate planning. If we do not eliminate this tax, it is quite likely that his sons will be forced to sell land and/or equipment to meet the tax bill. This just isn't right. A second story comes from Jerry Boes, of Antwerp, Ohio. Mr. Boes wrote: ``I have worked hard all my life and paid all my taxes on everything I own. Why does the government take away 50 percent of whatever might remain upon my death?'' Again, my staff followed up with Mr. Boes, who is now 62 years-old. It seems that around 15 years ago, he saw an ad in the local newspaper for opportunities to own a ``Subway'' sandwich shop franchise. He took a chance and almost lost his home in the process. Mr. Boes now says this: ``I took chances, stuck my neck out and paid my taxes.'' It has indeed paid off for him. He now owns six ``Subway'' stores and employs around 75 people on average. I am happy to report that he was able to keep his house, too. Mr. Boes' story is representative of our American entrepreneurial spirit. It is a fantastic example of many Americans' struggle to own their own businesses. Unfortunately, he may have done too well. When he passes away, he'd like to hand the business down to his children. But, because most of his assets are tied up in land and buildings, his children will be forced to sell about 50% of his assets to pay the death tax. He has tried to do some estate planning on at least two different occasions to no avail. He has become so frustrated that he, and I quote, ``Just threw up my hands and gave up.'' Upon his death, I wonder what will become of his 75 employees? Finally, there is a story of Erin Nyrop Glasgow from Dublin, Ohio. In 1952, her parents started an electrical contracting business out of the trunk of their car. They worked hard over the years to build up that business. The Sterling Electric Company currently employs 40 people. Again, this is another great story of our American entrepreneurial spirit--and one that we, as a nation, should be encouraging. In the early 1990's, Erin's parents convinced her to take over the company. They wanted to keep it in the family upon their passing. The death of Erin's father and the fact that another local family-owned business was forced to sell upon the death of its founder, really caused her to become aware of the perils of the death tax. Now, she spends thousands of dollars, practically on an annual basis, in estate planning. These dollars could be used to grow the business, become more efficient, or hire new employees. She views monthly finance reports with trepidation. She is happy to find out that Sterling Electric is profitable. But, it is, in her own words, ``A double-edged sword.'' The more profitable she is, the more she'll lose upon her mother's death. Again, this is just wrong. The federal government should not, on the one hand, encourage businesses to grow and be more and more profitable, while on the other hand, threaten the loss of a family business for becoming too successful. Mr. President, these stories tell more about the regressiveness and the simply unfair nature of the death tax better than any think tank study. Right now, we have an opportunity to eliminate this burdensome tax. This is an opportunity we simply should not miss. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-author of the ``Children's Public Health Act of 2000.'' The sad fact is that far too many children never realize success as adults or even reach adulthood because of debilitating or life-threatening disease. That is why we must build a health care system that is responsive to the unique needs of children. The ``Children's Public Health Act of 2000'' is a big step in the right direction, and I commend my colleagues, Senators Frist, Jeffords, and Kennedy for their efforts to construct a bill that can really make a positive difference in the health and the lives of children. Mr. President, I am especially pleased that the ``Children's Public Health Act'' contains several important initiatives that my colleagues and I had already introduced as separate bills. One such initiative-- the Pediatric Research Initiative--would help ensure that more of the increased research funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is invested specifically in children's health research. While children represent close to 30 percent of the population of this country, NIH devotes only about 12 percent of its budget to children, and, in recent years, that proportion has been declining even further. We must reverse this disturbing trend. It simply makes no sense to conduct health research for adults and hope that those findings also will apply to children. A ``one-size-fits-all'' research approach just doesn't work. The fact is that children have medical conditions and health care needs that differ significantly from adults. Children's health deserves more attention from the research community. That's why the Pediatric Research Initiative is such an important part of the ``Children's Public Health Act.'' It would provide the federal support for pediatric research that is so vital to ensuring that children receive the appropriate and best health care possible. The Pediatric Research Initiative would authorize $50 million annually for the next five years for the Office of the Director of NIH to conduct, coordinate, support, develop, and recognize pediatric research. By doing so, we will be able to ensure that researchers target and study child-specific diseases. With more than 20 Institutes and Centers and Offices within NIH that conduct, support, or develop pediatric research