John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I am particularly grateful for the statement of the Senator from Idaho, and for the measure of the Senator from Georgia. When you try to define America, you can't define America by looking at people and from outward appearance. We are not all of one race or one ethnic origin. We represent every possible assemblage from around the world. We have come here. What we have, together, is not ethnicity nor religious background. It is not racial. What we have is a common commitment to community, a common commitment to what it is America is. It goes beyond politics. It goes beyond where we go to church. It goes beyond where the ancestors on our family tree came from. It simply goes to the heart of how we feel about each other. No other nation on the face of the Earth has been so characterized by the idea of caring. Look at the great service organizations around the world, such as the Lions Club, which has a specific interest in protecting vision and making sure that people can see. The idea has been exported to the world from the United States of America. Look at the Rotary Club. Rotary clubs literally go around the globe. They have come from the United States of America where we look at the four-way test of rotary, which talks about the betterment of all concerned, which looks at the other side of the coin, which always asks about someone else. Look at the Kiwanis Club, the slogan of which is ``We Build.'' It has been exported to nation after nation. It has been embraced by cultures all around the globe, but it is something that started in the United States of America. It is something that is so universal and so important to the fabric, to the very tapestry that defines what this Nation is that it crosses party lines just like that. You have four Presidents of the United States joining together, Republicans and Democrats, in the Presidents' summit on voluntarism, and you have a person who in most societies would be considered to be an individual who knows how to deploy military resources and how to fight and how to hate and how to kill but an American whose heart really is in how to help, Gen. Colin Powell. He is heading up the entire focus again on voluntarism. It is something that is the character of this country. It is what makes us community. Frankly, it is richer than cultures that rely on Government and entitlement for all the things that are done. It is not universal in the world. In lots of places people think that charitable things are wrong, that it should be done by Government, so no one ever owes anyone else. Well, in America we do not owe each other. We love each other. And the idea of voluntarism is a way that we can extend to each other and build the chords of community that bind us together. The poets from overseas have said it well: Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for you. That is why I have been involved in all kinds of charitable endeavors. I remember even when I was Governor of my home State, when a child was lost close to the State capital 20 or 30 miles away, I walked through the woods during the night with hundreds of other individuals to find the child. We were all kinds of people from all kinds of political persuasion, from all kinds of backgrounds, yet there we were walking through the woods at night. I remember in the great floods that afflicted Missouri, I filled sandbags next to people I did not know but people whom I loved because I cared for the communities, and I knew that if there were ever a flood at my place, they would be there with a shovel and their children with them, as mine were with me, filling sandbags. That is what America is about. We would not want to do anything to destroy the capacity of Americans to help each other, to love one another, to participate in community activities, charitable activities where we reach out to one another. How many times did dads, when I was a boy, haul me to the ball game? My father traveled a lot. My father was an itinerant, in some respects, minister at some times during his life and then traveled extensively when he was involved in education, raising money for the college. But you know, there was always some dad from the area who took me to the game. I will never forget Charles Wilcox. One time after a dusty, hot baseball practice, he took the whole team to the root beer stand, and he walked up to the window and said the most generous thing I have ever heard in my entire life. It almost knocked me over as a boy. He said to the fellow inside the root beer stand, ``This is my team. Fill em up.'' It had never happened to me before and perhaps has not happened to me since. I think soda pop is pretty commonplace these days, but back in the 1950's, when someone walked up to the root beer stand and said, ``Fill em up,'' it was a big thing. I do not want the Charlie Wilcoxes of this world not to be able to do that anymore. I do not want them so afraid that when they coach the Little League team, they are going to have to put on their family the risk of financial ruin. We have seen the cases, the shear lunacy of cases where the coach is sued because the youngster was moved from shortstop to left field and got hurt when a fly ball hit him in left field. His mom had said he was a born shortstop. Who is going to be the coach if you can get sued when you move someone to left field? We have seen the ridiculous cases where the youngster insists on sliding in headfirst and then injures himself and the coach is sued because the youngster slides headfirst instead of feet first, in spite of the fact that the youngster has seen all the big leaguers doing it time after time after time. But if that coach is going to lose his home, if his children cannot go to college because he is generous enough to care for someone else, we will certainly have cheated a lot of young people out of a lot of helping hands. When I was at the summit this last weekend in Philadelphia, each of these Presidents called upon me personally. No, they did not come up to talk to me, but they spoke to me, they spoke to my heart. They said America needs again to have a revival of individuals who are willing to care for each other. I thought to myself, we need to make sure as Members of the Congress that we do what is necessary to make that possible. I think of the Scout volunteers on the west coast who allowed the boys to play touch football. When I was a Scout, we would never settle for touch football, but these must have been very good leaders, interested in the safety of the youngsters. But one got injured and he ended up with a $7 million judgment against two of the volunteers. The appellate courts reduced it to $4 million. I cannot imagine that was much of a consolation to those Scout volunteers. Most people do not want to have to choose between helping the community and protecting their family. No one really will ever say I will help someone else if I have to sacrifice my family, because we have a very strong commitment to our families in America. It is a cornerstone of what we are. But a similar cornerstone of this house we call the United States of America is helping each other, and we should not put these cornerstones at odds. We should not say to people, in order to help someone else, you have to put your family at risk. That is what we have done with a tort system that has awarded judgments like $4 million against Scout leaders, that has awarded judgments against a Little League coach who moved someone from shortstop to left field. Let us get serious. The Presidents, past and present, know what America is about. It is in the hearts of Americans across this country. We want to make it possible for people again to extend themselves in a voluntary way without putting their families at risk. That is the long and the short of what we want to do. I think it is entirely inappropriate for some in this Chamber to stand against us, for those whose President has called us to a summit on voluntarism to say no, we are not going to allow any discussion of that in the Senate, we are not even going to proceed to the bill; we do not want you to have a chance to vote on it. That is what this filibuster by the Democratic Members of this body is achieving right now. It is keeping us from voting on this bill. This is not the bill itself we are talking about. We are talking about the motion to proceed. This is technical gobbledygook of the Senate. But in order to consider a bill, you have to succeed in passing a motion to proceed to the bill, and we are being filibustered on the motion. It is time for all Americans to again enlist in this great enterprise of community which we call America and help each other, and it is time for the Senate, Members of the Congress, to build a framework where we do not ask people to choose between protecting their family and helping other people. We have to say we will make sure your family is protected if you are kind enough and loving enough and caring enough to extend a helping hand, a hand of care, compassion, and love to those in your community. I have been told we are on the bill now. I am glad to know that we are on the bill. Yesterday we were on a filibuster to the motion to proceed, and I appreciate the correction. I apologize to Members of this body on the other side of the aisle. I would not impair or impugn their motive here. I am glad to be on the bill. I think with that in mind we ought to make sure we all vote in favor of this. This is an outstanding piece of legislation which will stop the irrationality of asking people to choose between protecting their family and helping their neighbor. The history of this country is that we have not only protected our family; we have enriched our families by helping our neighbors because we have been taught one of the most important values of life, that is, that we are not alone, that we live together in community. I thank the Chair. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity to spend a few more minutes helping those watching understand exactly what significant opportunities we are talking about with the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It is our effort to try to give to people who are on hourly working arrangements the ability to develop flexible working schedules--to do it in the same way as has been possible for Federal workers so situated for the last--well, during the 1970's, 1980's and into this decade of the 1990's. The attempt to offer the ability to work flexible schedules is a result of people feeling the stress of the job that tugs them away from their families. In order to understand the true nature of workers' stress and the benefit they would gain from flexible work schedules, I would like to read some letters that have been sent to our office. Here is a letter that says: Dear Senator Ashcroft. I'm a 29-year-old working mother. I have a 2-year-old daughter and am pregnant and due in November. I recently heard about your Family Friendly Workplace Act. Under current law where I work does not allow me to have a flexible work schedule. They are not allowed by the law to let us work less than 40 hours one week and then more than 40 hours the next. In my current condition, I need to be able to take off for doctors' 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 off more one week and work more the next, it would be very helpful to me and other mothers in Missouri. That is perfectly stated. Here is another letter: My 2-year-old daughter is healthy but there are some days she needs extra attention and some days that she is sick. Some days she is just 2. Meaning the terrible 2's, I suppose. If I was able to take time I need for some mornings and to make it up at lunch or the next week, it would make my life much easier. Here is another letter: It's been a struggle for me to be able to arrange for doctor appointments, be home when my child is ill and my three children are always sick at different times. Or when my babysitter has been unable to take my children because of illness. Not all of us have spouses or family members who can fill in for us or when we need to be there for our children. My husband works out of town on many occasions and is unable always to be around when needed. Working parents are not asking for special favors, just a way to be able to meet the demands of both our jobs and families. The Family Friendly Workplace Act would help solve the problem of inflexibility in the workplace. Being able to arrange biweekly work schedules would be very helpful in meeting the needs of our families. I would be able to take the time off for doctors' appointments or to leave a couple hours early one day if the babysitter calls to tell me my child has a fever. Being able to make that time up the next week would certainly take off a lot of the pressure and the stress of taking these last few hours of leave time or potentially being on leave without pay. Here