John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, one of my fundamental beliefs is that we should labor to make sure that the collective voice of our constituents is heard and followed in everything we do here. That is to say, the values of Washington, D.C. should not be imposed on the country, but instead the values of the country should be imposed on Washington. One of the best ways to make sure we follow this principle is to provide the country with best information possible about what we do and how we do it. We must do what we can to open the doors to government so that all may access the available information. In 1995, I introduced an on-line term limits petition. Thousands of people singed petition. In 1996, I began an effort to educate Missouri's students on how to access the federal government's available information on the Internet. This program, Gateways to Government, was presented by myself or my staff in every county of Missouri, and in more than 135 individual schools. My homepage continues to act as a ``gateway'' to a great wealth of electronic information about congress and the federal government. In this same spirit I rise today to join with Senator Leahy to introduce the Taxpayers Internet Assistance Act of 1998. He has been a real leader on technology issues and shares a great interest in guaranteeing that U.S. citizens enjoy an environment that allows them to know the operations of their federal government. In addition, he has for years championed the rights of individuals to keep their private affairs private, particularly with his principal sponsorship of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act. I am also pleased that several other senators are joining our effort as original co-sponsors. Our intent is to provide to the American public an easy and inexpensive way to receive the latest information related to the IRS, including forms, instructions, and recent rulings. Under the Taxpayers Internet Assistant Act individuals will be able to access a great deal of material from the IRS beginning in November of 1996. Revenue rulings, treasury regulations, internal revenue bulletins, and IRS general counsel memorandum are just a few of the documents that will routinely be made available in an easy to use format. This information should provide for an easier and more understandable approach to tax planning and preparation. Individuals will be able to see rulings that may be similar to a situation they are in currently and plan accordingly. ``The difference between death and taxes,'' quipped Will Rogers, ``is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Rogers' observation has held true for more than six decades. The tax doe has become increasingly complex and onerous. My wife is a tax attorney, she even teaches tax law at Howard University, and we do not even prepare our own tax forms. My hope is that this modest effort will provide the public with timely, reliable information that may assist in their efforts to prepare their taxes. In fact, taxpayers are working longer than ever to pay their taxes. According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, the average American now works until May 9--a full week longer than when Bill Clinton assumed the presidency--to pay federal, state, and local taxes. I can't help but think of President Reagan's definition of a taxpayer as ``someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take a civil service examination.'' At the very least we can assist taxpayers with easy to access, timely and inexpensive information that can help them in preparing their individuals taxes. In addition, our legislation amends the Freedom of Information Act, which maintains the personal privacy of individuals by guaranteeing that any reference to identifying details be deleted to prevent an invasion of personal privacy. Importantly, this legislation does not give any new access to tax information, but instead provides an additional means of receiving the same information already made available in hard copy form or, in some cases, on CD. Finally, the legislation requires that the Department of Treasury evaluate the process to ensure that all technical advances are being used that would provide more timely and efficient service to taxpayers. In addition, a further consideration of individual privacy will occur and a process developed to receive comments from the public regarding the on-line taxpayer services. This bipartisan approach to continuing the opening of the federal government to all citizens should be viewed as a first step in changing our fundamental interaction with the IRS. We can pass this legislation and provide greater information to anyone who can gain access to a PC. I urge all senators to support and pass this year the Taxpayers Internet Assistance Act of 1998.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, one of my fundamental beliefs is that we should labor to make sure that the collective voice of our constituents is heard and followed in everything we do here. That is to say, the values of Washington, D.C. should not be imposed on the country, but instead the values of the country should be imposed on Washington. One of the best ways to make sure we follow this principle is to provide the country with best information possible about what we do and how we do it. We must do what we can to open the doors to government so that all may access the available information. In 1995, I introduced an on-line term limits petition. Thousands of people singed petition. In 1996, I began an effort to educate Missouri's students on how to access the federal government's available information on the Internet. This program, Gateways to Government, was presented by myself or my staff in every county of Missouri, and in more than 135 individual schools. My homepage continues to act as a ``gateway'' to a great wealth of electronic information about congress and the federal government. In this same spirit I rise today to join with Senator Leahy to introduce the Taxpayers Internet Assistance Act of 1998. He has been a real leader on technology issues and shares a great interest in guaranteeing that U.S. citizens enjoy an environment that allows them to know the operations of their federal government. In addition, he has for years championed the rights of individuals to keep their private affairs private, particularly with his principal sponsorship of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act. I am also pleased that several other senators are joining our effort as original co-sponsors. Our intent is to provide to the American public an easy and inexpensive way to receive the latest information related to the IRS, including forms, instructions, and recent rulings. Under the Taxpayers Internet Assistant Act individuals will be able to access a great deal of material from the IRS beginning in November of 1996. Revenue rulings, treasury regulations, internal revenue bulletins, and IRS general counsel memorandum are just a few of the documents that will routinely be made available in an easy to use format. This information should provide for an easier and more understandable approach to tax planning and preparation. Individuals will be able to see rulings that may be similar to a situation they are in currently and plan accordingly. ``The difference between death and taxes,'' quipped Will Rogers, ``is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Rogers' observation has held true for more than six decades. The tax doe has become increasingly complex and onerous. My wife is a tax attorney, she even teaches tax law at Howard University, and we do not even prepare our own tax forms. My hope is that this modest effort will provide the public with timely, reliable information that may assist in their efforts to prepare their taxes. In fact, taxpayers are working longer than ever to pay their taxes. According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, the average American now works until May 9--a full week longer than when Bill Clinton assumed the presidency--to pay federal, state, and local taxes. I can't help but think of President Reagan's definition of a taxpayer as ``someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take a civil service examination.'' At the very least we can assist taxpayers with easy to access, timely and inexpensive information that can help them in preparing their individuals taxes. In addition, our legislation amends the Freedom of Information Act, which maintains the personal privacy of individuals by guaranteeing that any reference to identifying details be deleted to prevent an invasion of personal privacy. Importantly, this legislation does not give any new access to tax information, but instead provides an additional means of receiving the same information already made available in hard copy form or, in some cases, on CD. Finally, the legislation requires that the Department of Treasury evaluate the process to ensure that all technical advances are being used that would provide more timely and efficient service to taxpayers. In addition, a further consideration of individual privacy will occur and a process developed to receive comments from the public regarding the on-line taxpayer services. This bipartisan approach to continuing the opening of the federal government to all citizens should be viewed as a first step in changing our fundamental interaction with the IRS. We can pass this legislation and provide greater information to anyone who can gain access to a PC. I urge all senators to support and pass this year the Taxpayers Internet Assistance Act of 1998.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the new Lincoln University President, Dr. David B. Henson. On April 4, 1998, Dr. Henson will gather with friends, family, colleagues, faculty, and students to be inaugurated as the seventeenth President of Lincoln University which opened its doors on September 17, 1866, in Jefferson City, Missouri as the Lincoln Institute. Dr. Henson has a twenty-five year history of service to higher education. The list of educational institutions he has served is a prestigious one. At Howard University College of Medicine, Dr. Henson served as the Acting Chairperson in the Department of Biochemistry, the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, and an Associate Professor of Biochemistry. At Yale College, he was the Dean of Student Affairs and the Associate Dean. Dr. Henson's work in the fields of science is commendable. He was a Lecturer in Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry and a Fellow in Timothy Dwight College at Yale University, a Professor of Chemistry at Alabama A&M, and a Provost and Professor of Chemistry at the Broward Campus of Florida Atlantic University. Furthermore, at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Dr. Henson held the position of Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Services and Student Support Services. Dr. Henson also served as Vice President of Student Services at Purdue University. President Henson is actively involved in state and local community services. He is an honorary member of Purdue Iron Key Society; a member of the Executive 21 Continuous Quality Improvement Steering Committee; a steward at St. John's AME Church in Huntsville; on the National Committee on International Science and Education; on the Education Committee, U.S. Space & Rocket Center; and on the Board of Huntsville Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America. Dr. Henson contributes his services to Missouri organizations as well. He currently is the Treasurer of the Council on Public Higher Education of Missouri; on the Board of Directors with the Jefferson Chamber of Commerce; on the Board of Governors at Capital Region Medical Canter; a member of the Steering Committee for the River Rendezvous; an active member of the Rotary Club of Jefferson City; and a member of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Central Missouri Celebration Planning Committee. To his credit, Dr. Henson has received the African Americans Who Make a Difference Award, the Howard University College of Medicine Student Council's Award for Excellence in Teaching, the George Washington Carver Research Foundation Student Award, and an American Council on Education Fellowship. For this lifetime of service to education and commitment to community involvement, I rise today to recognize and salute Dr. David B. Henson as he becomes the seventeenth President of Lincoln University. I think I speak for all Missourians when I say that we are grateful that he has chosen a Missouri university to continue his service to higher education.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you very much. Madam President, I rise today to express my opposition to the budget resolution. More than just being an accountant's ledger, the Federal budget should embody our Nation's values. Yet, from looking through the budget, the values that are transmitted here seem to be nothing more than an inflated sense of Washington's self-arrogance. The budget represents Washington's arrogance, Washington's belief that the interests of the individual and individual taxpayers are second, if not third, fourth, or fifth, as compared to the bureaucrat and the bureaucratic appetite to consume resources at the Federal Government level. I think it is a slap in the face of Americans who thought they sent individuals to Washington to curtail the size of Government, those who have worked to make sure that they sent individuals here to guard their freedoms. It is a challenge to them when they see the House and the Senate march steadily forward on bigger and bigger budgets consuming more and more of the resources of an average family. I believe that I was sent to Washington to cut taxes to make it possible for people to retain more of what they earn to spend on their own families rather than have Washington somehow come to the conclusion that Washington could spend the money more effectively on America's families than America's families could. I oppose this budget based on the fact that it is designed to grow Government substantially and it is designed to take more and more of what people earn. I have prepared a series of proposals of $1 trillion in tax cuts and debt and tax limitation measures. I would like to see us put those in our public policy. But, frankly, there is really not a chance to do that because this budget and the budget rules that are proposed are designed to block such measures, ensuring that the priorities and judgments of the Budget Committee remain inviolable. I would like to explain in detail my opposition to this budget. First, it increases the size of the Government. The budget resolution recommends that the Federal Government spend $9.15 trillion over the next 5 years. That represents a 17.3 percent increase over the previous 5 years. The past 5 years as compared to the next 5 years, a 17.3 percent increase. Five years from now the Federal Government would spend $276.5 billion more than it will spend this year. That is an increase of 16.5 percent. So this massive growth of Government I don't believe is consistent with the mandate of the American people. Even President Clinton intoned in his State of the Union Message a little over a year ago that the era of big Government was over. He could hear the footsteps of the electorate in their steady march demanding that we have smaller Government--meaning greater capacity for our families. And, yet, here we go again. We have growth that amounts in the next 5 years to 16.5 percent. Second, I oppose the budget because it takes far more tax revenue from the American people than ever before. The budget resolution recommends that the Federal Government collect $9.3 trillion