Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Carolina, and I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 383 (Purpose: To exclude from the United States aliens who have been involved in extrajudicial and political killings in Haiti)

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, my amendment really is a very simple amendment. The amendment that Senator Graham and I have offered would deny entry into the United States to anyone who has been credibly alleged to have ordered or carried out extrajudicial and political killings in the country of Haiti. Mr. President, to an extent almost unimaginable to us who live in the United States, the history of Haiti has been a sad chronicle of brutal and repeated acts of political violence. Some of these extrajudicial killings occurred while former President Aristide was in exile. Some of these killings occurred after he returned to power. And tragically they have continued to occur after Mr. Aristide left office and President Preval became President. During Mr. Aristide's exile, the victims included Mr. Aristide's financial support, Antoine Izmery, who was killed on September 11, 1993; Guy Malary, Mr. Aristide's Minister of Justice, who was killed on October 14, 1993, and Father Jean-Marie Vincent, an Aristide supporter who was killed on August 28, 1992. Mr. President, after President Aristide regained power, it was the other side's turn. On March 28, 1995, a leader of the opposition to Mr. Aristide, attorney Mireille Durocher Bertin, was gunned down in her car. One of her clients, Eugene Baillergeau, was also killed in the shooting. On May 22, 1995, Michel Gonzalez was killed in a drive-by shooting-- after alleged attempts by Mr. Aristide to acquire his property. Three former top army officers were assassinated: Col. Max Mayard, killed on October 3, 1995. Col. Michelange Hermann, killed on May 24, 1995. And Brig. Gen. Romulus Dumarsais, killed on June 27, 1995. Since the inauguration of President Preval, further killings have taken place. On March 6, 1996, police and ministerial security guards killed at least six men during a raid in Cite Soleil in Port-au-Prince. On August 20, 1996, two opposition politicians--Jacques Fleurival and Pastor Antoine Leroy--were gunned down outside Mr. Fleurival's home. And the death toll goes on and on: Claude Yves Marie. Mario Beaubrun. Leslie Grimar. Joseph Chilove. Jean-Hurbert Feuille. The Haitian Government has assigned over 80 extrajudicial and political killing cases to the so-called Special Investigative Unit, the SIU. The Haitian Government says that they have fired several government employees who are suspects in these killings. But the sad fact remains that there has been no substantial progress made in these investigations. With the exception of one case that did go to trial where there was an acquittal, no one else has been tried. No one else has been convicted and no one has been punished for any of these assassinations. Clearly, Mr. President, we need to do everything in our power to encourage the Haitians to bring the killers to justice. We as a nation have made a substantial investment in the building of Haitian democracy. And the plight of Haitian boat people demonstrates very clearly and dramatically that moving Haiti into some level of stability is clearly in our national interest. But peace, democracy, and stability will not set down firm roots in Haiti unless and until the Haitian people themselves finally believe that power in their country can no longer be won at gunpoint. The days when political murders can be carried out with impunity must be brought to an end. This amendment that my colleague, Senator Graham, and I are now offering tells the Haitian people that political murder is no longer business as usual as far as the U.S. Government is concerned. In our view, it is time to stop adding names to the death toll of Haitian politics. The premise behind this amendment is that visiting the United States is a privilege, one that should not be taken for granted. By not allowing these Haitian political murderers into our country, we send a strong message to them and to all people that political violence in Haiti will not be ignored by the United States. This amendment does exempt persons on a case-by-case basis for medical reasons and cases in which the person has cooperated fully with the investigation of these political murders. This amendment also includes a reporting requirement. Our administration would be directed to submit to the appropriate congressional committees:) a list of those who have been credibly alleged to have ordered or carried out the extrajudicial and political killings;) a list of those who have been refused entry to the United States as a result of this provision; and a report on this matter to be submitted once each year until such time as the Government of Haiti has completed the investigation of the extrajudicial and political killings and has prosecuted those implicated in the killings. This amendment really is a very practical expression of our solidarity with the Haitian people, our solidarity with the Haitian people, as they aspire to real and true democracy and as they aspire to a peaceful civil society based on the rule of law instead of brutal violence. For too long, for tragically too long, violence, political violence has been the way of life in Haiti. Whether the government is led by General Cedras or President Aristide or President Preval, one sad truth remains: Too many Haitians die, too many Haitians die due to political violence. In past remarks on this Senate floor, I have outlined some of the measures the United States