is an individual working because they need the money. When a little crisis arises, because flextime is not available, they have to leave the office without pay. She goes on to say: The option of taking compensatory time in lieu of monetary compensation would also be very valuable to working parents who just need the time off. Here is another. Presently I enjoy flexible schedules. The extra day off [I have] during the week allows me to spend one-on-one quality time with my 5-year old daughter. She will start kindergarten this fall, which makes these girls-only days especially meaningful for both of us. Additionally, I can schedule many doctors' appointments as well as other appointments for me and my children on this day off. This allows me to save my accrued sick or vacation leave for a time when I really need the sick leave or can take a well planned family vacation. As a supervisor, I currently have the flexibility in my schedule from week to week. However, my staff are not given the same opportunity, although many of them would be able to utilize and benefit from it. Kind of interesting to me. Here is the supervisor that has the flex capacity, says that the staff ought to have the same thing. This is really the crux of what we are talking about in this bill. My staff are not given this same opportunity although many of them would be able to utilize and benefit from it. She says: I am reluctant to exercise this advantage, however, of mine because it seems unfair to me that I have something that my employees do not. I understand that this bill would require that this opportunity be afforded to all employees, not just those in management or supervisory positions. Here is another letter from a constituent: Time with my children is very important and, unfortunately, working outside the home is important, too. My children will only be young once, and missing parts of their development is a very important part that I can never replace. I would like to better balance my family life and my work life. And I think the Family Friendly Workplace Act is an excellent opportunity for working parents. Here is a letter from a schoolteacher: I ask that you support the bill as I think it would be a great benefit to all citizens in this country. As an educator, I feel that this would allow parents time to be in school with their children. Time and time again, parents relate to me that they cannot come to school for conferences or other meetings because they have to work. This bill would allow some flexibility in the workplace. Another letter. I think this letter is very interesting. This writer used to be a Federal employee and is now working in the private sector. The individual writes: I have worked in the Federal Government with a flexible schedule based on 80 hours and enjoyed it.'' That means you work an average of 80 hours over 2 weeks. Now that I have left the Federal work force, I have questioned why this same opportunity is not available to me in the private sector. As an American, this disappoints me greatly. The Government does not have enough confidence in me to allow me to make a decision to not take overtime pay if I exceed 40 hours a week. By pretending to protect me, they have hurt me. My company cannot pay me overtime, so I cannot take time off next week. I would like to see the same benefits that Federal workers have, be offered to the private sector. Another example is the vacation time, the writer goes on to say: What I receive in industry isn't near that what the Federal Government provides. Three-day weekends were great while they lasted--even 4-day weekends allowed the family to get away for a short trip, which is about all we can ever afford anyhow, and I still have discretionary time for kids, doctor visits, and other needs. Here is a letter from a schoolteacher: As an elementary teacher I feel parents need to have time off to help in their child's classroom and attend conferences. The children have the real benefit of this bill, if it passes, because they will know that their parents really do care about them and their progress in school. We will have an opportunity to debate and discuss this matter fully. I thank the majority leader, Trent Lott, for allowing us to have this time this afternoon to bring this bill forward. It is pretty clear that the supplemental appropriations will take precedence over this bill when we reconvene next week and that budget matters will have priority and be the subject of our deliberations. But, because this measure was the next measure to come up after those come before us, the majority leader let us have a start on this important issue this afternoon. I look forward to the time when these other measures--which are very important and require our attention--will have been settled and we can get back to this all-important issue of allowing workers to have the flexibility to spend time with their families. It is as important as ever to allow workers in the private sector who are paid hourly wages to have the same benefits that Federal Government workers have had since 1978. So I thank the majority leader for giving us the opportunity to begin this bill now. It will be necessary for us to bring the bill down so we can proceed to other matters. I close by thanking my good friends who have helped in this measure. Perhaps the most responsible for the significant progress we have made is Senator DeWine of Ohio, in whose subcommittee this bill was heard and whose leadership has resulted in it being one of the first pieces of major legislation brought to the floor during this session of the Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am deeply grateful for this opportunity to respond to the final point of the Senator from Georgia, who has pointed out that we need volunteers among the most needy and among the most deprived individuals in our culture, and those most needy and deprived individuals are the riskiest people to help. I cite this article which I hold in my hand on civil justice: ``A Thousand Points of Fright?''--f-r-i-g-h-t, not l-i-g-h-t. It is a scholarly work by David Webber. He writes that ``lawsuit fears are dampening the enthusiasm of volunteers.'' And he says, ``And the White House is beginning to take notice,'' which is constructive. I commend the White House. I commend the President for mobilizing the Presidents, to have the Presidents' summit on voluntarism. But one of the interesting things that the governmental relations director for the National PTA says is that ``we are just more conscious than ever before of litigious possibilities. The bad thing has been the chilling effect on activities we can sponsor, especially for high-risk kids--kids with handicaps--and child care programs.'' What he has basically said is exactly what the Senator from Georgia was speaking of; that in the highest risk situations we have a chilling effect not only on volunteers but on programs, where you begin to see the withdrawals of programs, the programs that do not go into effect, the programs that do not exist, opportunities that are never capitalized on because of this sort of chill that comes from the litigious, as he calls it, possibilities. I must admit that frequently these possibilities do not result in a lawsuit with a verdict against the volunteer, but if you work as a volunteer and you are sued, it could cost you $10,000 just to defend the suit--$10,000. And, of course, you could have a judgment against you just as the Boy Scout leader from the Cascade Pacific Council had a verdict of $4 million against him, because you let the boys play touch football, or the Little League coach who, because he shifted the player from shortstop to left field, gets a judgment against him. I mean these volunteers obviously are going to think about what happens to their family. How can my kids go to school? I would love to help the world, but I have to protect my family. That would be a response you would have to commend in individuals, and yet it is not something we want in America. We do not want to have to choose between helping the world or protecting our families. We want to be able to say to a volunteer, you can do both. The genius of America is that we do not have to be selfish in order to protect our families. The genius of America is that we have always been able to help each other, while we have protected our families. The kinds of lawsuits that we have seen are just incredible. A 14- year-old boy was sliding into home plate head first when he collided with the catcher. The catcher had blocked the plate as instructed. Catchers are always instructed to block the plate. In the rules of baseball, it is the only position where you are entitled to stand in front of the plate without the ball. But the catcher had blocked the plate and, unfortunately, there was a neck injury. Although plaintiff came to the league sliding head first, and that was the way he liked to play baseball, the volunteer coaches were found negligent for not being able to adjust the way the child slided--slid. I sound like Dizzy Dean, who used to say ``slud into second.'' But volunteer coaches were held negligent for not instructing the player on proper sliding techniques and failing to warn of the danger created by sliding into home plate head first. Of course, the player obviously watched major league player after major league player, role models all--and they should be, many of them great folks--sliding in head first. I wonder about asking people to volunteer to coach these children, so many of them without dads in their own homes, so many of them at-risk kids, doing their best to provide them enthusiasm for their sport, and restraints so as to protect themselves. And, when there is an injury, having that kind of lawsuit. So many of our volunteers are around sports--you wonder about the kind of lawsuits that surround sports. Here is one that really stunned me. It was a part-time official who was asked to officiate in a crucial Big Ten basketball game. At the last second he called a foul that gave one of the teams a victory. He called them like he saw them. It switched the victory. A souvenir company that had anticipated the victory by the other team sued the official, challenging his call with a $175,000 negligence suit claiming he had wrongfully harmed the souvenir company's ability to sell their souvenirs. The official won the lawsuit. So let us just lay that to rest, the official won the lawsuit. But only after a 2-year court battle that went all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court. Do you know what it takes, in terms of resources, to take a court battle to the supreme court of one of our States? I mean, it takes more than it takes to send a kid to college. It takes more than it takes to have family vacations. It takes more than it takes for some families to buy a home. It certainly takes more than it takes even for the wealthiest families, almost, to have a downpayment on a home. We ask people to volunteer in these kinds of settings. It seems to me we ought to have some protection for them. Here is another one that caught my eye. I should not say ``caught my eye,'' because this is about a person who was hit in the eye, a catcher in a softball game. He was playing without a mask. The umpire had a mask. The catcher got hit in the eye. He sued the umpire because the umpire had not given him his mask. The catcher walked away with a $24,000 settlement. We are asking people to volunteer. I think the President is doing the right thing. There is absolutely no question in my mind that he is calling America to greatness, a greatness that reflects the character of the fact that we care for each other. That is what America is all about. It is what sent de Tocqueville back to France, 150 years ago, exclaiming about the virtue of America. He said it was not to be found in the corridors of the bureaucracy or the Halls of the Congress. He said it was to be found in the people. He said America is great because America is good. We want the goodness of America to be reflected again in this country. We want the capacity of people to identify with each other, to love each other--literally love each other enough to say I am not just content to work with my own kids, I am going to work with the kids in the neighborhood and some kids who are not as fortunate as mine. Maybe they are kids who have lost their mom or dad, for one reason or another. That kind of tragedy has touched my family and it has touched most of the people in this country, and we want the loving character of American citizens to be available and we do not want it to be inhibited. We do not want it to be so you cannot volunteer. I think about those women in Evanston, IL, who wanted to set up the home for battered women. They could not get insurance because of the litigation potential. All the insurance companies said you have to operate for 3 years without insurance before we can determine