in tax revenue over the next 5 years. That is a 27.5 percent increase over the previous 5 years. Five years from now the Federal Government would collect $327.9 billion more than it will collect this year. That is an increase of 19.5 percent. Now that we know what the budget resolution does, we should address the one thing that the resolution does not do. This budget resolution does not cut taxes. As a recent report by the Senate Republican Policy Committee reads, ``The fiscal year 1999 budget resolution provides for no reconciliation bill. It, therefore, contains no specific tax-cut instruction.'' Year by year, the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be changed are as follows: Zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. The numbers in this resolution do not reflect that the report accompanying the resolution holds out the hope that Congress might pass a $30 billion tax cut over 5 years. $30 billion over 5 years is a number which might be hard for folks to anticipate. But here is what it amounts to. It amounts to $1.83 per person per month in terms of tax relief--$1.83 per person per month. Inflation may be tame. But even the most frugal consumer would be hard pressed to stretch $1.83 very far. Looking at this another way, $30 billion in tax relief out of the $9.3 trillion in tax revenue represents a cut of three-tenths of 1 percent over 5 years. That is the equivalent of getting a 30-cent discount on a $100 order of groceries. And if that weren't bad enough, this budget resolution would consider offsetting those cuts with tax increases. Page 70 of the committee report accompanying the budget resolution reads: This ``reserve fund'' would permit tax relief to be offset by reductions in mandatory spending or revenue increases. This is no idle threat. The last page of the chairman's mark lists illustrative examples of taxes that could be raised, including taxes on vacation and severance pay, and adopting some of President Clinton's proposed tax increases. I believe it is wrong for us to be considering tax increases, especially at a time when the average American is still working for the Government this year. I say ``still working for the Government this year'' because, according to authorities, we all work until May 9 now in order to pay for Government. It is only after we have worked all the way until the second week in May that we begin to pay ourselves instead of to pay our Government. Compared to last year's resolution, this budget resolution recommends that the Federal Government collect $212 billion more in tax revenue than was recommended for the same period last year. Whose interest does this resolution serve? As I mentioned earlier, this budget has its priorities upside down. They are inverted. They are skewed. My clear understanding of Government is that it exists to serve the people. But this budget has that backwards. This has people existing to serve the interests of Government. Let me read a disturbing line from page 52 of the committee report accompanying the budget resolution: The tax writing committees will be required to balance the interests and desires of many parties while protecting the interests of taxpayers generally in drafting the tax cut. Why did the Budget Committee feel a need to include a reminder in this report to keep the interests of the taxpayers in mind? Taxpayers should have been in the forefront of our mind. It read as if the interests of the taxpayers are secondary. That said, the American taxpayers deserve more consideration than this budget allows. Relief for taxpayers cannot come a moment too soon, and we should have a budget which reflects our ability to constrict Government and to enlarge the capacity of individuals. Allow me to place this budget package within the context of the overtaxed worker. For the past 5 consecutive years, the growth in personal tax payments has outstripped that of wages and salaries. This is an important point. People have had their taxes going up faster than their salaries and wages have been going up. Not since 1980-1981 have there been more than 2 consecutive years in which tax growth had exceeded wage growth. Well, not until the past 5 years. The average American now works until May 9, as I mentioned, a full week longer than the average American worked for the Government when Bill Clinton assumed the Presidency. The average American now is working to May 9 to pay Federal, State, and local taxes. Some individuals think that includes State and local taxes. What do we have to do with that? Frankly, a significant share of what State and local governments charge in terms of taxes is being charged because we have mandated programs on the State and local governments. I can't help but think of President Reagan's definition of a taxpayer: ``Someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take a civil service exam.'' Frankly, all of us have been working for the Federal Government. We will all be working for the Federal Government until May 9 this year-- for the government at least. The last year that the Federal Government collected less tax revenue than it did the year before was 1983. That was 16 fiscal years ago. If you define a ``tax cut'' as when the Government collects less in taxes, we have not had a true tax cut since 1983. Because of the tax increases of 1990 and 1993, taxpayers will give the Federal Government $600 billion more over the next 5 years than they would have otherwise. Why are taxes so high? Taxes are high because Government is too big and because Government spends too much. Taxes are high because our budgets reflect that we believe that the bureaucracy is better at spending money on American families than American families are. I believe that is a mistaken belief. This year the $1.7 trillion that Washington will spend is more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the Federal Government spent cumulatively from 1800 to 1940. Over the past 20 years, Congress has allowed Federal spending to increase 291.3 percent. Adjusted for inflation, that represents a real spending increase of nearly 60 percent. In the past 10 years nondefense Federal outlays adjusted for inflation have increased by one-third. The last year that the Federal Government spent less than it did the year before was in 1965, 34 fiscal years ago. When I entered the Senate in 1995, I hoped that the new Republican majority in Congress would pursue a general downsizing of the Federal Government, allocating to States and local governments, and, yes, to the best government of all, the family, which obviously finds the best department of social services and the best department of education, the best department of health when it spends its own resources fostering the needs, ambitions, aspirations, hopes, and achievements of the family, I had hoped that we would reduce the size of the Federal Government to make the resource allocation of this culture more effective and more efficient by placing it in the family and close to the family, where good decisions could best be made. Despite our efforts, the Federal establishment is growing more costly and more intrusive than ever before. Federal spending has grown by $200 billion just since 1995. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman observed, ``Congress will spend whatever revenue it receives plus as much more as it collectively believes it can get away with.'' Another way folks say that, back in Missouri, is, ``We live by the `they send it, we spend it' motto.'' Frankly, it is time to say to the American people ``You earned it, we returned it.'' We need to give to the American people some of their money back so they can make good judgments and good decisions of how to deploy their own resources on themselves and their families and in their own communities without sending it through the shrinking process of the bureaucracy in Washington, DC. This budget resolution assumes a cumulative surplus of $149 billion before any tax cuts over the next 5 years. As each week passes, the call for new spending seems to grow. The Senate spent last week debating whether to pass emergency legislation that would breach the discretionary spending caps, including $4.48 million for maple syrup producers to replace taps and tubing damaged by ice storms in the Northeast. Before closing, let me just reiterate my opposition to the resolution for these reasons: No. 1, the budget increases the size of Government. It is time for us to increase the size of opportunity for American families. No. 2, the budget resolution does not instruct Congress to cut taxes. We were sent here to limit the size of Government, to cut the burden on the American people. The American people are paying more in taxes than ever before in history. It is time--we are not at war--to understand if we are at war, that we are at war with ourselves and we should stop taking so much of the resource of American families. We should make it available to them. No. 3, when spoken about, the so-called predicted tax relief would be a proverbial slap in the face, or at least in the wallets, of the American people: $1.83 per person per month. You can't get a cup of gourmet coffee--I couldn't get it if I drank it--at that price. No. 4, it would allow Congress to offset the tax cut with a tax increase rather than with spending cuts. And, No. 5, it would have the Federal Government collect $212 billion more than the budget resolution agreed to just last year. The Senate should reject this budget resolution and adopt a resolution that reflects the values of those who sent us here, one that curtails spending, one that provides tax relief, and one that further limits the Federal debt. I encourage my fellow Senators to vote no on this backwards budget, this budget that really believes and sets a value on the idea that Washington knows best. It is pretty obvious to me that you let the person spend the money who you think can make the best investment. And it is pretty clear to me that Washington thinks it can make better investments and better judgments about our family and our culture than can people in their families and businesses in their institutions. I do not believe that Washington knows best. The genius of America is not that the values of Washington would be imposed on the people; the genius of America is that the values of people would be imposed on Washington. But this budget gathers to the bosom of the bureaucracy the capacity to confiscate the resources of the people and to spend them in an arrogant sense that we know better how to spend resources on America and her families than America's families do. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman observed Congress will spend whatever revenue it receives plus as much as they can get away with, and this is one of those settings where it looks to me like we are making that kind of commitment to expenditure. I believe Members of this body should look carefully at this budget and should understand it does not reflect the values of the American people. It fails, for instance, to obliterate or to curtail or to remove the marriage penalty. If we want a system which would reflect the values of America, understanding that this country is most likely to succeed in the next century if we have strong families, then we would endow the family with strength and the finances to do what families ought to do. Instead, this budget resolution provides the basis for continuing the marriage penalty, which is really a way of fining people for being married and saying to individuals who are married in this culture: We will charge you $29 billion a year. That is the freight for being married in America. It is time for us to abandon that and say what we want in this culture is lasting, durable marriages and families that will provide the basis for a culture in the next century which will allow America to continue to prosper and to lead. We cannot do that if we have a value system reflected in a budget which attacks America's principle of strong families rather than reinforces that principle. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to reject this budget and to call for a budget which would reduce the impact and size and onerous burden of the Federal Government and to empower the people to make decisions that will foster families and institutions at the local level with the requisite strength to preserve and protect America's greatness. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I seek the floor for purposes of speaking in regard to the budget resolution.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Missouri home schoolers who will observe Missouri Home Education Week, May 3-May 9, 1998. As a parent and former educator, it is a privilege for me to participate in celebrating this event. As a nation we promote education as a key to success. A good education is associated with responsible, intelligent, and productive citizenship. To maintain greatness as a nation, we must strive for excellence as individuals. And the standard of excellence is largely set by our nation's leaders--especially those in the home. Training in the home that guides children in setting the highest standards for their lives is essential to the continuity of morality in our culture. I am encouraged by all parents and students who take on the task of education in the home. There is no bigger responsibility than being a parent. It is my desire that parents be role models to their children. Teachers have always had a place as role models in our society. Each of us can probably remember a teacher who pushed us to achieve more and to reach higher. We are thankful for the leadership of those who promote education and serve as role models. So for home schooling parents, may you find inspiration in performing the dual role of parent and teacher, and may you be doubly rewarded for your efforts. In Missouri, home schooling has had great success. I look forward to the continued contributions that Missouri home schoolers will have in education and to the positive impact home schooled children will have in Missouri's communities and across the United States.