in some way, this investment would promote greater coordination and focus in children's health research and should encourage new initiatives and areas of research. The ``Children's Public Health Act'' also would authorize funding through the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)--for pediatric research training grants to support training for additional pediatric research scientists and would provide funding for loan forgiveness programs. Trained researchers are essential if we are to make significant advances in the study of pediatric health care, especially in light of the new and improved Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policies that encourage the testing of medications for use by children. Additionally, the ``Children's Public Health Act'' includes the ``Children's Asthma Relief Act,'' which Senator Durbin and I introduced last year. The sad reality for children is that asthma is becoming a far too common and chronic childhood illness. From 1979 to 1992, the hospitalization rates among children due to asthma increased 74 percent. Today, estimates show that more than seven percent of children now suffer from asthma. Nationwide, the most substantial prevalence rate increase for asthma occurred among children aged four and younger. Those four and younger also were hospitalized at the highest rate among all individuals with asthma. According to 1998 data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), my home state of Ohio ranks about 17th in the estimated prevalence rates for asthma. Based on a 1994 CDC National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 197,226 children under 18 years of age in Ohio suffer from asthma. This is a serious health concern among children--and we must address it. The ``Children's Public Health Act'' would help ensure that children with asthma receive the care they need to live healthy lives. The bill would authorize $50 million annually for five years for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to eligible entities to develop and expand projects that would provide asthma services to children. These grants also may be used to equip mobile health care clinics that provide asthma diagnosis and asthma-related health care services; educate families on asthma management; and identify and enroll uninsured children who are eligible for, but are not receiving health coverage under Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The ability to identify and enroll children in these programs will ensure that children with asthma receive the care they need. Since research shows that children living in urban areas suffer from asthma at such alarming rates and that allergens, such as cockroach waste, contribute to the onset of asthma, this bill also adds urban cockroach management to the current preventive health services block grant which currently can be used for rodent control. To better coordinate federal activities related to asthma, the Secretary of HHS would be required to identify all federal programs that carry out asthma research and develop a federal plan for responding to asthma. To better monitor the prevalence of pediatric asthma and to determine which areas have the greatest incidences of children with asthma, this bill would require the CDC to conduct local asthma surveillance activities to collect data on the prevalence and severity of asthma and to publish data annually on the prevalence rates of asthma among children and on the childhood mortality rate. This surveillance data will help us better detect asthmatic conditions, so that we can treat more children and ensure that we are targeting our resources in an effective and efficient way to reverse the disturbing trend in the hospitalization and death rates of asthmatic children. Finally, Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today includes language that I strongly support to re-authorize funding for children's hospitals' Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs for four additional years. Last year, as part of the ``Health Care Research and Quality Act,'' which was signed into law, we authorized funding for two years for children's hospitals' GME programs. The teaching mission of these hospitals is essential. Children's hospitals comprise less than one percent of all hospitals, yet they train five percent of all physicians, nearly 30 percent of all pediatricians, and almost 50 percent of all pediatric specialists. By providing our nation with highly qualified pediatricians, children's hospitals can offer children the best possible care and offer parents peace of mind. They serve as the health care safety net for low-income children in their respective communities and are often the sole regional providers of many critical pediatric services. These institutions also serve as centers of excellence for very sick children across the nation. Federal funding for GME in children's hospitals is a sound investment in children's health and provides stability for the future of the pediatric workforce. Mr. President, as the father of eight children and the grandfather of five, I firmly believe that we must move forward to protect the interests--and especially the health--of all children. The ``Children's Public Health Act of 2000'' makes crucial investments in our country's future--investments that will yield great returns. If we focus on improving health care for all children today, we will have a generation of healthy adults tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support this vital children's health care bill.