whether or not we will insure you. So nobody could risk their own family in order to help other people. They did not want their own homes to be taken in order to provide a home for someone else. So we end up not having that extension of compassion in our culture. I do not think there is any President who has more successfully said to the people in this country, ``I feel your pain.'' He says it with sincerity, and I believe he does. He has a great capacity to empathize. And he has called this country to feel it, to feel the opportunity and respond to the opportunity to help one another. And we have a great opportunity to say we are going to take a big roadblock out of the way. I started out by referring to this article, ``A Thousand Points of Fright?'', saying the most difficult to help are the riskiest to help. And they need help badly. We have this barrier standing in the way. We have gone through examples. I guess we could tell stories about these lawsuits until the cows came home--at least that's a phrase my aunt used to use--but the truth of the matter is, this is important. It was important enough for the four previous Presidents of the United States to join the current President of the United States and one of the greatest military heroes of our age, to join the whole effort and to galvanize public opinion to try to say we need volunteers. It is a little bit confounding, to think there are those in this body who want to stop us from considering--who do not even want us to have a chance to debate and vote on an issue like giving volunteers this kind of break. I do not know how anybody could say we want to make sure that a person who volunteers has the potential to be sued and harassed. I notice that a former Attorney General of the United States, Dick Thornburgh, wrote an opinion piece for one of our major newspapers. He said: ``If you are sued, the average cost to defend yourself--'' in a case not involving a car, car cases cost a lot of money, usually--``is $7,500.'' There isn't anybody who can afford that and that is the average cost. That includes the cases that are dismissed. I think it is time for us to say we want more volunteers, we want to cooperate with the President, we want America to be what America has the character to be. It is time for us to respond to the people. We need to respond to the people by inviting them to have the kind of caring compassion reflected in voluntarism. It is the least we can do to pull the roadblocks out of their way and make a clear path for Americans to care for each other. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address this problem. It is a problem that challenges the capacity of individuals in our culture to share with each other and to help one another. The fact that there are proposals that relate to this, in addition to this proposal, from a wide variety of perspectives, demonstrates that this is not an effort to address something that is not a problem. Let me just give you a couple of examples of how this problem has manifested itself and what are the effects. First of all, I will give you some of the general effects. The Gallup organization conducted a survey entitled: ``The Liability Crisis and the Use of Volunteers of Nonprofit Associations.'' What did the Gallup organization find? Approximately 1 in 10 nonprofit organizations has experienced the resignation of a volunteer due to liability concerns. One in six volunteers was reported to have withheld services due to a fear of exposure to liability suits. Now, the question is, do we need more volunteers in our culture or do we need less? Our current system is stopping 18 percent of volunteers from doing some volunteer activity and resulting in 10 percent of the organizations having people resign from their boards of directors. I might also indicate that mention has been made that some of the States have provided some protection for volunteers. I find it ironic that about half of all the States which provide protection do so only for the guy on the board of directors or the person at the top of the organization setting policy. The person who is the silk stocking guy in the boardroom gets protected, but the fellow out there on the field, the Little League coach, is the guy against whom the big judgment is rendered. Our question has to be, are we going to tie the hands of the person who is actually going to deliver the help while we provide some cocoon of protection to the fellow in the boardroom? Or are we going to say to the average citizen, you can afford to get involved in your community without putting your house on the line, without jeopardizing your children's college education. You can afford to help the Little League because we are not going to make it so that you will be sued when someone does not catch a fly ball. You might laugh and say, wait a second, getting sued because a child doesn't catch a fly ball? I wish it were not so true. Let me refer you to a 1982 case, and this is one of the first cases that started the run of liability cases against volunteers. In Runnemede, NJ, a Little League coach volunteer was sued because he repositioned his Little League shortstop to the outfield, and in the outfield the Little League shortstop misjudged a fly ball and sustained an eye injury. A suit was filed on the allegation that the 10-year-old youngster was ``a born shortstop'' but not an outfielder, and the courts found the volunteer coach negligent. Over the next 5 years, liability rates for Little League baseball in that area went up 10 times--1,000 percent. Here is another example. We are talking about real people, real folks who get up in the morning early, work hard all day, sometimes take time off their jobs to go out and volunteer to help the kids of America, some of the kids without moms or dads or who do not have time to help children, kids who need positive role models, and here is what we do to them. A boy in a scouting unit with the Boy Scouts of the Cascade Pacific Council--a national problem, Runnemede, NJ, on the one side of the country, Cascade Pacific Council on the other side. A Boy Scout suffers a paralyzing injury while playing in a touch football game. I remember being a Boy Scout. Touch football was as mild as the supervisors could possibly make it. We wanted to play tackle football or flag football, but touch football was a part of the curriculum we had to play. A boy gets injured. What in the world happens when the volunteers are found personally liable for $7 million? What would a $7 million judgment do to your capacity to send your kids to college if you were the volunteer? What would it do to your capacity to have the kind of life you wanted? We are not making it difficult for volunteers; in many instances, we are saying to them, you cannot volunteer. Frankly, this is not something any of us intend. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of compassion. It is an issue about the character of America. When Alexis de Tocqueville came to America-- and they are having a wonderful series on de Tocqueville on C-SPAN; they are following his steps that he took across America 150 years ago--he talked about the greatness of this country, and he said greatness in America is not governmental. Greatness is not a matter of the law of this country. It is a matter of the people of this country. America is great because the people are good. But that was at a time when there was such a thing known as charitable immunity, when charities were simply held totally immune, so that if people were going to charities to get help, they got what help they could, and if a mistake was made or an injury, that is the way it was. Now, we are not asking that it be restored to that condition. But we are saying that, when a volunteer, someone who is giving of her time or of his time, when they are giving that time generously and they are trying to help the Boy Scouts, they should not end up with a $7 million judgment. I should add a correction. In that case, the judgment was reduced to $4 million by the courts. That would have been a great comfort to me and my family. We would not come any closer to paying a $4 million judgment than we would a $7 million judgment. The system, though, rewards those who try to help the youngsters with that kind of legal liability. The system is broken in that respect. If we want America to be great, it will be not because we have a governmental program that will fix everything. But we, at least, need to release the energy available in the American culture that comes from volunteers. I indicate, as well, that the bill, which is being filibustered by the other side, is not a bill that relieves organizations of all their responsibility. This is a bill that relieves the volunteer of responsibility for economic damages that are suffered by individuals who are injured through simple negligence. Economic damages still can be recovered against the organization, but the fellow who works all day and works hard to keep his family together and sometimes takes a little time away from his family to help the rest of the world should not find himself looking down the barrel of a $4 million judgment because he has been a good Scout leader. And unfortunately that has happened too frequently. Here is another example. From the Richmond Times-Dispatch, November 4, 1995. A Red Cross volunteer in Virginia ``was driving a woman to a medical facility for routine care.'' I have volunteered for the Red Cross, done Meals on Wheels and things like that. ``The Red Cross-owned car was involved in a collision and the passenger was injured. She later died from causes unrelated to the crash. But the administrator of the woman's estate sought judgment against the volunteer and alleged that he negligently operated the vehicle.'' We should not have people being hauled into court on things like that. The fact is that these volunteers are being asked to defend themselves. Here is an interesting fact from the Washington Times, a May 2, 1995, article. ``A Legal System That Fails the Test of Charity,'' was the headline. ``A Washington, DC, area Girl Scout council reports that it must sell 87,000 boxes of Girl Scout cookies each year just to pay for liability insurance.'' The first 87,000 boxes of cookies do not provide any help to any girls, do not provide any assistance, do not provide any of the reinforcement that these kids, without many of the benefits that you and I enjoyed as children, need. The first 87,000 boxes of cookies have to go to carry the liability insurance. ``We have no diving boards at our camps,'' the executive director said. ``We will never own horses. And, many local schools will no longer provide meeting space for our volunteers,'' because of the liability crisis as it relates to volunteers. Here is an interesting item from the Washington Times, May 1995. ``A Legal System That Fails the Test of Charity,'' again. The Junior League in Evanston, IL, discovered a few years ago that, to set up a shelter for battered women, they would have had to go without liability insurance for three years. No directors would serve under these conditions, and the plans for the shelter were shelved. We need people to drive people to the hospital for the Red Cross. We need the Junior League to help sponsor shelters for battered women. We need Boy Scout volunteers that will not operate under the threat of $4 million judgments against them and the assets of their families. We need Little League volunteers who have the ability to ask the kid to play left field instead of shortstop, in spite of the claims of the child's parents that the child is a born shortstop and not an outfielder. We simply have to create an environment in this country where we do not rely on the Government for everything. And, in that context, we have to free up the energy of the goodness of the American people and not ask them to operate under the threat of judgments that would deprive them of their homes, their families' well-being, and their capacity to send their children to college. Americans are sacrificial people. They are willing to give you the proverbial shirts off their backs. But we should not make it a situation where, if they give you the shirt and you do not like the shirt, you can sue them and take their house and deprive their kids of an opportunity to go to college. That is too much. It is too much to ask of these generous volunteers. And our system of Government simply needs to provide a little protection, a framework in which people can operate in decency and can beneficially extend themselves, one to another. The idea that somehow America is automatically good and the Government can handle all this stuff is a bankrupt concept. We understood that in the debate last year over welfare reform. We saw the kind of miserable response that has come from this culture to welfare. We were intensifying problems. The problem was growing rather than slowing. If anything is