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, no President of the United States would declare war on a foreign nation and send young Americans into harm's way overseas without ensuring that they were properly armed and that they had a clear objective. And yet, here at home, the Clinton Administration has declared war on illegal drugs while pursuing a policy of defeatism that is turning young children into sitting targets for international drug lords and domestic suppliers. The President has utterly failed to announce worthy goals or to commit sufficient resources to fighting drug use. We are left with the rhetoric--but not the reality--of a war on drugs. The President's decision to certify Mexico is just the latest sign of surrender in the drug war. Since taking office, the Clinton Administration's record on combating illegal drugs has been a national disgrace. The first sign of surrender in the President's war on drugs came within weeks of his first inauguration. After attacking President Bush for not fighting a real drug war, President Clinton announced that he was going to slash the Office of National Drug Control Policy staff from 146 to 25. The ONDCP, commonly known as the Drug Czar's office, is singularly responsible for coordinating our nation's anti-drug efforts and the new President's first act was to cut the agency by more than 80 percent. But the reductions in the Drug Czar's office foreshadowed more dangerous cuts in federal law enforcement and interdiction agencies. In its fiscal year 1995 budget, the Clinton Administration proposed cutting 621 drug enforcement positions from the DEA, INS, Customs Service, FBI, and Coast Guard. Even worse, between 1992 and September 1995, the Drug Enforcement Administration--the nation's primary drug-fighting agency--lost 227 agent positions, a reduction of more than 6 percent of its force. Mr. President, the Clinton Administration by 1996 had cut the drug interdiction budget 39 percent below the level spent during the last year of the Bush Administration--the same Administration that, four years earlier, candidate Clinton attacked for being soft on drugs. But the signs of the Clinton Administration's surrender are not found solely in budget tables and staffing decisions. The power of the President to curb illicit drug use within our country can also be found in the President's unique platform from which he can implore, persuade, and encourage the American people to make good and moral decisions. He can use what Teddy Roosevelt called the bully pulpit to call Americans to their highest and best, rather than accommodate behavior at its lowest and least. Yet, in this regard, the signs of surrender are everywhere. After more than five years in office, this President's most memorable pronouncements on drug use remain his admission to smoking, but not inhaling marijuana and his later clarification --provided live before MTV's largely teen audience--that if given the opportunity to do it again, he would have inhaled. The President laughed as he made the latter remark. I plan to discuss the consequences of the Administration's drug war surrender in just a moment, but let me just make one point here. Since President Clinton's first year in office, marijuana use among 8th graders has increased 99 percent. I have the feeling the parents of those 8th graders are not laughing, Mr. President. The President also can use his appointment power to influence public policy. Indeed, the President has the authority to choose the Surgeon General of the United States, a person we often hear referred to as our nation's family doctor. When it comes to issues of human health and welfare, the Surgeon General enjoys a bully pulpit similar to that of the President. The President's first choice for Surgeon General was Dr. Jocelyn Elders. Dr. Elders will long be remembered as the Condom Queen for her vocal support of condom distribution in elementary schools. But when Dr. Elders was not busy distributing condoms in schools or extolling the ``public health benefits'' of abortion, she found the time to call for a study of drug legalization, a truly dangerous idea. Until very recently, the President also failed to use his office's power of persuasion to chart an international drug control strategy that included specific performance measures and identifiable goals. As recently as the end of last year, the President and his allies were criticizing the House-passed plan to reauthorize the Drug Czar's office because the plan included hard targets for the Administration to achieve. The only way Members of Congress--and more importantly, American taxpayers--can judge whether or not a government agency is doing its job effectively is to compare its performance to identifiable goals. We spend more than $16 billion annually on anti-drug programs and we need a way to determine whether or not we are getting our money's worth. Although the Administration finally conceded that performance goals are needed, they objected to the standards passed by the House. Among the specific targets the President found objectionable: By the year 2001, overall drug use should be cut in half, down to 3 percent; The availability of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine should be reduced by 80 percent; The purity levels for the same drugs should be reduced by 60 percent; and drug-related crime should be reduced by 50 percent. After the House passed these targets, the Clinton Administration balked. General McCaffrey said the goals were unrealistic and would be counterproductive to the anti-drug effort. Now I recognize that these goals will be difficult to achieve. But it seems to me, Mr. President, that if our goal is to save children from lives marked by drugs, crime, and violence, we have no choice other than to strive for the noble, not just the doable. The Clinton Administration contends that it should set its own objectives and targets. Unfortunately, this Administration does not set the bar high enough. Judging from the goals and targets recently proposed by the Drug Czar's office, it is clear that this Administration has no confidence in its ability to counteract the rise in illegal drug use. Whereas overall teen-age drug abuse has doubled since 1992, the Clinton Administration now proposes to cut such abuse during the next 5 years by just 20 percent. In other words, by 2002--two years after he has completed his second term--the President hopes to reduce youth drug use to 130% of the level when he first took office. If that is victory, I would hate to experience the President's idea of defeat. Unfortunately, if we look around us, we can see overwhelming evidence of defeat. The Clinton Administration's cease-fire in the war on drugs has had all-too-predictable consequences: The proportion of 8th graders using any illicit drug in the prior 12 months has increased 56 percent since President Clinton's first year in office. Marijuana use by 8th graders has increased 99 percent over that same time. Since President Clinton took office, cocaine use among 10th graders has doubled, as has heroin use among 8th graders and 12th graders. LSD use by teens has reached the highest rate since record-keeping started in 1975. The list goes on and on, and yet, Mr. President, the numbers don't tell even half the story. The young lives lost to overdose, the marriages and families torn apart by drug abuse, the high-school dropouts, the children born with little hope of surviving because of her mother's deadly addiction, the victims of crime-filled inner-city streets . . . these are the real casualties of the President's surrender in the drug war. And their numbers are growing. Seen against this history of failure, it becomes clear that the President's decision to certify Mexico is just the latest sign of the President's surrender. Consider for a moment the following: Over the last year, there has not been a single extradition of a Mexican national to the United States on drug charges. Drug-related corruption among Mexican law enforcement officials continues to escalate, with the most obvious and devastating example being the arrest and conviction of Mexico's drug czar on charges of drug trafficking, organized crime and bribery, and association with one of the leading drug-trafficking cartels in Mexico. The Mexican Government also failed to make progress in dismantling drug cartels. In testimony given before a Senate Subcommittee a month ago, DEA Director Thomas Constantine said that major drug cartels in Mexico are stronger today than they were a year ago. Mexican seizures of heroin and methamphetamine were down sharply last year and drug-related arrests declined from an already low level. By any objective criteria, the efforts of the Mexican Government over the past year do not warrant certification. The Senate today could reverse the President's judgment and vote to decertify Mexico, but if history is any guide, we won't. Congress has never overridden a Presidential certification. It seems that some of my colleagues are reluctant to do anything that might possibly embarrass the Mexican Government. Every year, they take to the floor to denounce the corruption and the lack of cooperation by the Mexican officials, but then get weak-kneed when it comes time to withhold the smallest amount of foreign aid or actually sanction Mexico. While these towers of timidity propose launching another warning shot across the bow of the Mexican ship of state, they fail to see that our own culture is sinking under the weight of an illicit drug supply that flows through our porous Southwest border. The facts prove conclusively that the Mexican government has not ``cooperated fully'' with U.S. narcotics reduction goals nor has it taken ``adequate steps on its own'' to achieve full compliance with the goals and objectives established by the 1988 U.N. anti-drug trafficking convention. Under current law, this is the standard by which we are to decide whether or not to certify a foreign government. Mexico's efforts over the past year do not come close to warranting certification. The time for threats and warning shots is over. We should vote today to disapprove of the President's inexplicable decision to certify Mexico. We cannot afford to surrender the war against drugs in America through policies of accommodation and defeatism. Rather than challenging America to her highest and best, the Clinton Administration's drug policy accommodates behavior at its lowest and least. We can and must do better.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a tremendous community which exemplifies citizenship, character, and service to humanity, the Zion Grove Missionary Baptist Church. On January 18, 1998, the members of the Zion Grove Missionary Baptist Church held their long and eagerly anticipated ``Mortgage Burning Party.'' Under the guidance of their respected pastor, the Reverend Frank L. Selkirk III, Ph.D., the Zion Grove Missionary Baptist Church will draw to a close its financial debts and begin to look forward, with faith, hope and love to a future filled with opportunity. The history of this wonderful church has been nothing short of a small blessing. From its humble beginning on October 15, 1938, with a congregation of only eight members, Zion Grove Missionary Baptist Church continued to grow and flourish with each year and each dedicated pastor until it reached its present location at 2801 Swope Parkway in Kansas City, Missouri. This church and the community which comprises it are examples of dedication, perseverance, and commitment to the future. With God's blessing, and the faithful support of the Zion Grove Missionary Baptist Church community, ``The Mortgage Burning Party'' will be a celebration of the blessings that will continue to reward the Zion Grove Missionary Baptist Church.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a tremendous individual who exemplifies citizenship, character, and service to humanity, Helen Cox. Helen Cox of Willow Springs, Missouri has been a foster parent since 1989. Throughout her tenure as a foster parent, Helen has cared for over 150 foster children. Helen has spent countless hours drying tears, rocking children to sleep, and sitting up night after night with children unable to sleep. The golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is exemplified in Helen's home. Through patience and firmness, Helen has taught these children that household tasks, school work and other responsibilities are a part of learning how to survive and thrive in the world. The comfortable country environment, that includes the friendship and therapy of animals, has nurtured many children. Helen recently celebrated her seventy-second birthday and was honored at a reception on December 7, 1997, by the Foster Parent Association of West Plains, Missouri. Even at the age of seventy-two, she is serving others and maintaining frequent contact with many of the children who were placed in her home. It is an honor to commend Helen for her commitment to provide a loving home for the many children she has served as a foster parent.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to spend a few moments speaking about two of America's most fundamental values. These values are embraced by our people across the Nation from sea to shining sea. If we were to inventory values among the American people, I think these would percolate to the top. They are the values of family and the values of work. These values come together when we think about how our workplaces impact families. Sometimes when they come together, it is through collision. This collision takes place when the value of family conflicts with the value of work--the workplace actually competes with the family and the family's needs. Sometimes, though, they can come together through cooperation instead of by collision. I think that is what we ought to seek to encourage in our culture that these two most important values of our culture--work and family--should be able to coexist and to cooperate. They must be able to coexist and cooperate to build a strong America. But when one of these values undermines, erodes or undercuts the other value, we develop tensions that keep us from operating at our highest and best. How we resolve the particular conflicts between these values that are important will determine how well we do in the next century. Most of us want to be survivors in the next century; we don't want to be succumbers. We want to be swimmers; we don't want to be sinkers. We want America to continue to define the world culture. We want the 21st century to be marked as an American century. We can do that if the Congress builds an important framework which allows people to respect these values in cooperation rather than in conflict. If we make it possible for the value of work to be a value which can be elevated without undermining or eroding the value of family. So it is important for us to make sure that, as a Government, that we allow rules to exist and we provide a framework in which both the value of work and the value of family can flourish. Without hard work, we will never make it. Without strong families, we will never make it. Without finding a way to harmonize these competing interests--we will never be able to succeed in the next century. Since 1965, the amount of time that parents spend with their children has dropped 40 percent. This is a decrease of almost half of the amount of time that parents spend with their children. This does not necessarily threaten the work part of the equation, but it certainly indicates that there is a serious challenge to the family side of the equation. These two values of work and family must work together--must be elevated together. And if we have elevated work to the detriment of family, we have to find out ways, we have to seek out ways, we have to search for ways to make it possible for families to spend more time together. A 1993 study found that 66 percent--two out of every three adults surveyed nationwide--wanted to spend more time with their children. How can we begin to restore a balance? How can we restore the capacity of families to have that kind of chemistry within them that builds the strong sense of loyalty, of belonging, and of confidence that provides the basis for transmitting values from one generation to the next? The family is the best department of education; it is the best department of social services and health; it is the best employment training in the world. If we have strong families, we will succeed. How can we make it possible for these 66 percent of American adults who want to spend more time with their children to do so? Fifty-five percent of the adults surveyed are willing to give up some seniority or pay at work in exchange for more personal time. People feel this need to be with their family very strongly. According to the U.S. Department of Labor in its report ``Working Women Count''--and here is the cover of the report. This was the executive summary of the cover from the Women's Bureau, the U.S. Department of Labor. According to that, ``The number one issue women want to bring to the President's attention is the difficulty of balancing work and family obligations.'' That was out of this report from the President's Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, May 1994. In 1940, just 2 years after the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 67 percent of all