going to help us recover, it will be our understanding that we can help each other. But we will have a hard time helping each other if we make it a condition of volunteering that you put your family's well-being on the line and you look down the barrel of that $4 million cannon every time you want to go and help a few Boy Scouts. That is why I think it is so important to have a discussion of these issues and to act on these issues. It is high time we do so. It is a matter in discussion in this country and has been a matter of public debate. This is not a surprise. There are bills on the issue of voluntarism in both the House and Senate. Frankly, S. 543, Senator Coverdell's legislation, is outstanding legislation designed to relieve the volunteer of liability. This bill does not relieve organizations of liability for economic damages. I find it troublesome to have it suggested that this bill is designed in some way to relieve the Ku Klux Klan from consequences against the organization for criminal acts, or acts that would somehow disparage the civil rights or dignity of Americans. It is simply not so. I wonder if there are not any good arguments against this legislation when the only arguments that come up against it are arguments which do not hold water and which are designed to go to the most base emotions within us. When we are talking about making it possible for Americans to help other Americans, it is particularly troublesome that in order to disrupt this discussion we try to talk about Americans hating other Americans. We should be careful never to do anything to promote hate. It would be a terrible thing if we allowed those who suggested that we were doing that to impair our ability to provide a framework in which people could promote love and care and concern. One of the real values of volunteer activity is what it communicates. When you get something from the Government you do it because you are entitled to it, so you take it. But when you get something from your neighbor you know that he or she cares for you and loves you. And that mutual sense of concern is what builds community. It is what binds us together; it is not what tears us apart. We are talking about providing a context for people to demonstrate a sense of community. Two hundred years ago John Donne said it as eloquently as anyone has ever said it in his sonnet, on the fact that no man is an island. He said, ``No man is an island.'' He started out saying we are all in this thing together. We are not by ourselves. And he ends his sonnet: . . . never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. And, in America, we have that sense. It is unique to America. It is what makes America what she is and what she will be in the future. And it is not that we want to try to promote organizations that would teach us to hate one another. This bill is designed and crafted and drafted to promote opportunities for people who want to demonstrate that they care for each other and respect one another. The hyperlitigious nature of our civil justice system is creating a barrier, though, between the desire of Americans to help others and their ability to do so. It is empirically established. The data is there: The resignations from the boards of directors; the reluctance of volunteers to do what they wanted to volunteer to do; one out of six volunteers say they withhold services; the absence of programs that can no longer be offered; the program for battered women in Evanston that the Junior League wanted to have. You do not have diving boards at the camp. You do not have horses at the camp. We must free this energy in America, this impetus that says I love you and I care for you and I would like to be active in helping you but I cannot afford to risk everything I own and have, and my children's education, to do so. I would like for that desire to be fostered and lifted up, and we ought to fan that ember of hope for America and we should not douse it. So I believe we need the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. I am proud to join as a cosponsor of this legislation. It will reinstate reason. It will reinstate rationality. It will reinstate certainty and fairness in a judicial system with regard to voluntarism. And I am grateful for that. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 covers nonprofit organizations which are defined as those organizations having a 501(c)(3) status, or nonprofit entities that are organized and conducted for public benefit and operated primarily for charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health purposes. And, if any organization is involved in criminal activity, any protection for the volunteer in that endeavor is gone. The volunteers are relieved of liability for simple acts of negligence, but it does not relieve the volunteer organization from liability for economic damages. This bill establishes a standard for punitive damages so there could not be outrageous levels of damages without high standards of proof. And it eliminates joint and several liability for noneconomic damages. Economic damages are those that you actually have in a monetary sense: The hospital bills, the lost wages and the like. In those settings, there is no limitation on the ability of an injured individual to go against the organization. This bill does say that the volunteer should not be held responsible unless she engages in criminal activity or acted in a willful and wanton way. And if that is the case, the volunteer is not protected at all, because we are not interested in protecting willful or wanton activity or criminal activity. We are trying to allow people to say to their communities and to their fellow citizens that we care enough to love you and to share ourselves with you but we do not think we ought to have to risk the entirety of our family or the well-being of our family to do so. With that in mind, I am pleased to support this legislation. I think, when the President of the United States asks us to engage in volunteering, he calls us to the very best that is in us. He calls us to the character of America, to rekindle a spirit of community which could be lost. He needs to call us, though, in a context which makes our response reasonable and possible. Simply, we are trying to develop a framework for reasonable participation by volunteers, protecting them and their families from a litigious system which has found Scout leaders saddled with $4 million judgments because of a touch football game; which has found a Little League coach staring down the barrel of judgments because he shifted a boy from shortstop to left field; which has found people in court because they were good enough to drive a sick citizen in their community to the hospital. I do not think that is the kind of community in which we want to live. We want to live in a place that puts reasonable limits on the exposure and risk to people who are actually giving of themselves so they can afford to extend their charity to others without destroying the future of their own families. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I want to thank the Senator from Alabama for his outstanding remarks, and I appreciate his support of the measure, particularly in light of his experience. I commend him for his involvement in this important concept to help promote volunteering and to help foster and encourage the better impulses we have to help each other. That is what this bill is about. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Georgia for talking about very important things that relate to the way in which we will operate as a nation, whether we sink or swim, whether we survive or succumb in the next century. I do not think Washington is the answer to the problems of this country. I don't think it is Wall Street. I think it is Main Street. It is how we respond to issues as people, what the character of America is. I believe we have the right character in this country. It is historically understood; it has been recognized by people around the world. Other countries don't solve problems the way Americans do, and, frankly, they don't solve them as well as we do. They reserve to Government, to the heavy hand of bureaucracy, so many things that we just like to roll up our sleeves and attend to ourselves. We have to be careful that our system of resolving disputes does not impair our capacity to release the energy and the creativity of the problem-solving nature of the American people. Over the last 30 or 40 or 50 years, we have seen a constant creep of Government and of rules about dispute resolution that has made it harder and harder for individual citizens to be involved in doing good, which is really the character of this great country. Alexis de Tocqueville, whose ride through America 150 years ago is being celebrated by C-SPAN this year--as a matter of fact, they are duplicating it--put it this way: America was great because her people were good. It wasn't because we had the corridors of the bureaucracy in Washington well populated, or it wasn't because the Congress was a particularly strong or effective body. It was because people were good. He talked about the fact that people formed associations and formed groups and alliances for almost every purpose in this country because free people, when they see a need, meet the need. That is what we want America to be. We have had so many problems recently where we found that our system for litigation has made it hard for people to solve problems. As a matter of fact, the Gallup organization conducted a poll in which it found that one out of every 10 charities surveyed said they have had trouble with litigation and it has caused people to refuse to serve on their boards of directors and the like. Frankly, a number of States responded to that poll, and they enacted protection for the people who are on the board of directors of the Red Cross, or the board of directors of the United Way. That was an appropriate thing to do to protect those individuals. But the average neighbor of mine is not on the board of directors of the Red Cross. My average neighbor and my own activity have more often been just in the volunteering capacity, doing the work, driving the Meals on Wheels. I have driven Meals on Wheels routes over and over again. I wasn't on the board of directors. It strikes me that it is appropriate to protect the folks on the board of directors, but how about the volunteer? It is OK to protect the silk-stocking folks in the boardroom, but how about the person on the front line? How about the coach of the Little League, one of the cases I previously mentioned, that was shocking to the conscience of the American people. As a matter of fact, it still almost strikes me as being humorous, the case in Runnemede, NJ, 15 years ago. The coach sent the kid from shortstop to left field. The mom protested: ``He's a born shortstop, not a left fielder.'' A fly ball came. The kid missed it, the ball hit him in the eye, and the coach got sued. Mr. President, we cannot have the value of male role models --and we need them desperately in our cities and our communities --and the discipline and sense of teamwork that sports provide to help people develop and have a situation where a mom can say, ``Well, my son plays only shortstop and not left field, and if you put him in left field, you'll be the victim of a lawsuit.'' I have also talked about the fellow who was the Scout leader in the Northwest, with the Cascade Pacific Council, and the boys who were playing touch football. I suppose they must have proven he was negligent for allowing the boys to play touch football. I don't think our Scoutmaster could ever get us ratcheted down below flag football. We wanted to play tackle football. Here the restraint had been exercised to play touch football, and the scoutmaster ends up with a $7 million judgment against him, because he cared enough about the young people of his community to volunteer. Yes, the courts did reduce the judgment from $7 million to $4 million. Well, for most folks, $4 million isn't much better than $7 million. It reminds me of the first time I got sued. I called my wife Janet. I said, ``Good news and bad news.'' She said, ``What is the bad news?" I said, ``We've been sued.'' She said, ``What is the good news?" I said, ``Well, it is for $65 million.'' It wouldn't make much difference if it was for $650, we didn't have it. The point is, you have folks willing to volunteer, to extend themselves, to reach out and say, ``We care for those beyond our own circle,'' and this is what makes America America. American communities are not defined by boundary lines and streets. They are not defined by geography and statute books. They are not defined in the property records. American communities are defined in the hearts of Americans because they are groups of people who love each other. That is probably a word some people would blanch at, someone saying on