the families had sort of a traditional structure. Let's go to the next chart. In 1938, only 2 out of 12 women with school-aged children worked outside the home. So for these women, they had lots of time with their children. Only 2 out of 12, 1 out of 6--about 17 percent--only 2 out of 12 worked outside the home. Look at the difference today. By 1995, we had a situation where 9 out of 12 women with school-aged children worked outside the home. This represents a major change in America's families, a substantial change in the structure of the home, a major change in the ability of people to spend time with their children. It is becoming very clear that we need to do something to make it possible, if we can, to allow families to spend time together. By 1995, only 70 percent of families had a traditional structure; 43 percent of all families had two working spouses. In 1995, almost 70 percent of single women headed families with children. That is a real situation where not only do you not have a mom and dad to work to help children together, but you have one-parent families. And if you take that one-parent family into a rigid employment environment where there is no ability to accommodate the needs of the family, you basically have a situation where there is no capacity to meet the needs of children when the work of the family comes in conflict with the work of the workplace. There is a way for us to improve this situation. There is a way for us to help American families meet the needs of their families and the needs of the workplace as well. This solution was recognized as far back as 1945 when the Federal Employee Pay Act was passed to give Federal workers a compensatory time-off option. I want to restate the date. That is 1945. That is a long time ago. In 1945, over half a century ago, Federal workers began to have the ability, instead of taking time-and-a-half pay for overtime hours they worked, to take time off sometime later when they realized, ``Wait a second, all the time- and-a-half pay in the world will never buy me more time with my family if I can't get a break. Could I possibly make it some time so that when I work an extra hour, instead of getting an hour and a half pay for the overtime, I would get time off sometime later to spend with my family?'' This concept was recognized again in 1978 when Congress gave flextime options to the Federal Government. I think it is important to note that that was a major step forward. It took individuals looking down the tunnel of time a little bit to understand there would be more and more women in the work force, more and more families without time spent by parents for children. Among those who were at the forefront of the march to help preserve the capacity of families to spend time with their children is the senior Senator from Alaska, who was part of this 1978 effort to give Federal Government employees options for flextime in addition to comptime. What is important is that in 1994, President Clinton decided that flextime was so valuable that he extended this sort of flexible- working-arrangement time situation to a whole group of individuals in the executive department of Government, because he understood the need that workers and their families have to spend more time together. The Federal workers have it. Here is a little chart: Flexible scheduling today. Who can benefit? Mr. President, 2.9 million Federal employees are eligible for flexible scheduling benefits under the current law. Who can't have it? By law, 59.2 million private-sector workers cannot make the same choices about their work schedules. Special privilege to the Federal worker with flexible scheduling; the absence of this capacity to assist individuals, reinforce the value of family and work together for non-Federal workers. When asked, 8 out of 10 respondents supported continuation of the program in the Federal sector. The General Accounting Office, conducted the study and workers indicated that they approve the program; 72 percent stated they had more flexibility to spend time with their families. Just think of that, flexible working arrangements had helped 72 percent of the Federal employees spend more time with their families--that is something we should encourage--rather than discourage, all Americans to do. What is interesting is that these studies also included that productivity went up. What we are beginning to define here is a win-win situation. The workers have their capacity to spend more time with their family--at the same time--the employer has its capacity elevated because productivity goes up. This defines a new way of looking at the relationship between employees and employers. We need for the next century to see ourselves as teams going forward together, not adversaries that can only move forward if the other moves backward. That is a very important concept as we face the 21st century. We will never do well in the 21st century if we don't understand that we only walk forward together. Seventy-four percent of Federal employees participating in these programs said that alternative work schedules improve their morale. Overwhelmingly, American workers want the same options to be available in the private sector. There is a group of those who survey public attitudes, Penn and Schoen, these are pollsters who often work for President Clinton. Their studies show that 75 percent favor allowing employees the choice of getting time off, time and a half either in wages or as time off. Three out of four, 7\1/2\ out of 10 people surveyed said they would like to have that choice--they just want a choice. Fifty-seven percent said they would take time off instead of being paid, if the option were available, from time to time. What is interesting is that you don't have to make a choice under these proposals to always take time as comptime and never get paid for it. As a matter of fact, you can take it as comptime when you have something, some needs, arising in your families, not take it as comptime if you need the money more--it is your decision. Unlike the current situation when workers have no choice, no choice whatsoever, as to whether time is more valuable than money. If you decide you want it as comptime and later on change your mind because you need the money, the proposal allows you to cash in the comptime. Fifty-eight percent of those who would choose the option of time off would choose it more often than pay, they say. This indicates that there is a strong demand and a capacity of American workers who believe they could make their own choice here. They would like simply to have the choice. In fact, a recent poll by Money magazine found that 64 percent of the American people and 68 percent of women would rather have their overtime in the form of time off than in cash wages. We wouldn't be here to tell people that they had to take it in time off, to say they must take it in wages or must take it in time off. I think what we ought to do is allow people to have the flexibility to meet their needs at the moment, to meet the needs of their families at the moment. There are times when they might prefer to work a little extra and have the extra cash, but there are times when they would be asked to work overtime and they would like to say, ``You know, I have been working a lot, I need to spend time with my family, we need to take a day off together, we need to go to the zoo, we need to go to the basketball game, we need to see our son and daughter in a play; how about I work the extra time you are asking me and I get time and a half off later on?'' Eighty-two percent of the people said they support the Republican proposal to give working men and women more control over their time. This is the challenge we face. We have two competing values in America: the value of work, which is understood as one of the primary values of our culture, and the value of family, family the primary institution of our culture. We shouldn't have them colliding and conflicting in the law. We should have them cooperating, and we should find ways to give people more options to make choices that respect both of those values. Let me make a few points about the amendment which I propose. First of all, it does not alter the 40-hour workweek. It is a new section at the end of the Fair Labor Standards Act that does not revise the 40- hour workweek, and it is voluntary, totally voluntary. Anyone who wants to operate under the current law could continue to operate that way without discrimination, and if there are any violations of this provision, the penalties are doubled for violations. It just provides that there is a potential for compensatory time off when time is more valuable than money to individuals. There would be limits so that we wouldn't have a situation where people might be putting a lot of compensatory time off into a bank and then if the employer went out of business or were to leave the area that the person, his or her time off or income would be jeopardized. Accumulation would be limited to 160 hours. At the end of every year, any accumulated time would be cashed out so that if you didn't use your comptime by the end of the year, you just got time-and-a-half pay. Or any time prior to taking the time off that a worker decides, ``Hey, I don't think I am going to be able to afford to take that time off, I just would like to have my money instead,'' the law would allow the worker to just take the time-and-a-half pay instead of the time off for comptime. Under this amendment, cashing-out your comp time bank is an absolute right. There is a strong provision in this amendment which would allow for a reasonable use, at the employee's option, of the time off if it does not unduly disrupt the employer's operation. The undue-disruption criterion has been used in the employment setting for quite some time now, so that there is relatively good understanding that employers are required to make a significant showing, and can't just unreasonably deny an employee's request to take that time off. Sometimes people worry about whether or not there would be some sort of coercion under this proposal. I think it is important for us to understand that there are strong protections to prohibit coercion. The protections that are provided in this law would be far greater than the protections that are enjoyed by the State and local and Federal Government workers as it relates to comptime now. For instance, for State and local workers, workers can be required to participate--as a condition of employment--in comptime provisions. Ours would be totally voluntary in the private sector. So that is a protection, a safeguard, against coercion of any worker who didn't want to participate in comptime. This would be an authorization for an employer and employee to work together, but an employee who chose not to participate in getting comptime off could, with total assurance, have the resources instead, and even if the worker decided to take the comptime off and later changed his or her mind, just like that, the money has to be paid. Management can decide when a worker must use comptime under the State and local workers' law. Not so under ours. Management cannot dictate, and the workers would have the right to make choices about when to use them. Under the State and local workers' law, comptime is paid in cash only when the worker leaves the job. Under the State and local situation, in order to convert your comptime to cash, you have to leave your job. Not so under the provision of the amendment which we are proposing. Any time you want to convert your comptime to cash, you could automatically do it, as a matter of right. Just say, I want to change from the comptime which I have in the bank, time I had intended to take off, and I would like to have the overtime pay instead. Under S. 4, participation is strictly voluntary. It cannot be required. This is in stark contrast to the required participation condition of State and local workers which currently is the law now. Under this proposal, workers cannot be coerced into using their comptime. For state and local government workers--management can decide when the comptime is to be used. Under this proposal, workers cannot be coerced, comptime must be cashed out on request under our proposal and must be cashed out at the end of every year. You can only cash out your comptime under the State and local provisions which have been in effect now for the last, basically, dozen years. You can only get your money when you leave the job. Under our proposal, you get the money anytime you decide you want the money. Now, in addition to the compensatory time option to make the values of family and work harmonious--so that they are in cooperation, not in conflict--so that they work together in harmony and unity to provide a better setting for workers, there is another thing besides comptime. It is called flexible schedules. One of the most popular programs in the Federal Government is the ability to--the ability to--allocate hours from one week to the next and to figure the 40-hour week over a 2-week period. A lot of Federal workers have done this so that they can take a day off, an extra day off every other week. When a lot of folks are asked the question, would you like to have every other Friday off or every other Monday off or would you like to have a weekday off every other week, they respond very positively to that. In order to do that, sometimes you will have to allow people, as a matter of choice, to say, ``I'll work more than 40 hours in one week in return for working less the next week.'' So that the most popular schedule among Federal workers in flexible working arrangements is to work 45 hours the first week, 35 hours the next week, and in so doing by working 9 hours a day for most of the days, have every other Friday off. Now this gives people a chance to take a weekday off so that they can go to the schoolhouse and talk to teachers or they can attend events or maybe even just go to the motor vehicle department and stand in line so they can get their license renewed. Or maybe just be told that they did not bring the right supporting documents and get sent home to get whatever is necessary. But this ability to have flex hours at the option of the workers--at the request of the workers--so that people can take an extra day off every other week and still preserve their paycheck and still have the complete capacity, is an important thing. This flexible credit hour provision is important because not all workers earn overtime. In other words, comptime alone will not solve the problem. Workers who do not earn overtime also would like to have some time off so they can just rearrange their schedule but would be precluded from doing so under a comp time only plan. Flexible scheduling. Sure, lots of people who work overtime can take Friday off every other week, if they are working enough overtime. The vast majority of people do not get overtime, but they would like to have flexible scheduling. They would like to have some time off in which they can meet the needs of their families. Only 20 percent of workers who get paid by the hour report receiving overtime during a typical week--only one out of five. Seventy-two percent of those reporting overtime compensation are men. So that some of the people who need flexibility--women--need to be able to take some time off, but are not the ones who are getting the capacity to take time off. Comptime alone would help only 1.9 million working women. That is only 4.5 percent of all the working women in the private sector. Other flexible scheduling options: Instead of helping just 4.5 percent of the women, flexible scheduling options would help 67 percent of all working women. In addition to the comptime for people who actually get overtime, we ought