the floor of the Senate that we love each other. But that is what we mean when we say, ``I'll help your son or daughter be a part of the team or scout troop,'' or ``I'll help them be a part of the soccer team. I love this community, and I'm willing to invest myself in it.'' What is the price tag for investing yourself in a community now? We have a legal system that may make the price tag your own children's college education, or your car, or your house. A $4 million judgment for being a Scout leader and for somehow not stopping a touch football game among boys? That is a pretty stiff price tag to pay. I am reminded of the case in Evanston, IL. The Junior League wanted to set up a shelter for battered women. No insurance company would insure them. What happened? The shelter didn't happen. The insurance company said, ``You have to run the shelter for 3 years before we will extend coverage. Because of the litigious nature of our society and everybody suing everybody, even the people you are trying to help turn around and sue you, and since our court allows it, we won't insure you until you have had 3 years of experience showing us you can run the shelter and what the risks will be.'' We are still waiting for the 3 years of experience, but we don't have the shelter. We are out of whack, and we need to readjust this. We need to put it back in a framework where ordinary citizens can offer themselves. This isn't something that is localized or just a tiny fraction of the country. It is all across the United States of America. Here is a statement from the president of the United Way of San Francisco. I believe this was a couple of years ago: As fear of lawsuits drives away volunteers, it does more than threaten or lower the number of people available to charity. It threatens to bureaucratize organizations known for their hands-on approach. It would replace the personal touch with the impersonal touch of organizations afraid to be different. Here is an interesting article, entitled ``A Thousand Points of Fright?'' Not a thousand points of light. We do need for people to be points of light. I didn't think a thousand points of light was corny. I thought it was the character of America. I thought it reflected what is great about this country, the fact that we care for each other, we literally love each other enough to put aside some of our own ambitions, to set aside some of our own time to make some sacrifices. But should we make the sacrifice the ultimate sacrifice? Should we make it so that you have to risk everything that you and your family stand for? The article says: Lawsuit fears are dampening enthusiasm for volunteers, and the White House is beginning to take notice. I am grateful the White House is beginning to take notice. I was in Philadelphia on Sunday and on Monday, and I commend the President. I think inspiring us to be the very best we can be and to help each other in this culture is inspiring us to be what we ought to be as Americans. But it takes more than inspiration, especially in the context of litigation, where we might face the potential that we would make it impossible to provide for our own families, to see to it that our children have what they need, just because we cared enough about our community to do something special, something extra. The proposal before us says if you want to volunteer, we will provide an opportunity for you to do so in a context of reasonability. It simply says you are not going to be responsible for harm while you are delivering those services in a reasonable way. It does not relieve the organizations of responsibility. It just says that the volunteer himself or herself will not have to give up his or her family's potential in the next weeks, months, years, or decade or so, or whatever it is that would result from an extraordinary judgment. Over and over again, whether it is the ``A Thousand Points of Fright?'' article, whether it is the president of the United Way of San Francisco, whether it is the story about Runnemede, NJ, and the Little League or the story about the Cascade Pacific Council and the Scoutmaster with the $4 million judgment, we know there is a problem, and we ought to do something about it. We know there have been some things done, mostly to protect people in the board rooms and on the foundation governing bodies. But what happens to the average American who is not on the board but just a person who cares enough to give some of his own time or her own time, the most valuable thing? Perhaps more, in terms of the children of America--and the conference in Philadelphia focused on children--the thing that we lack the most is not money. The thing we lack the most for children is relationships. The Government has been spreading a lot of money around for a long time, but the kids are without role models, they are without relationships, they are without the opportunity to learn from adults. I think it is time for us to begin to provide a context in which that relationship can reappear, and that is what this bill is all about. This bill relieves volunteers of liability for acts which they would conduct in the course of doing what they were asked to do by charitable organizations. As it relates to the charitable organizations themselves, it establishes rules that would limit the kinds of cases in which there would be punitive damages and limits certain kinds of joint and several liability which provides a basis and a context in which we can expect to elicit far more help for people who need help in America. It seems to me that that is something we ought to pursue, and I think it is consistent with what the business of this body, representing the people of America, ought to talk about. So I am pleased to commend Senator Coverdell of Georgia for submitting this outstanding legislation, and I hope, as we work to make it an avenue for helping people help each other, that we will do the kind of job which will allow us to look back with gratitude on people who are able to help one another without the threat of a legal system making it impossible for them to serve. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I rise to make brief remarks about an important topic. The topic is the way in which we control our deployment of the resources of the American people. That is just another way of saying it is about spending. Over and over again, we come to the end of the fiscal year for the Federal Government and we are threatened with the absence of a spending plan. In the absence of a spending plan, we experience what are called Government shutdowns. It is at a time like that, when we have the potential for shutdown because we do not have any spending plan, that people begin to load up the budget with things they want. They know that the threat of a shutdown makes it more likely that things which could not pass muster on their own, which would not really be justified in the cold, hard light of reason and in the inspection and examination of normal debate, would be included. This is one of the reasons the deficit has become so high; under the pressure of the deadline and potential of a Government shutdown people are able to get spending plans enacted which simply divert resources, waste resources, and spend more resources than we have. It exacerbates the deficit; it hurts the potential of this country; it shows the absence of discipline which is indicative of the irresponsibility of the Congress. We should not allow that to happen. We should not put ourselves in a situation where we come to the end of the fiscal year and the President can say, if you do not put $10 billion or $11 billion or $14 billion more in the budget, I will veto the spending plan altogether, and we will end up with a shutdown and the American people will be held hostage until you agree to the plan for more spending. When people are held hostage the debate does not focus on the merits of spending issues, it focuses on the pain of the people who are held hostage without Government services. We desperately need to develop a way in which to handle our budget and appropriations process that does not allow the people to be held hostage by the President at the end of the year. The President should not be able to say, I will veto anything you send unless it has great expansions of programs to which you would not otherwise agree. It is with that in mind that I rise today to support what will be debated in this Senate, and I hope will be enacted shortly, and that is a continuing resolution. A continuing resolution is the way for us to have a spending plan which will be in place if we do not reach one in the ordinary budget and appropriations process. And it is a way of saying we will continue spending at some ratio of the previous levels, even in the absence of a budget for next year until we come to an agreement. The real virtue of this is simply that it will allow us to debate issues about spending in the next budget even at the close of a budget year without the potential of the American people being held hostage to a shutdown. I think that is a wise thing to do. That way we will look at each issue on its merits instead of looking at the pain that might be inflicted upon the country if the President vetoes a budget, shutting down the country and saying unless you do what I say, I am going to keep it shut down and see to it that these people have more injury and more pain. We have been through that. We had the longest shutdown in history because of disagreements between the Congress and the President. Now, there is a proclivity to say, well, it was the Congress' fault. Well, the Congress did pass a budget, but the President vetoed that budget. We do not want to be in that position again. So we need to put in place a continuing resolution, to do it now in the dispassionate cool of spring and not at the time at the end of the year when the President can say, well, if you do not do it my way, it is my way or the highway. You just send everything home. The people would be held hostage, and we would not really debate the issue on its merits. It is with that in mind I support the effort that is being made by the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] to provide a basis for a continuing resolution. I think it is the kind of responsible Government that helps us represent the people well and keeps us from inappropriately, improperly spending the resources of taxpayers based upon demands that are made at a time when urgency causes people to make decisions that merit would not justify. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on July 18, 1958, through Joint Resolution 479, the Senate and the House of Representatives designated the first day of May of each year as Loyalty Day. On this special day, Americans celebrate the reaffirmation of their loyalty to the United States of America in recognition of America's unmatched heritage of freedom. I would like to join Americans across the land in this celebration, particularly the fine Americans of Climax Springs VFW Memorial Post 3600 in Climax Springs, MO. Post 3600 will have their 12th annual Loyalty Day parade on May 3, 1997. On this important day of reaffirming our loyalty to America, we must reflect on what it truly means to be an American. Thomas Jefferson identified the ideals so important to us when he said that all men are ``endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Even in a time of great national trauma, Abraham Lincoln could echo these sentiments by stating that America is a nation ``conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,'' and ``that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom * * * that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this Earth.'' The fundamental principle in these two statements by these two great Americans is the significance of liberty in the American experience. This historical commitment to freedom, most clearly seen in the lives of those who have fought and died for our country, deserves not only our loyalty but a celebration of that loyalty. That is the essence of Loyalty Day and I urge all Americans throughout this great land to join Climax Springs VFW Post 3600 in the celebration of the freedoms God has blessed us with in America.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity to make some comments in regard to this serious matter. None of us has any affection for chemical weapons. Each of us hates chemical weapons. We would all like to see chemical weapons abolished. None of us would like to see chemical weapons used. We would all like to believe the statements of prominent experts that have been made about this treaty. We would all like to embrace the assurances of the President that, if something goes wrong, the treaty could be something easily walked away from. But, in spite of all our aspirations, in spite of all of our desires, and in spite of all our hopes, there is one reality which will persist; and that reality is the language of the treaty itself. Long after the assurances have stopped echoing through this Chamber, long after the President has left office, who is trying to assuage the fears of those who have misgivings about this treaty, the black and white letters of the treaty itself will be the controlling components of what happens. And the thing that gives me great pause is that the treaty will remain. There are the requirements, particularly in articles X and XI of the treaty, which require us to share technology, to share information, and to share, in particular, the defensive technology of chemical weaponry. There is an anomaly in chemical weaponry which is challenging. It is that when you provide the defensive technology for chemical weapons, you are providing one of the essential components of delivering chemical weapons. No one can deliver chemical weapons, unless it is launched by a missile, without having to have all the technologies of how to defend against the chemistry of the weapons.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask for 30 additional seconds. If a rogue state wants to deliver chemical weapons, one of the things they need to do is to acquire the defensive technology to defend against them and to protect their own soldiers in delivery. That seems to me one of the substantial problems contained in articles X and XI. The risks far exceed the benefits. As a result, I think it is ill-advised for us to accept assurances which would mislead us. We need to read the treaty, and the treaty is not one which merits our approval.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate home schoolers in Missouri who are celebrating Missouri Home Education Week, May 4-10, 1997. As a parent and former teacher, I understand the vital importance of sound education in a child's development. The opportunities for students who achieve educational excellence are virtually limitless. As a U.S. Senator I fully recognize that the character and productivity of our Nation are directly linked to the quality of education provided to America's youth. Throughout my career in public service, I have been pleased to support the efforts of home schoolers to provide quality education. Home educators in Missouri are making an extra effort to give their children the best chance for success in an ever-changing society. They recognize the importance of family and judge home schooling to be the educational setting that is most appropriate. By personally guiding the scholastic endeavors of their children, home educators ensure that all facets of a child's development are considered when preparing them to become active, productive, and responsible citizens. In Missouri, home education has enjoyed considerable success in recent years because of the tremendous support received from citizens all across the State who realize the significance of family participation in the educational process. Furthermore, Missouri home schoolers are establishing one-on-one relationships with adult role models and mentors who enrich home education learning by providing hands-on business experience. This exposure to the marketplace allows home schoolers the opportunity to interact with business, community, and civic organizations. I commend the achievement realized by home schools in the State of Missouri and applaud your noble work on this special observance of Home Education Week in Missouri, May 4-10, 1997.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, no one did more to bring peace and prosperity in our time than our 40th President, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan's economic and foreign policies gave us the longest peacetime expansion in our history and made the world safe again for democracy. But more than that, Ronald Reagan called us to our highest and best: we never spoke with more certainty or sat taller in the saddle than when Ronald Reagan was riding point. In his farewell address, Reagan told a wonderful story, a story of a refugee and an American sailor. In the early eighties, the U.S.S. Midway was patrolling the South China Sea when the crew happened upon a small craft, a decrepit little boat crammed with refugees trying to make their way to America. The Midway's captain sent a small launch to bring the ship to safety. And as they made their way toward the tiny vessel, a refugee glimpsed a crewman on deck and called out, ``Hello, American sailor. Hello freedom man.'' It was, as Reagan noted, ``a small moment with a big meaning.'' Throughout our history, America has been a nation dedicated to a proposition, a country committed to freedom--freedom of religion, of speech, of assembly, and of the press. That undying devotion has allowed us to know both wealth and power, for they are the natural fruit of the democratic ideal. From manufacturing to basic science, from aerospace to the arts, it is a material abundance and cultural vitality heretofore unseen. And freedom is the song America has sung across the globe whether marshaling her troops or providing resources for the Marshall plan. Five times in this century patriot's blood has been spilled in the fight for freedom around the world. That is our history, it is our common calling, it is our shared wisdom. And so as we stand on the verge of a new century, with the greatest technological and material advances mankind has ever known, we would do well to ask ourselves: how stands the cause of freedom? Not just in the Western Hemisphere, but around the world. For while America is safer, stronger, more prosperous today than at any time in recent history, a sound like a bell tolls softly in the night; and it warns of coming conflict. Mr. President, there is a destabilizing force in the Pacific rim today--and it is not the Asian democracies. There is an entity, which through its emerging economic and military might, intends to assert its power--and it is not the Asian democracies. There is a political system that sees as its enemy the free people of the world--and it is not the Asian democracies. No, the expansionist force in Asia is Communist China, a country that cares little for international law, and even less for the sacred nature of human life. Now, Americans have long known of the existence of evil in the human heart. And yet strangely, we are loathe to confess it. We are Jefferson's children, unrequited romantics, believers in the innate goodness of man. But experience is both the best and most expensive teacher. And it has taught us a costly lesson that I fear is being lost: ``Totalitarians do not stop--they must be stopped.'' Communist China is presently engaged in a military build-up that is as spectacular as it is unsettling. The weapon's bazaar open for business in Beijing includes a blue water navy and a 21st century air force that will give China the capacity to exercise power throughout the Pacific. Russia alone has sold billions of dollars of military technology to the Chinese, including cruise missile(s) capable of defeating the antimissile defenses of the United States Navy. These force-projection technologies are not about provid[ing] for the common defense; they are about providing an uncommon capacity to project power. They threaten not just the democracies of Asia, but the American sailors of the 7th Fleet who in the name of peace call the waters of the South China Sea home. Just as troubling as Beijing's buying binge is its decision to sell missile and nuclear technology to Pakistan, Syria, and Iran. Over time, this equipment will allow each to produce bomb-grade uranium. Now, China contends that the sales are nothing more than a mutually agreeable exchange between sovereign nations. But the dispatch of cruise missiles to Iran has placed United States forces in harm's way. For let us recall that it was a lesser version of this same missile that took the lives of 37 American sailors aboard the U.S.S. Stark. As if this were not enough, Communist China has undertaken another drive: a campaign of persecution and repression aimed at crushing internal dissent. Beijing's policies of torture, arbitrary arrest, and execution in Tibet have made horror ordinary. Today, the President has an opportunity to challenge state persecution and champion individual freedom by formally receiving the Dalai Lama. Unfortunately, administration thinking on his visit seems as muddled as our China policy itself. Why is it that the President has an open door policy for Chinese arms dealers, but the Dalai Lama must be slipped through the White House back door? We should embrace the people of China who yearn to breathe free, not toast the tyrants who ordered tanks into Tiananmen Square. Or, consider the case of Bishop Su. Hung from the ceiling by his wrists, Su was battered time and again about the head until all but unconscious. He was then placed in a cell filled with water where he was left for days, unable to sit or [to] sleep. Tragically, Su is but one of untold hundreds that have been beaten and killed. Their high crime? A fidelity to God and the desire to exercise that devotion. And who will condemn such barbarism? The administration has made not a sound. Well, I would respectively remind them that to sin by silence makes cowards out of men; and an act of cowardice this great has not been seen since Hemingway's Macumber heard the lion's roar. As for United States exporters, there is little denying trade with China has been of great value. United States goods and services exports to China have increased from $3.5 billion to over $14 billion in the last decade alone. From power generation equipment to automotive parts, China has pursued Western consumer goods as a means by which to fuel its military expansion. The West has willingly obliged. But at what cost, and to what end? Chinese import duties are still five times higher on average than those imposed by the U.S. and quadruple those of Japan. Nearly half of Chinese imports are subject to further barriers. And certain key industries such as electronics, aircraft, and telecommunications are shielded from competition altogether. It would seem that 18th century mercantilism is alive and well in 20th century China. Mr. President, China's trade policies are about selective market access that ensure merchandise trade deficits as far as the eye can see; on human rights, Beijing is showing the world a reign of terror unparalleled in the post-cold-war era; and a tour of the Pacific rim's horizon finds a Chinese defense buildup aimed at achieving superpower status at the Asian democracies, expense. So what, then, is to be done? Just a decade ago, the vast majority of the Congress seemed to understand who our enemies were and why. But some in Washington today seem confused about what is a decent political system and what is not, which philosophies should be embraced or rejected, what is right and what is wrong. We will never tame the Chinese dragon--no more than we subdued the Soviet bear--with the policies of appeasement. The way to bring China into the community of nations, as Michael Ledeen and others have argued, is to talk truthfully and forcefully about the evils found there; challenge Beijing to grant more political and economic freedom to its people; and maintain a military superiority that makes the cost of conflict too high. There is an old Chinese proverb which says, ``When you want to test the depth of a stream, do not use both feet.'' To end diplomatic ties and cease trading with the most populous nation on Earth would be the march of folly. I do believe, however, that we must look anew at both the granting of most favored nation [MFN] status as well as China's acceptance into the World Trade Organization [WTO]. For we are now approaching a critically important stage in United States-Sino relations as a new generation of leadership leaps forward. They must know that adventurism in Asia will meet a firm response. They must know we will not sanction the injuries and usurpations that the Chinese people have suffered at the hands of the state. They must know that we will support and defend democracy. The theme is freedom. And the fundamental principle upon which we should base U.S. trade policy is this: Truly free trade can only exist between free peoples. And the Chinese who watched treachery take hold in Tiananmen are most certainly not free. More than 300 years before the U.S.S. Midway patrolled the South China Sea, there was a great Puritan migration to a land called America. And on board a very different ship, the Arbella, John Winthrop preached a sermon entitled, ``A Modell of Christian Charity.'' In it, he laid out his expectations for the new colony; he spoke that, ``every man might have need of other'' and of a world ``knit more nearly together by the bond of brotherly affection.'' Winthrop was an early freedom man and his, like Reagan's, was a transcendent vision. The society he foresaw was a true commonwealth, a community in which each person put the good of the whole ahead of private concern. It should not surprise us, then, that Winthrop's words upon arriving in America were some of Reagan's most frequently quoted: ``We shall be a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.'' Well, the eyes of all people are upon us again. And the question they ask? Will America continue to stand for freedom? Or, will she fall captive to policies born of confusion and conciliation. The answer we send will tell much about how brightly our city still shines. For we stand on the cusp of a new and exciting age. By all accounts, this has been the American century. The ideals that light our city have found comfort's warm embrace across the globe; democracy has triumphed; market capitalism reigns supreme. But alas, China's shadow looms large. And the decisions of today will determine whether America alone will shape the tomorrows in which we live. So let us resolve to once again hoist up the flag of freedom. Let us resolve to extol the virtues of democracy to all who will listen. And not because democracy is our form of government, but because democracy is the only peaceful form of government. With the hope that one day the long tug of memory might look favorably upon us as we look approvingly on the generations who answered freedom's call in decades passed.