to be working with individuals who are only going to get 40 hours a week. We can do this by giving them the opportunity to tailor that 40 hours a week in ways that gives them time off to spend with their families, spend with their children, or if they do not have families, they can spend it on themselves. The idea that individuals should not be able to agree with their employers to arrange things so they can have a more fulfilling life--to be with their children or take care of themselves--is an idea of the past. American workers know how to accommodate their needs and should be able to agree with their employers in a framework of protections to do that. Comptime would only help 5 million working men. That is only 10 percent of the working men in the private sector. The other flexible scheduling options provided in this amendment would benefit 61 percent of all men working in the private sector. Who would gain from flexible scheduling? Mr. President, 59.2 million private sector workers would have new choices in setting work schedules and making time for their family and friends--30.4 million men, 28.8 million women. These are individuals with families; these are individuals who have something that competes with the workplace for their interests. We should not make it a situation where in order to do your job you cannot be a parent or be a good parent or in order to be a good parent you have to be a bad employee. We should provide the flexibility of scheduling. We should tailor the laws of this country to make it possible for individuals--to make it possible for individuals--to be able to meet the needs of their families and the workplace. We mentioned earlier, when we surveyed the situation in Government, the General Accounting Office said two things happened: Morale and productivity went up, and worker satisfaction and their ability to spend time with their families went up. Wait a second. Here is a win- win situation. The value of work went up and the value of family went up. When Government can provide a basis for enhancing the value of families and enhancing the value of work in this culture, we ought to seize that opportunity. Too much of what we do impairs the value of these cultures. Well, there are others who have said there are other solutions. Frankly, the solution that has been proposed on the other side of the aisle is more unpaid leave, more of the so-called Family and Medical Leave. And that is a tragedy because unpaid leave exacerbates one of the problems that families are enduring--that is, they need resources. A lot of families would not have both adults in the work force if they did not need the money. So telling people that they should not get money, that they should take unpaid leave, is saying, sure, we know you are having a problem spending time with your family and a problem funding your family, so you should take more time with your family and, therefore, have greater difficulty funding it. That is a vice. That is a crack into which we should not let families fall. That exacerbates the tension between the home place and the workplace. It does not lift them both together. Let me give you some data which I found to be stunning. The Family and Medical Leave Commission report, which included notable Members of this Chamber, reported that in order to make up for the money people lost when they took family leave, 28 percent of the families had to borrow money--go further into debt. This basically says, if you need to have some time off, you have to go into debt to spend time with your family. We should not try to force people into financial crisis. As a matter of fact, 10.4 percent of the families who took family and medical leave had to go on welfare in order to accommodate the needs that arose from the lack of resources when they took family and medical leave. And this is stunning, 42 percent--41.9 percent; let me not overstate it--41.9 percent had to put off paying bills. I don't know about most folks, but if I have to put off paying a bill, that is a matter of serious tension. If you have to go on welfare just to make up for your family and medical leave that you took for your time off, that is a matter of serious tension. Or if you have to go into debt, 28.1 percent had to borrow money under the family and medical leave provisions in order to meet the needs of their family. That is serious tension. I think it would be far better if, instead of asking people to take a pay cut, which you have to do in order to address the needs of your family under family and medical leave, that you should allow us to have flexible working arrangements where you might have compensatory time off as a result of overtime you have worked or you have a flexible working schedule that you have designed. Well, the provisions in this bill are not the kinds of things that are new or novel or have not been tested. Since 1945, comptime has been available to Federal workers. We have seen how it works. Since 1985, it has been available to State and local workers. We know how it works. And we have designed a superior product with more choices for workers in this amendment than are existent for Federal workers and for State and local workers who like the program. It seems like common sense. We offered this during the 104th Congress, the Work and Family Integration Act. It was selected as one of the top 10 agenda items on the Republican side of the Senate for the 105th Congress. This past summer the bill was filibustered by the other side of the aisle. Yesterday, there was a lot of talk in this Chamber about having time for debate, having time for amendments, and the need to have amendments and debate. Well, you know, last year we brought up the Family Friendly Workplace Act. There was not a single amendment brought forward by the individuals who opposed this on the other side of the aisle. Not one amendment came to the floor, and yet they would not let us vote. They talked and talked and talked. I stood on this floor and encouraged them to offer amendments to address their concerns. I encouraged them to offer these amendments so the issues could be resolved--so we could end up with a product they could support. Not one amendment was offered. We did fail to get two cloture votes while I, along with many other Republicans, stood on the floor and asked for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to offer their amendments. They simply were not forthcoming. We even had Republican Members come down to offer our own amendments to address some of their concerns. But we were unable to because Democrats were stonewalling the issue. Eventually President Clinton rhetorically supported comptime. He even spoke to me personally about it. The very day of the last failed cloture vote, I was told that flextime is the most important thing we could do for American families by the President himself. But when we tried to begin negotiations, it became a series of unreturned phone calls while making continued statements to the press of the importance of flextime and their desire to compromise--but no real negotiations. Not only did I try to get the White House to sit down and talk, so did the chairman of the Labor Committee and Congressman Ballenger, the sponsor of the House comptime bill. We were told, ``Wait until we finish the budget,'' and then ``Wait until the fast track vote,'' and wait and wait and wait. I am reminded of the old saying in the Ozarks, ``Wait is what broke the bridge down.'' I think the bridge collapsed under the waiting of the bridge. We are still waiting. Well, we will not wait idly by while millions of Americans are denied the ability to balance their work and family demands. This is something the American people deserve. This is something that is essential to the survival of our culture. We must respect our families. We must give them the opportunity to survive, and we must have a competitive and productive work force. And there are ways for this to happen. We must harmonize these values. They must work together in cooperation. They cannot work antagonistically in conflict. This is an issue that the Democrats in Congress and the President will not be able to make disappear. I will continue to bring this issue up at every opportunity. We have been accused of being unwilling to compromise. Well, we have made changes in the bill to try to address concerns that have been raised. We added bankruptcy protections to ensure that employees will be able to collect accumulated comptime if their employer declares bankruptcy. We limited the number of hours that an employee can accrue from 240 hours to 160 to make sure that a person does not get too many hours of comptime out there and somehow it might not be fulfilled. We have put a sunset provision on the bill saying, look, we are only trying it for 5 years. Let the American people find out about it. If it is abusive to the workers, it will be over in 5 years. It will not be abusive. If this was an abuse of workers, they would have curtailed it after 5 years in 1950, from the time it started in 1945; or for State and local workers in 1990, after it was started in 1985. We completely eliminated the flexible credit hour provisions of the bill so that we are just talking about flexible scheduling. This amendment only permits workers to move 10 hours from one week to the next, but that would provide a basis for a day off every other week. We will find out who really supports giving workers the flexible work schedules that workers desperately need. We will do so by asking that this bill move forward. We will find out who believes that it is appropriate for Government to allow flexible work schedules for their own employees and for salaried workers but not for laborers, those who have built this great Nation. Everybody has flexible work time. All the Government does, all the salaried workers. The boardroom has it, the people on salary. Local and State governments have it. But who doesn't have it? Hourly workers in America, the people who built this country. They are in the minority now. They don't have it. I believe it is time for them to have this same kind of capacity to be with their families the way others have found it to be with theirs. We also will find out who really cares about women's positions in the workplace. It is interesting to note that Working Woman Magazine says this: Poll after poll shows that Americans want to spend time with their families and cite flexible scheduling as a top priority. . . . Give women what they want, not what you (Members of Congress) think they need. That is what Working Woman Magazine said. This is a fight that must be continued. I believe that this is a fight that should be continued for the hourly workers of America, who don't happen to be Federal workers, who don't happen to be State workers, who don't happen to be local government workers, who don't happen to be salaried workers, who don't happen to inhabit the walnut-paneled boardrooms of America, but do happen to have families and do happen to have the same kinds of needs. President Clinton and the Democratic platform have all endorsed flextime as a way to help Americans balance the needs of work and family. It is time for that endorsement to become a reality. It is time for Congress to stop ignoring the serious challenges that are facing families in today's workplace and give American workers what they want and need. This issue will not go away. This issue of giving working Americans the ability to balance work and family must be addressed. I am not going to tie up this supplemental appropriations bill with this amendment at this time. But I lay this before the Congress as a clear signal and indication that this is a must-address issue. I will bring this issue back to the floor on an insistent basis. While we are meeting the emergency needs of Government, we cannot continue to ignore the needs, emergency needs, of families and of the American work force, particularly those who have built this Nation as hourly workers. So I will withdraw my amendment at this time. I will indicate that this is a must-address issue, but I will not allow it to foreclose or preclude or otherwise impair our ability to address the emergency needs of troops that are deployed by this country overseas. But I will say that neither will I allow this body to ignore this issue and thereby ignore the needs of American families, just as we are not going to ignore the needs of the American Government. Mr. President, I ask for the opportunity to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. I am pleased to have this opportunity today. We are speaking about a supplemental appropriations measure that relates to emergencies, about the needs that individuals in Government have. I would like to talk about emergencies that relate to the needs of America's families. Frankly, I want to talk about how we value women in our culture. Over the last 2 months, our sensibilities have been assaulted with the national debate on the President's behavior toward women in the workplace. I am worried that this preoccupation with the President's alleged sexual advances in the workplace is taking the focus off the real concerns of working women everywhere. Working men and women face a unique challenge in the workplace. Not only must they navigate the choppy waters of sexual politics in their own jobs, but at the end of the work day, they head home to their second full-time jobs as moms and dads. Working moms wake up each morning, hustle to ensure that the toddler is bathed, changed, fed and dressed, all the while keeping track of the 7-year-old or 4-year-old or a 3-year-old, doublechecking homework, packing lunch. With all these balls in the air, working moms must then get dressed and head off to the workplace, stopping to drop off the youngest at grandma's or at preschool. Then it begins again after 8 hours on the job. These are monumental challenges that America's supermoms meet and beat every day. Yet, we in Congress have been unable to extend to working moms and dads an invaluable option for the workplace. For 2 years, the Senate has debated and declined to pass flexible work arrangements that would grant these working moms and dads and all workers the freedom to adjust their work schedules to meet the needs of their families. Flexible working arrangements could allow a mom to leave work early on a Friday when the nurse at the first grader's school calls to ask that the child be taken home. That mom could take that afternoon off and make up the missed hours the following Monday, or any day that next week, without suffering a loss of pay. This is currently illegal under today's outdated labor laws, and we find that America's families are in a state of real need. And while we are looking to meet the needs of Government, I think it is appropriate that we work as well to meet the needs of America's families. I think it is time that we fix this absurd result in the law. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in today's fast-paced, information-based society, the rigid and inflexible provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act have paralyzed those whom it was meant to help. It is interesting to note what Franklin Delano Roosevelt's words were: ``Those who toil in factory and on farm to obtain a fair day's work'' were to be the focal point of the Fair Labor Standards Act. That Fair Labor Standards Act now deprives employees of the right to structure their daily lives on and off the job to meet the responsibilities they have both at work and at home. It is not the employer who holds the employee in this Catch-22. It is, however, the Government. Inside-the-beltway elitists who think they know best continue to deprive America's working families of the right to make decisions which employees think meet their circumstances best. The charge to America's lawmakers now and into the next century is to restructure the rules regulating the workplace to help increase long- term productivity. How do we build a workplace for the next century rather than try to recreate the workplace of the last century? How do we reflect the needs of the American family as it currently exists, rather than try to impose upon the American family, as it currently exists, the laws which were shaped 70 years ago to deal with families as they then existed? The days are past when the Federal Government can treat employment policy and employee productivity as if they were wholly unrelated. Our ability to compete in an international marketplace of intense competition is going to be largely dependent on our ability to provide for workers an accommodating, comfortable work environment where they can both meet the demands of the workplace and the marketplace and also meet the very compelling demands of their families. I just might add that not only is this an issue of economic productivity, in terms of this ability to sort of boost production and boost moral and boost the sense in which individuals are able to work effectively; this is a matter that relates to whether or not the most fundamental unit of American culture, the family, can be successful, or whether we are going to make it impossible, whether our Government will be at war with the values of American families. I don't think there are very many people anyplace in this culture who wouldn't underscore the fact that when moms and dads can spend time with their kids that those kids do better, that we build a strong future. And yet we have to make sure that our culture does not have rules and regulations which make it impossible for moms and dads to accommodate the needs of the youngsters. As Washington's establishment clings to the workplace policies of the 1930s, which assume employer-employee relationships that are always adversarial, we have to make sure that Government itself does not become adversarial to the fundamental values of American culture and American life. Prime among those values is the value we place on families. And essential to that value on families is the ability of moms and dads to find time to spend with their children. The law has assumed for too long that if something is good for the employer, it is bad for the employee. And if it is good for the employee, it must be bad for the employer. That cannot be so. We will not succeed in the marketplace of the next century assuming that we must always fight, that we must always be antagonistic or we cannot be successful. As a matter of fact, we know that the real key to success is teamwork, employers and employees working together, accommodating each other's needs, making sure that what is good for one is good for the other. We have a great opportunity to do that by giving employers and employees the opportunity to have adjustable work schedules and to allow for moms and dads not only to meet the demands of the workplace, but allow them to accommodate the needs of their families. America's employers have found that this adversarial basis for writing the employment law, which happened to have characterized the way it was written in the 1930s, is counterproductive and it hurts our competitiveness. However, our companies are managing within the narrow constraints of the Federal law to establish progressive employment practices in cooperation with their employees. Employees are becoming owners of their companies through employee stock option plans, and profit-sharing incentives are on the rise. The benefit of giving employees greater input in their decisionmaking processes is making command and control style situations far less acceptable. So what we have to do really is to find a way to accommodate these competing demands of the home place and the workplace if we are going to be successful. Let me just stop for a moment to give some data about the difference between the family as it was and family as it is. First of all, back in the 1930s, when we originally crafted our Fair Labor Standards Act, about one out of every six or seven --about 16 percent--of the moms of school-aged children were in the work force. That means that five out of six--or six out of seven--were in the home place. And so the need for flexible working arrangements was not the same as it is now. There has been a virtual sea change in the work dynamic in America in the way in which the work force is configured. Very frankly, now, instead of one out of six or one out of seven being moms of school-aged children who are in the workplace, now four out of five moms of school- aged children are in the workplace. So that the vast majority of moms of school-aged children are working as opposed to the vast majority in the 1930s not working. And this means that our needs are different. It means that it is impossible for us to get the same kind of return on a legal system which no longer provides a basis for meeting the needs of the culture since the culture's needs are vastly different. There are some companies that are going to very significant ends to try to help their employees, companies like TRW, Eastman Kodak, Computer Sciences Corporation, the insurance company Mass Mutual. They are finding ways to make their employees' lives better by offering what they can in terms of flexible working arrangements. However, the Federal law limits the extent to which they can offer these benefits. I might just add that these companies are trying--they are trying--to match what is available in the Federal system for Federal employees. They are trying in many ways to match what is available at the State system for State employees. But they cannot because they are prevented by the law. They have sought to provide flexible working arrangements, but if you are trying to have flexible working hours, it has to be within a week. There can be no change that goes over from one week to another in the employment week. That means generally that if you need to make up an hour that you want to miss on Friday afternoon, you cannot make it up on the next Monday unless you are a Federal Government employee. Oddly enough, the Federal workers have had that privilege since 1978. And what is interesting about it is that Federal workers have had it not only since 1978, but it has been vastly successful. When the General Accounting Office, for example, decided to inventory the extent to which individuals in the Federal system respond constructively to flexible working times, they found that 9 out of 10 Federal workers who had an opinion on flextime said that it was good--it was very good--9 out of 10. It is very hard to find 9 out of 10 Federal workers who will agree on virtually anything. So the Federal Government workers find that it is a very good way to try to meet the competing demands of the home place and the workplace. And secondly, not only is flextime highly regarded in the Federal system, but comptime is the ability to say, look, I have worked a little overtime, instead of paying me time and a half for that overtime, will you give me time and a half off at another time so I can spend time with my family? That is a very popular program with Federal workers. So popular was that with workers at the Federal level that it has been extended, that capacity to be involved in that kind of operation has been extended to other Government workers, particularly at the State and local level. So we have a real interesting situation where the universe of workers is not treated fairly or equally. Governmental workers had the opportunity for flextime and comptime. Both at the State level they have comptime, and at the Federal level they have comptime. They have flexible working arrangements at the Federal level. They simply do not in the private sector. No comptime in the private sector. It is against the law to have comptime in the private sector, and when it goes from one week to the next. These kinds of privileges, these kinds of opportunities really would make it a lot easier on our families. They would give parents the ability to go and attend to a sick child. They would give parents the ability to attend events where children are being honored or children are performing. They would frequently give the opportunity to individuals who had built up some comptime to take some time off, perhaps extend a vacation or provide for a 3-day weekend without sacrificing their salaries. This benefit, which is available to Government workers in virtually every level, is not available to workers in the private sector who are paid by the hour. But interestingly enough, salaried workers have pretty much had the ability to have flexible working arrangements for quite some time. The salaried worker takes a 2-hour lunch break to take care of personal business or leaves early to go to a child's soccer game. The hourly worker who sits beside the salaried worker is tied to his or her desk and has to deprive his or her family of that same kind of attention. Now, this result is not due to their employers being unwilling to help. This result is due to the Federal Government's policy--our law under the Fair Labor Standards Act--which makes flexible working arrangements and comptime for private-sector workers illegal. Some of these hourly workers have come to Washington to tell their stories about how Federal policies impact their everyday lives. One of those individuals I remember who came was Arlyce Robinson. She was a worker who had a great story to tell about working on an hourly basis, and the snow storm that hit the town, hit Washington, DC, as a matter of fact. They had to send workers home, and said, you can't work--well, they closed the offices for a day. The workers wanted to make up that day in the next week. But in order to make up that day in the next week, those 8 hours which they missed, those hours would have had to have been paid as overtime. The employer could not afford to have a 50 percent increase in his labor costs for that time, so those workers simply were unable to make that time up the next week. That is a serious problem for individuals who are on that kind of a schedule and who are not on salary but are on an hourly wage. Leslie Langford is a secretary at Mass Mutual in Springfield, MA. Her husband is a printer. They have a son who has just had his first birthday and a daughter about 6 years old. She put it this way: I've been an hourly employee with Mass Mutual for 14 years. As a full-time employee and mother of two young children, including a child just over a year old, it is one of the most valuable commodities in my life. And I can't afford to waste any of my time, like many of you. She says: I find it a challenge to juggle the needs of my employer and my family. She wants to have the ability to have comptime and flextime in the private sector. She put it this way: Family-friendly legislation such as this is not only desperately needed but long overdue in this country to benefit working parents and their children. So you have situations where individuals who work by the hour simply are not allowed by the law to cooperate with their employers to develop work schedules which will accommodate the competing needs of the home place and the workplace. As a result, families suffer. Now, as I mentioned, salaried workers frequently get flexible schedules because salaried workers do not punch the clock. The boardroom and the managers have flexible schedules in that respect. Government employees have flexible schedules because they have the authority under the Federal Government. In 1978, Congress recognized the benefit of flexible working arrangements and passed the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act. And the Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, was the Senator who helped shepherd that act into existence. That act allowed the Federal Government employees to experiment with flexible work schedules, which are still illegal in the private sector. The program allows hourly workers to work an extra hour one week in order to work an hour less the next week. As a matter of fact, it goes beyond that. Sometimes people work 45 hours one week, so they only have to work 35 hours the next week. By doing so, they can arrange their time so they have every other Friday off. There are lots of parents who would like to have the capacity to take every other Friday off or a weekday off every other week. These authorities, which make it possible for Federal employees to have flexible work schedules, are specific in the law to Government employees alone. And the law forbids private workers to have the same kind of situation. I know of one family in my home State of Missouri, a family in the St. Louis area where there is a Federal worker--one of the spouses is a Federal worker--the other is a private sector worker. One has the privilege of flexible working arrangements, the other does not. The disparity is stark. And the burden inordinately falls on the worker who has the flexible work capacity because of the ability of that worker to get flexibility in the area of governmental work. But I do not think you should have to work for the Government or should have to be a salaried worker in the management pool in order to be able to be a good mom or dad. You should be able to do it because our Government should not be at war with the values of this culture. Our Government should be reinforcing the values of the American culture and strengthening our families--not attacking them. And a failure on the part of Government to allow for flexible working arrangements, a failure on the part of Government to allow people to work with their employees to have family-friendly working arrangements, is simply a way for Government to attack our values rather than to underscore our values. As a matter of fact, it was as far back as 1945 that Congress recognized that when an employee paid by the hour works overtime hours, that monetary compensation does not always make up for the time that the worker misses with his or her family. Now, flexible work arrangements, which I have mentioned, the ability to assign work from one week to next week, to take fewer hours of work in one week and take more hours in the next week, that is a very popular program in the Federal Government. That is flextime. The compensatory time is simply when you are being asked to work overtime, you have the right to request that some of what you do by way of overtime be reflected not in additional salary but you can take some time off. The overtime rules in our culture generally are, when you are asked to work overtime, you get time and a half. But some people realize no matter how much time and a half they get paid, that doesn't help them get more time with their families. So occasionally they say, ``Instead of paying time and a half, will you give me time and a half off instead of the payment, so instead of me working the full week next week, I could take time and a half off in those hours; I would still be paid as if I worked a full week, but I get the time off to be with my family.'' Now, that became a possibility in the Federal Government system back in 1945. In that recognition, Congress amended the Federal Employee Pay Act to allow the Federal Government employees the choice of being compensated for overtime work with either money or time. Of course, in 1985--it took 40 years--the Congress gave this same choice to State and local employees, the ability of an employee to say, ``I would like to have some time off; instead of being paid time and a half, how about time and a half off in the next pay period or at some time down the road.'' Time can be more valuable than money, and certainly when it relates to our families that can be true. That has never been more true than it is today. Yet some Members of Congress continue to fight giving the same rights to private-sector employees. A Family Friendly Workplace Act would give hourly workers this same choice. President Clinton recognized the benefits of flexible work schedules when he directed the use of flexible working arrangements for executive branch employees. On July 11 of 1994, the President of the United States, President Clinton, said, ``Broad use of flexible work arrangements to enable Federal employees to better balance their work and family responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job satisfaction, while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.'' The President has clearly recognized the value of flexible working arrangements with an Executive order. He states that the broad use-- broad use, not narrow use--of these arrangements to allow workers to come to agreement with their employers is where we can find win-win situations--better for the worker, better for the employer. What does he say is the consequence? Better balance of their work and family responsibilities--I underscore that; thank goodness the President believes in that and cares about it--and he says increased employee effectiveness and job satisfaction. Wait a second, here is job satisfaction and effectiveness, boosting productivity, and on the other hand we have a win-win situation for the employees, with better service for their family. This is not the old antagonism of, ``It can't be good for the employer unless it is bad for the employee,'' or saying, ``It can't be good for the employee unless it is bad for the employer.'' No; this is an opportunity to move forward in labor policy as saying yes, let's make it good for the employee and also make it good for the employer; let's authorize people to cooperate and authorize them to act as a team and to improve their performance. Unfortunately, though, private-sector employees are denied this same right. As I indicated before, salaried people have it; Government people have it, at the State and local level; the boardroom has it. But individuals working by the hour are a minority, frankly, of individuals working in America now. When you consider Government workers and salaried workers, you get individuals working by the hour. Our labor law of the 1930s prevents them from having this benefit. It makes illegal the opportunity of these individuals to collaborate, to confer with, to cooperate with their employers to be able to serve their families more effectively. If everyone agrees that flexibility is good for Federal Government employees, for salaried workers, everybody appears to say it works for salaried people, for America's boardrooms, why is the group of hard- working Americans, the hourly-paid individuals, why are they being discriminated against? Why can't they have this? The laborers of this Nation--stock clerks, mechanics, factory workers, clerical workers, store clerks, baggage handlers, gas station attendants--the list goes on and on--people who actually serve America, who build America, who make it possible for this country to run, why is it that they are discriminated against by having a law prohibiting flexible working arrangements and prohibiting compensatory time arrangements? Because Congress has decided that they cannot make these decisions for themselves; is that it? Is it that the Congress feels the backbone of the Nation doesn't have the requisite intellect to figure out whether they would be better served by time and a half off instead of time-and-a-half pay? That somehow these private sector workers who work by the hour are not as bright as the Government workers who work by the hour and therefore don't have the capacity to make these judgments? Surely that can't be the case. I know that it is not the case. Frequently during my opportunity to return to my home State, I spend time working in jobs in a variety of settings. I have sacked groceries, I have sacked seed corn, I have worked to manufacture windows, I have worked in a whole variety of settings, and I have learned one thing-- that the American people are bright people. They know whether they need time off. They know whether they would rather have time with their families or overtime pay, and they would, by far, appreciate the opportunity to be able to cooperate so that they could make that choice. The poll data on this issue bears that out. The American people do not believe that Government should prohibit them from making these kinds of decisions and choices. As a matter of fact, they think that big Government, which would prohibit that kind of awareness and activity, is sad and that it deprives them of their ability to serve their family. Now the Family Friendly Workplace Act is an act that is designed to correct the inequity. It recognizes that hourly workers, the people who build America, should have the opportunity to cooperate with their employers to work out arrangements, to help those hourly workers find time to balance the demands of the family and the workplace. The legislation will drag the Fair Labor Standards Act into the realities of the working family of the 1990s instead of the 1930s. The bill would permit the fair labor standards rigid 40-hour maximum workweek schedule to be modified only if consented to by the employee. This is important. There are those who say we can't really expect this to be a fair situation and this will be an abused situation. These provisions in the law that we are promoting in the Family Friendly Workplace Act will double the penalties that would normally come from overtime violations. They will strengthen the hands of the worker to be treated fairly. These will not provide a place where the worker is in jeopardy. They will provide an opportunity for the worker to make good decisions. I believe it is important for us to make sure that we have those protections. Under the law as proposed, we have strengthened substantially any penalty for an abusive corporation, any penalty for an employer that says that the worker must work overtime and not be compensated. There are a number of safeguards. Let me say this, the law provides this is at the option of the worker. So if the worker says, ``I would like to take time and a half off down the road, instead of having time-and-a- half pay, I would like to be able to do that,'' that gives the worker that option. But in order to protect the worker in that option, we have made it possible that any time after that decision is made the worker is eligible to change his or her mind. So immediately, the next week, 2 weeks later, or any time prior to taking the time and a half off, the worker is able to say, ``Cash me out, I want the money.'' This is a little bit of a burden on the employer, because the employer can't count on not having to pay the money. The employer will have to maintain a readiness to cash it out if it is overtime that was worked for pay instead of work for compensatory time. But employers are willing to do this. Employers are also willing to provide this option because they want to help workers meet these needs. So there is a safeguard in the bill that it gives the worker the right to cash it out at any time. It also provides that at the end of the year, if there is a great accumulation or if there is any accumulation of compensatory time, the time is cashed out so that the money is given. This is designed to make it so that there aren't inordinate opportunities or accumulations of compensatory time that are never paid off. As a matter of fact the company will have to pay at the end of every year, any unused compensatory time. So you have the ability of the worker to cash in the compensatory time at any time. You have the requirement that the company pay off the compensatory time at the end of the year. You have elevated penalties-- basically, double the normal penalties--in the event there is any abuse here. And I think you get the message that the Family Friendly Workplace Act is designed to be friendly to families but it is not designed to force families into any kind of a situation that they would not otherwise be involved in. They don't have to take overtime as time off. They can take overtime as pay, and that option enures to them any time prior to taking it as time off. Of course, you couldn't take the time off and then demand to be paid for it. Obviously, that would be inappropriate. The most successful corporations in America reflect the new realities of American life. They are decentralized, flexible, they are nonhierarchical. Meanwhile, our workplace laws for the private sector are, unfortunately, stuck in a time warp of centralized, hierarchal, one size, so-called, fits all, and we found out that one size fits none. America understands that there isn't any single way things are done for everyone. We need flexibility. We need to be able to accommodate different appeals, different needs, different styles of living, kinds of living. I think we need to be able to accommodate individuals in this respect. Congress has ignored the realities faced in the workplace and families too long. American workers need the Government to get out of the way so that Americans can work in partnership with and in cooperation with their employers, not just against their employers. That is what will characterize America in the next century, if we are successful. Now, I believe it is essential that we act on flextime and comptime this year. The American people, at about 80 percent of the people, believe this is something we ought to do. This has been delayed over and over again. The Democrats delayed this benefit on a number of occasions last year, and today there were individuals from the other side of the floor saying how they want to debate, want to be able to bring amendments to the floor. In our last effort to bring this to the floor, we brought it to the floor and those on the other side of the aisle would not bring any amendments. They would not allow us to go to a vote. They would not bring amendments. They would just talk because they were not interested in amendments. They were not interested in negotiations. There were no serious negotiations. They were just interested in stalling. They were just interested in filibustering. They were just interested in prohibiting the American people from having these kinds of flexible, working arrangements at the salaried-worker level. Now we know they can't stop them from having them at the hourly level. They can't stop them at the salaried-worker level. They already have those arrangements. We know Government workers have these arrangements already, too. Today we heard a lot of speeches about how we need to debate openly and bring amendments to the floor, how we need to make sure that there is lots of discussion and we get votes on a variety of things. I think that is an important concept that I would like to see honored as it relates to this agenda for the American people. We are going to debate and act on flextime this year. I can indicate with a relatively high degree of confidence that this is a Senator who is going to do everything possible to make sure that we get that done. I think it is important, because it is an agenda that is important to the American people. There will be those who talk about other ways to try and help the American people. I know last year they said what we really need is a different plan for more medical and family leave. The family and medical leave provisions in the law now which allow a worker to say to the employer, ``I've got a sickness in the family and I'm going to take time to leave for that sickness,'' that allows a person to leave the workplace, but a person that leaves under family and medical leave law, when they leave, their pay stops. So in order to be a good parent under the Family and Medical Leave Act, you have to take a pay cut. Any time you leave under that particular law, your pay terminates. Now, what we are looking for, I think what is very important, is in the area of flextime and comptime people don't have to take a pay cut in order to be a good parent. They can meet the needs of the home place and leave the working place, because they have built up some comptime or they have flexible working arrangements and they don't have to take a pay cut to do it. Now, it seems to me that there is a real problem in saying that the solution to the country's distress is making people take pay cuts in order to be a good mom or dad. Most of the time when you have both people in the work force, it is because they need the money. If you just read the Washington Post, I believe from this past Sunday, there is a big feature that indicates people have both breadwinners in the workplace because they can't make ends meet without both of them working there. And to tell them, if you want to be a good parent, you can just take a pay cut and do so under an expanded Family and Medical Leave approach is foolhardy. Look what happens to people when they are involved in the Family and Medical Leave Act. Leave-takers, according to a Government study here-- and this was a study that was populated by Members of the Senate and overseen by a variety of Government individuals--people lose wages when they take medical leave. Here is how they have to make up for what they have done: 28.1 percent of the people had to borrow money to make up for the wages they lost in medical leave. Well, let's not force them to do that. Let's give them the opportunity to have flexible working arrangements, to get some comptime built up, or to work flexible working hours. 10.4 percent of the people who took medical leave had to go on public assistance in order to make ends meet. I don't think that's the way we want to have people accommodate the needs of their families, by going on public assistance. 