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few moments speaking about two of America's values. They are values that are embraced by people across our Nation from sea to shining sea, but sometimes those values come into conflict. When they come into conflict, how we resolve that particular conflict will depend on how well we succeed in the next century, how capable we are of carrying on at the high level of performance that America has always expected and that the world has always admired. I speak about two values, and I do not think there are two values that are more highly or intensely admired in America than these. The first one is the value we place on our families. We understand that more than anything else the family is an institution where important things are learned, not just knowledge imparted but wisdom is obtained and understood in a family which teaches us not just how to do something but teaches us how to live. A second value which is a strong value in America and reflects our heritage is the value of work. Americans admire and respect work. We are a culture that says if you work well, you should be paid well. If you have merit, you should be rewarded. If you take risks and succeed, that is the engine that drives America forward. When you have this value of family and the value of work both motivating a society, it is good news for the culture and I think America has a bright future. But sometimes these values collide. When the demands of work somehow get so intense that they impair our ability to do with our families what we ought to do, then we feel tension because we have these two important components of the American character that are bumping into each other. Most of us as Americans know that we are working hard enough now that there are many times when we simply feel we are not spending the time we ought to with our families. If you will look at the data that has been assembled by the pollsters and everyone else who takes the temperature of the American public regularly, you will find out that most Americans would like to be able to spend more time with their families, and that most Americans are spending far less time with their families than they used to, and that most Americans are spending more time on the job than they used to. The number of hours we are devoting to our enterprises and our work is going up, and we feel a tension with the way in which we value our families. Sometimes we feel like we have been sacrificing our families. So one of the things that faces us as a culture, as a community, as a country is, how are we going to resolve these tensions? I think that is one of the jobs, that we have to try and make sure we build a framework where people can resolve those tensions and where Government somehow does not have rules or interference that keeps people from resolving those tensions. For example, there are a lot of times when an individual would say on Friday afternoon to his boss or her boss, ``My daughter is getting an award at the high school assembly today. Can I have an extended lunch hour, maybe just 1 hour so that I can see my daughter get the award? I would like to reinforce, I would like to give her an `atta girl,' I would like to hug her and say, `You did a great job, this is the way you ought to work and conduct yourself, it is going to mean a lot to yourself and our family and our country if you keep it up.' '' Right now, it is illegal for the boss to say, ``I will let you take an hour on Friday and you can make it up on Monday,'' because it is in a different 40-hour week. You cannot trade 1 hour for 1 hour from one week to the next. That will make one week a 41-hour week and will go into overtime calculation. Since most bosses do not want to be involved in overtime, it just does not happen. What we have is a situation where parents are in a bind. They want to deal with their family, they want to deal with them effectively. Lots of employers would like to help the parent do that, but here is the Government standing and saying, ``That's illegal.'' One of the reasons the Government says that is illegal is because we crafted our labor laws about what can be done and what cannot be done back in the 1930's. A lot of us cannot even remember the 1930's, but they were tough times. We did not have the commitment to flexibility in the 1930's that we have now. We thought the 40-hour week was something that had to be rigid. Only one out of six mothers of school-age children was in the work force in the 1930's--one out of six. That is about 18 percent. Now we have between 70 and 80 percent of the mothers of school-age children in the work force. As a result, we live in a different culture. We live in an entirely different world, and these individuals, mothers and fathers, are feeling the stress of not being able to have an ability to accommodate the needs of the family and also pursue the value of work, which we valued so highly and reflected in this body last year when we had welfare reform. We said, ``You don't get welfare if you are not willing to go to work,'' and we want to value work. But we want to have a way so when we have work as being a primary focus of this culture, it also allows us the flexibility to do well with our families because we understand that it is in families that people build the habits of success, that will ultimately carry ourself and our communities. This tension between the workplace and the home place, juxtaposed or set in a framework of laws created in the 1930's that does not allow us flexibility, is a problem. For example, you might be asked to do overtime over and over and over again, and you do overtime, and then you are paid time and a half for your overtime. But at some point, most Americans come to the conclusion, my goodness, no matter how much pay I get, I still need some time, and I would like to take some time off, instead of getting time and a half in pay. I think it might be a good idea to say, if you want time and a half off some week in the future so you can spend time with your kids and make up for lost time, or go on a vacation or go to a parent-teacher conference, you might be able to say to your employer, ``Instead of paying me time and a half in wages, you ought to let me take time and a half off sometime.'' If the employer agreed to it voluntarily--both parties--we ought to let that happen. It is against the law. The law passed in the 1930's, when we were more rigid and had different conditions in this country, says if you work overtime, you must be paid time and a half; you cannot take comp time or compensatory time off. Some employers even want to go so far as to help their families by saying instead of doing 1 week for 40 hours, we would be willing, if you wanted to and on a voluntary basis, let the worker average 40 hours over a 2-week period regularly, so you would only work 9 days in the 2 weeks, but you would work 45 hours the first week and 35 hours the second week and have every other Friday off so you could take the kids to the dentist or drop by the department of motor vehicles and get the car licensed or visit the governmental offices that are not open on Saturday. It is against the law to do that now. What I have described are three problems: One, the comp time problem that you can only get comp time in money not in time; two, flextime; sometimes you need to trade 1 hour one week for another hour the next week; and three, to schedule flexibly so you might be on a regular schedule that allowed you to take time off with regularity. All three of these things are available in the Federal Government and for governmental entities. Since 1978, the Federal Government has said it is OK to swap comp time off instead of overtime pay. The Federal Government said it is OK to have a flextime bank so if you need to take time off you can take some time off if you put some extra hours in the bank. It is also said if you want to have some flexible scheduling so that every other Friday or every other Monday is off, that is something we can work with you on. It is totally voluntary--voluntary for the worker, it is voluntary for the Federal Government employer or administrator. Neither can force the other because we do not want to force people to work overtime or take comp time, but we want to allow Americans to make choices which will help them resolve the tensions between the home place and the workplace, these two values that are in competition. I tell you, it has worked so well in the Federal Government that it is almost unbelievable. When the General Accounting Office did one of its surveys, and the only survey really that has been done on the subject, 76 percent of the workers said they liked it. Only 7 percent said they did not like it. That is better than a 10-to-1 ratio. Frankly, you cannot interview people in Washington and get that much agreement on the fact that today is Thursday. That is an overwhelming endorsement, and I think it is high time that we gave to the American public generally what governmental workers have had for almost 20 years now, 19\1/2\ years. Since 1978, Federal workers have had this ability to say on a voluntary basis, ``I would like to take some time off instead of getting the overtime pay,'' and the time off would come at time and a half. Or, ``I would like to work an extra hour this week so I can take an hour off next week and put it in a flextime bank.'' Or, if the worker and employer could agree, ``I sure would like to schedule it so I work 9 hours a day for 5 days this week and only work 35 hours next week so I can take off all of Friday, every other Friday.'' These potentials, which exist for Federal workers, it occurs to me, ought to be able to be available to workers in the private sector as well, were we not to be locked into the hard and fast rules of the 1930's. That was a time when Henry Ford said, ``You can have your Ford any color you want so long as it is black.'' Things were not quite as flexible then as they are now, and families did not need the flexibility then as they do now. With 70 to 80 percent of all mothers of school-age children now working and two parents working in all those settings, and the tension between work and home, I think we ought to have more flexibility at the option of both the employer and the worker, only when it is agreed to. That is really the subject of the Family Friendly Workplace Act which I proposed this year and I believe we will be working on and actually voting on in the next 30 days. It is a way of saying we need to allow families to work out the conflict that exists between these important values that are crucial and so fundamental to the success of this culture in the next century, not just fundamental to the success of our culture, but fundamental to the success of our own families. We were aware when we put this bill together that we did not want to allow any employer to be overbearing or coercive, either directly or indirectly, in this respect, so we put in tough penalties. We doubled the penalties that would attend any violation of overtime rules. Not only that, if a worker says, ``I think I would like to have time off at time-and-a-half rates instead of being paid time and a half,'' and then the worker changes his or her mind, of course, before taking the time off, the worker would have the right to cash the time in at any time. The law provides that if at the end of the year the worker has not taken the time off, the employer has to pay time and a half anyhow. It is designed to make sure there is no coercion and voluntary for both workers and employers, but it is designed as well