41.9 percent of the individuals who went on family and medical leave had to stop paying their bills because, in order to take leave, they had to stop getting their paychecks. Now, it seems to me that we have a real choice here. Family and medical leave says if you want to serve your family, yes, you can take time off, but you have to lose your income, you have to take a pay cut when you take time off. But with the Family Friendly Workplace Act, with flexible and compensatory time available to individuals, you don't have to take a pay cut. You are able to build up some time by having compensatory time available, and when the time comes that you need to take some time off, you can do it without taking the pay cut. I think if it kept 28.1 percent of the people doing it from having to borrow money, or another 10.4 percent from going on welfare, or 41.9 percent from putting off bills, not paying their bills, when you put those numbers together, there is a tremendous group of individuals who find themselves severely stressed, borrowing money, going on welfare, not paying their bills. Those are the kinds of things we don't want to add, in terms of stress, to the American family. If you said to people that in order to be a good mom or dad, you have to go on welfare, I think we would say that is an affront to the dignity of the American worker, that is an assault on the value of work, that is an assault on the character of what it means to be an American or to be productive. Or if we said that in order to be a good mom or dad and take some time off, you have to stiff your creditors 42 percent of the time, you have to stop paying your bills, the American people don't want to do that. They should not want to do that. Or that you have to go to a bank or a loan company to borrow money, run up your credit card debt, and pay outrageous interest in order to be able to accommodate a sick child or witness your child's participation in the school play. The American people don't think they ought to have to take these kinds of pay cuts, borrow money, go on public assistance, or put off paying their bills. That is why, at an amazing rate, they indicate their preference is not to have this kind of mandated pay cut, but to have family-friendly workplace arrangements that allow hourly workers to have the same kind of benefits that salaried workers already have, that allow hourly workers to enjoy the same kind of benefits that are enjoyed by people in the boardroom, that allow hourly workers in the private sector to have the same kind of benefits that salaried workers in the private sector have and the same kind of benefits hourly workers have had in Government. Comptime has been available at the Federal Government level since 1945. Comptime has been available for State and local governments since 1985. Flexible working arrangements have been available for individuals in the Federal Government since 1978. That is when we began the program. The President of the United States lauded the program officially and extended it by Executive order in the mid-1990s to Government workers, and it is time to say, wait a second, we really can't afford to have this second-class group of citizens that we will call hourly workers in America. They are not the Government workers, they are not salaried workers, and they are not boardroom workers; they are just hourly workers. We can't afford to give them a lower standard. We should not be saying to them: You can't have the same kind of benefit for a win-win situation. You can't cooperate with your employer. You can't make it possible for your family to endure some of the struggles you endure without going into debt, on welfare, or not paying your creditors. We don't want you to have that kind of potential. I think we ought to extend the potential of family-friendly, flexible workplace opportunities, including comptime, to all the families of America. As I indicated earlier, this is not the first time this subject has been debated in the U.S. Congress. This subject has been debated on a couple of occasions. But in no circumstance have individuals on the other side of the aisle been willing to go to a vote in this matter. While earlier today there was quite a discussion about the need to go to a vote and to have amendments, when this issue was brought up previously, there was not a single individual who brought an amendment to the floor to add to this legislation. For days, we talked about this legislation, but no one would bring an amendment. It wasn't because there was an agreement with the legislation; it was merely a way to try to keep us from voting, which they were successful in doing, by stonewalling. Now, the American working people should not be stonewalled. The working arrangements of the 1930s simply do not fit the families of the 1990s. We have in many, many families both parents in the workplace, and we need the flexibility to get the job done well. Here is a letter from a security guard who occasionally gets overtime: The federal government should do everything it can to promote family life, particularly since both parents typically work in today's world. Given the choice, which the Family Friendly Workplace Act allows, parents would have the ability to be with their kids on occasions when current guidelines prohibit. In my case, my job as a security guard occasionally calls for overtime. Under this legislation, I would be allowed the choice to receive pay or to be more involved in coaching, attending school events and other general activities my kids are involved with. Our government serves people in many ways, but there is no better way to serve than building strong families, which the Family Friendly Workplace Act obviously seeks to accomplish. There is a security guard that I think feels capable of making judgments about whether or not he wants to be paid for all of his overtime, or whether he would like to be able to opt to have some time off. I am just delighted that there are moms and dads in America that would like to be more involved in coaching, attending school events, and other general activities with kids. Yet, our Government is keeping that from happening. Here is a letter from a 29-year-old working mother: I am a 29 year old working mother. I have a two-year-old daughter and am pregnant and due. . . . I recently heard about your Family Friendly Workplace Act. Under the current law, the law firm in which I am employed does not allow me to have a flexible work schedule. No wonder it doesn't; the law doesn't allow it. In my current condition, I need to be able to take off for doctor appointments. Due to the fact that I have a complication in my pregnancy, I have more appointments than average. If I was able to take time in one week and work more the next, it would be very helpful to me and other mothers. . . My two-year-old daughter is healthy, but there are some days when she needs extra attention and some days that she is sick. Some days she is just two! Those of us who are parents are familiar with kids that are ``just two.'' If I was able to take the time I needed for some mornings and make it up the next week, it would make my life much easier. Well, these letters are just a few. As we debate these issues during this session and over the next few days or as we approach voting on this particular measure, I would just say that it is fundamentally important for us to recognize the need to provide America's working families with the same kind of advantage, with flexible time, which American families that work for Government have. If it's good enough for Government workers, it is good enough for private workers. If Government workers are smart enough to know when they want comptime as compared to pay and are able to figure that out and when they would like to be able to rearrange their schedules to be involved with their children, I firmly believe that private workers have the same kind of intelligence and capacity. I think it is incumbent upon those of us in Government to make sure that we begin to legislate policy which is consistent with the principles of America and the principle of strong families, which is one we ought to be careful to understand and reinforce. So I think we are going to have a great opportunity in this session. I expect that it will be a great opportunity as we legislate in this particular matter. We are going to have the opportunity to provide flextime and comptime to America's private-sector hourly workers. It is a privilege that is understood by the salaried workers in the private sector, understood by both the hourly and salaried workers in Government. Flextime is understood by people in the Federal Government system. Comptime is understood by, and enjoyed by, people in government systems everywhere, State, local and Federal. We have delayed this benefit package for too many days. I say ``we,'' and I have done that to label the U.S. Senate. But the delay has come from the other side of the aisle. No amendments were offered when we brought this up before, but no vote was allowed. It's time that we have serious amendments, serious negotiations, and that we seriously embark upon providing the people of this country with this opportunity to serve their families. Today's speeches about how we need to debate openly and bring amendments on a family-friendly agenda could not be more on point. So let's have the debate, let's have the family-friendly agenda, let's have those amendments as it relates to the opportunity for hourly workers in the private sector to be able to spend time with their families as a result of voluntary agreements with their employers, to have flexible working arrangements and compensatory time arrangements similar to those of salaried workers and similar to those of Government workers. We are going to debate and act on flextime and comptime this year. I look forward to the debate very much. I am grateful for the opportunity to submit this amendment in this respect. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill with the hope of concluding action on the bill during Tuesday's session. As a reminder to all Members, a second cloture vote on H.R. 2646, the Coverdell A+ education bill, was postponed last Friday to occur on Tuesday, March 24, at 5:30 p.m. in an effort to work out an agreement for an orderly handling of the bill. Therefore, a second cloture vote is scheduled to occur on the Coverdell A+ bill on Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. if an agreement cannot be reached in the meantime. In addition, as under the previous consent, all second-degree amendments must be filed by 4:30 p.m. Subsequently, Members can anticipate a great deal of action on the supplemental appropriations bill tomorrow as the Senate works through amendments to the legislation. Also, it is hoped progress will be made on the Coverdell education bill during Tuesday's session. In addition, the Senate may consider any executive or legislative items cleared for action.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I further ask unanimous consent that from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. the Senate stand in recess for the weekly policy luncheons to meet.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 24, and immediately following the prayer the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 1768, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senate documents be printed in the usual number: Senate Document 99-33, Senate Document 98-29, and Senate Document 97-20.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to participate in the debate regarding NATO. One of the interesting facts about the debate is that the mission of NATO has not been a matter of significant discussion. There are a lot of questions--about the cost of enlargement, the political and strategic benefits to potential new members of NATO, and the effect of any expansion of the NATO alliance on our relationship with Russia--that have all been discussed. These issues have received the most attention. But while expansion of NATO numerically is significant, perhaps the mission of NATO deserves serious consideration as we look at an institution which has not only been involved in a long heritage of successful maintenance of the territorial integrity of our comembers of this organization in Europe, but has also been a vital part of protecting American interests. NATO has been very successful. Earlier, the Senator from Washington stated that NATO has been the most successful multinational defense organization in the history of the world. And I think that is a fair statement. A major achievement of the organization is the fact that a third world war has not erupted in Europe. It is pretty clear that the Soviet Union, in its days of power and strength, dared not infringe on the territory of those protected by the NATO alliance. That is to the credit of the organization. Article 5 of the NATO treaty was the heart of the organization. And I would like to refer the Members of the Senate and those interested in this debate to Article 5 at this time. Article 5 States: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. What the heart of the treaty really designates is that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was an organization designed to affect and protect the territory--the territorial integrity --of the Nations that were its member states. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we did not have the same kind of threat to the territory of the NATO states that had existed prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think few of us would argue with the proposition that the NATO alliance really was an alliance which drew a bright line to defend against the potential incursion by the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, there has been discussion among NATO planners to find a new mission for the Alliance. Counterproliferation, the advancing of political ``interests'' of NATO members, peacekeeping, and crisis management became the kinds of issues discussed at NATO--an entirely different mission than it originally had and, frankly, a mission that is not consistent with the charter of NATO itself. The assembled NATO powers, in 1991, adopted and promulgated a strategic concept. For the strategic concept of 1991, there was an interesting transition in the statement of what NATO is all about. Collective defense, the concept in Article 5 which has been the central theme and thesis of NATO for its years of great success, was relegated to the bottom of the list of mission priorities. As a result of putting collective defense at the bottom, a number of other things were listed as missions of NATO. In some respects, I find these new mission priorities to be challenging because they are not the kinds of things for which NATO was created, and they are not the kinds of missions that the U.S. Senate and its giants in the Senate ratified when ratifying the NATO treaty 50 years ago. The ``fundamental security task'' in the new strategic concept of 1991 was ``To provide one of the indispensable foundations for a stable security environment in Europe . . . in which no country would be able to intimidate or coerce any European nation or to impose hegemony through the threat or use of force.'' This is a major expansion and a substantial change in the mission of NATO. It is a change in the direction in which the organization is headed. It changes NATO's responsibility. Clearly, no longer is NATO for the collective defense of a limited territory. NATO now has the impossible task of stopping intimidation and coercion throughout NATO and non-NATO Europe alike. So the mission of NATO has been transitioning from the mission ratified by the Senate, and it has been evolving, as if treaties are allowed to evolve. It has been organic, rather than static or having specific boundaries. The catch phrase that defines this effort is that NATO must ``go out of area or go out of business.'' This whole concept, I think, demands very close observation. Mr. President, I have tried to point out that the objectives specified in the strategic concept of 1991 embraced by the NATO allies is a set of objectives far different from that which the NATO organization was authorized to achieve in its Charter, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate. I believe that NATO was not intended for these new purposes. The understanding of the U.S. Senate in 1949, and the understanding of the American people, has been that NATO is designed to protect territory--the territory of member nations--not designed to be on call in other areas in Europe and, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, in Africa and literally to the uttermost parts of the Earth. I will be submitting an amendment for consideration by the Senate to make it clear that collective security will remain the heart of NATO, and that this is the only mission allowable under the treaty, because it is impossible to amend the treaty without bringing it back to this Senate for amendment. My amendment is tailored not to constrain NATO's effectiveness in the future, nor is it intended to micromanage NATO's military planning from the Senate floor. The central portion of the amendment is taken directly from the North Atlantic Treaty itself. My amendment states that any military operation outside Article V must be based on the principle of collective defense, namely, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of a NATO member. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his agreement in allowing me to finish my remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up to 15 minutes.