to be flexible. Some people thought having family and medical leave would be the answer. There is a law that says you can take time off to meet your family's needs, but you have to take it off without pay. I think that really is a tough situation, because the workers are put in a circumstance where, in order to relieve the family tension, he or she has to increase the financial tension. Well, the financial tension is what has driven people into the workplace in the first instance. I believe we should not have to take a pay cut in order to be a good mom or dad in America. If we would allow for flexible working arrangements, a worker could have a bank of time they have earned in advance that they could use as flextime or they could take some of the time in your bank that you put in at time and a half for comp time and you could meet your family needs that way without taking a pay cut. Simply, the Family and Medical Leave Act says you can leave without pay. I think we ought to have the Family Friendly Workplace Act which says you do not have to take a pay cut in order to be a good mom or dad in America. Well, this is the situation. I believe if you ask people, they will tell you they need this. President Clinton commissioned a study by the Labor Department. The report was entitled ``Working Women Count,'' and that report, headed by the Clinton Labor Department, said the No. 1 thing we want is more ability to harmonize, to accommodate the needs of our families and workers. The President himself has recognized this. There was a small portion of Federal Government workers that have not been covered since 1978, and when he took office in the early nineties, he said, ``I'll cover them,'' and he issued an Executive order which extended the benefits to these workers. I think it is time for America to prepare for the next century, and perhaps it may be a little scary for some people to just loosen their grip a little bit on the 1930's, but we do not live that way anymore. The truth of the matter is, we need flexibility. As long as we have a framework of protections and we guard against abuse and we make it voluntary for both employers and employees, I think it is time we said to the American people generally, you can have the same benefits that the Federal Government employees have had since 1978, you can work to accommodate these competing needs that tug and pull you, the need to have a good work situation and the need to meet the needs of your family. When we address these issues on the floor of the Senate, I hope we will have an overwhelming vote that sends the American work force into the next century with a sense of optimism and a sense of being able to accommodate these competing values, values of their families and home place and values of industry and the workplace. Mr. President, I thank you very much. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator from Minnesota suggests that these are merely sense-of-the-Senate amendments and that they would not impair the progress of the bill substantially. If by adding these amendments to the bill we send the bill to conference, we delay substantially our ability to move this legislation to the President of the United States for his signature. Throughout our comments and remarks, I think it has been clear we are simply at present awaiting judicial decisions which might authorize on a momentary basis Federal funding of assisted suicide, so that it is crucial we not delay this process. And sending this measure to conference would in fact delay the process. Second, I should indicate that this is not a measure which is designed to prohibit assisted suicide. Some suggestions seem to have been made that this is a measure which would attempt to control whether or not States could authorize assisted suicide or whether they could fund it on their own or whether we would be intervening by this legislation in the capacity of States to determine what is appropriate or inappropriate for their citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not a measure that relates to the commission of suicide. It relates to Federal funding of assisted suicide. This bill--and many people think it unfortunate it would not--does not prevent Kevorkian from acting. That would be controlled by local jurisdictions and what the law in those jurisdictions is. So that the alleged relevance of some of the proposed amendments simply is not consistent with the content of the measure. I think it is important for us to understand we ought to act quickly. We are fortunate that the courts have not already authorized Federal payments for assisted suicide. But for the injunction of a court in Oregon, that would have been the case, according to the director of Medicaid and the Health Services Commission chair in Oregon. And now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned that lower court's decision and the matter is still suspended in the limbo of the legal proceedings. But as soon as the ninth circuit's opinion would become final, the Oregon officials have indicated they intend to call for Federal resources to participate in the funding of what they call ``comfort care.'' I would be uncomfortable myself to receive the ``comfort care'' offered there. But it is, in my judgment, a matter of importance that we act promptly, that we act with dispatch. The attempt to bring unrelated issues to this measure is counterproductive, particularly inasmuch as it is likely to send this legislation to conference and to delay substantially the ability to move the will of the American people into the law of the American people, and that will is that we not fund with Federal resources assisted suicide. Madam President, I observe the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no amendments or motions be in order to the pending legislation, and that there be 10 minutes for debate to be equally divided in the usual form, to be followed by third reading and final passage of H.R. 1003.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his excellent statement on this issue. I appreciate his leadership on this issue. When this legislation was initially filed last year, I was not aware of the fact that he had previously included it in other matters. But he has been a leader in respecting the will of the American people not to participate in the funding of assisted suicide. Mr. President, I might add as well that while House bill 1003 is largely consistent and almost totally compatible with the bill that Senator Dorgan and I filed here in the U.S. Senate, the House added some provisions which I think improve the measure. Both bills were narrowly and tightly drawn and focused on the fact that we didn't believe there should be Federal funding for assisted suicide. The House measure includes provisions designed to reduce the rate of suicide, including assisted suicide, among persons with disabilities or terminal or chronic illness, by furthering knowledge and practice of pain management, depression identification, palliative care, and other issues related to suicide prevention. The bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to use existing Federal funds to establish research, training, and demonstration projects intended to help achieve the goal of reducing the rate of suicide. That would also, of course, include reducing the rate of individuals interested in assisted suicide. It also includes a provision directing the General Accounting Office to analyze the effectiveness and achievements of the grant programs that are authorized by the Public Health Service Act. So, resources now available to the public through the Public Health Service Act can be used in accordance with this measure to reduce the rate of suicide. It is important for us not just to be concerned about Federal funding for suicide, but where possible to help individuals understand the potential for hope in the situation rather than despair. I might just also point out that assisted suicide and the potential for assisted suicide or funding for assisted suicide in a culture are not really conducive to the development of other therapies. It is interesting to note that Justice Breyer pointed out a number of important facts during the Supreme Court's recent oral arguments regarding the right to assisted suicide. He indicated that supportive services for vulnerable patients remain undeveloped once a society has accepted assisted suicide as a quick and easy solution for their problems. In particular, he noted that in England, which prohibits assisted suicide, there are over 180 hospices for people who are terminally ill; 180 facilities designed for compassionate care to help these people. In a sense, each of us is terminally ill. Each of us ultimately will die. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, which allows assisted suicide, rather than having 180 hospices, they have only 3. It may be inappropriate to draw a conclusion here, but it seems to me that once a culture decides that the thing to do with terminally-ill patients is to help them die quickly, they neglect and otherwise refuse to develop the kinds of institutions which would help people who really ought to live and want to live and have many things to contribute. It is with that in mind that I think it is peculiarly and singularly important that this Congress respond to the voice of the American people, which with near unanimity is calling for us to prohibit Federal funding of assisted suicide. It is with that in mind that I urge my colleagues to join by voting in favor of this proposal. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I now ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to condemn the resurgence of terrorism against Israel. We have all watched with concern as a seemingly strong peace process has been assaulted with senseless acts of violence. Most troubling to me is the role Palestinian leadership has played in facilitating that terrorism. Yasser Arafat's failure to combat consistently terrorist activity in territory administered by the Palestinian Authority is the greatest single threat to achieving a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East. In the last few years, the Palestinian Authority has allowed terrorist attacks to reach atrocious levels of violence before finally responding to suppress these criminals. In 1996, four suicide bombings in Israel killed 59 people before Mr. Arafat got serious about combating terrorist networks in Palestinian territory. The Palestinian Authority arrested Islamic extremists, censored mosque sermons, and finally jailed almost all known operatives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The crackdown was successful and resulted in almost a year of silence from Hamas. Last week's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv broke that silence, however, and revived longstanding concerns about Arafat's willingness to use terrorism as a tool of leverage in the peace process. Beginning last August, Arafat gradually released 120 of 200 Islamic activists that Israel identified as security threats. Of those 120 activists, 16 were allegedly involved in terrorist acts that killed Israelis. To make matters worse, Arafat permitted five of the known terrorists to enter his security forces in Gaza and appointed a Hamas spokesman, Emad Falouji, to his Cabinet. Arafat also hired Adnan Ghol, one of Israel's most wanted Hamas terrorists for building the bomb used in a bus attack last year, to serve in his intelligence service in Gaza. In his visit to the United States in early March, Arafat was warned by the United States of the danger of releasing known terrorists. Such warnings went unheeded as Arafat returned to Palestine and promptly released the most senior remaining terrorist leader, Ibrahim Maqadmeh. Maqadmeh could very well have been involved in the March 21 Tel Aviv suicide bombing. Arafat claims his release of terrorist operatives is meant to bring all elements of Palestinian society into the peace process, but it is clear that such actions merely give a green light to terrorist attacks. Mr. President, I am troubled by the deterioration of the Middle East peace process and alarmed by the release of known terrorists from Palestinian jails. Terrorists are not welcome at the table of peace, and I call upon the Clinton administration to address this issue more forcefully in future discussions with Palestinian officials. The April 10 joint raid by Israeli and Palestinian security forces on a Hamas terrorist cell in the West Bank is a constructive step to rebuild security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It is my sincerest hope that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority will suppress terrorism at every turn and consistently adopt policies that preserve the security of both Israel and the occupied territories. When Palestinian terrorism ends, sincere negotiations for a lasting peace can truly begin.