has taken and is taking to help the Haitian people break the cycle of violence. We are helping to train and provide resources for the SIU detectives who I talked about a moment ago, and we have sent experienced U.S. police officers to help mentor the young civilian police. As I have said on this floor on several occasions, one of most heartening things as I have visited Haiti now four times in the last several years is to see the young American, big-city police officers, Creole-speaking, Haitian born but United States citizens who are down there, trying to make a difference with this young police force. So there are things that are happening. Progress is being made. There is some good news. Haitians are making progress in a very tough, uphill battle. The adoption of this amendment will not solve their problems. It certainly will not solve their problems overnight, but I believe it will help. It will tell the Haitian people that we in the United States are on the side of everyone in that country who wants to create jobs, who wants to create hope; we are on the side of everyone in Haiti who wants a peaceful life, and we are on the side of everyone in Haiti who wants justice. When a country tries to move to democracy, we always look to see whether there is peaceful transition of power. We look to see whether or not there are elections and whether they are free and fair elections. We sometimes forget that that is not the only indicator of democracy and certainly is not the only indicator of whether or not that country will be able to preserve a fragile democracy. The other thing we have to look at is whether or not people feel they can have redress in the courts and whether or not, if someone, tragically, is murdered, or someone is injured, they have the opportunity or there will be the opportunity for their assailants to be brought to justice. This amendment deals with that and I believe will help the Government of Haiti and help the people of Haiti continue to progress towards the democracy that we want them to have and that they want. And the understanding must be that democracy is not just about elections, however important they are, but it is also about redress in courts. It is also about justice. It is also about a judicial system in which the general population can have confidence and faith. The solving of some of these high-profile political murders will go a long way to bringing about that type of confidence for the people of Haiti and will go a long way to creating the climate that we know must exist in Haiti if democracy is, in fact, to flourish and to survive. I ask, as I conclude my remarks, unanimous consent to insert at this point in the Record a letter which is referenced in this amendment. It is a letter bearing the date of June 28, 1995, from the Justice Department of the United States to the Minister of Justice of Haiti. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me stress that it is not too late for this Senate to work toward an intelligent bipartisan resolution of this issue. I say to my friends: Let's put politics aside. Let's try to see how far we can move toward giving America's workers what they want, what they need, and what they deserve. This is one case where thus far the American people are far ahead of this Congress--far ahead of this Congress in the very real sense that they know this law needs to be changed. They know that we need to have this flexibility. They not only want it. They are demanding it. I am confident that in the days ahead and weeks ahead we will be able to bring about this change that the American workers--people who work by the hour, who are out there every day trying to make a difference, every day who are trying to balance their family obligations with their obligations in the workplace--need. They need this type flexibility that S. 4 will give them. I again commend my colleague from Georgia for the great work that he has done on this bill, and my colleague from Missouri for bringing this matter to the floor. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his eloquent statement and comments about the need for S. 4. I also thank my friend and colleague from Missouri for the great work he has been doing to bring not only to the attention of the Senate but to the American people exactly what is at stake in regard to this bill. Mr. President, I am proud, again, to be on the floor to speak in favor of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. This bill is a truly necessary and forward-looking response to the major changes that have already taken place in the U.S. work force in the last few years. Mr. President, today's working men and working women feel battered between the conflicting demands of work and family. They feel there has to be a better way. I think they are right. Mr. President, the bill we are here to talk about on the floor today represents that better way--a better way for workers to balance the needs of family and the needs of the workplace. This bill gives working people the flexibility that they know would make a huge difference for the better in their lives. Mr. President, according to a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau, the top concern of working women is flexible scheduling in the workplace--flexible scheduling, which will allow them to balance their responsibilities at work with the needs of their children and the needs of their spouses. A stunning 66 percent of working women with children reported that their primary concern was the difficulty that they were having in balancing work and family. According to another recent poll conducted, 88 percent of all workers want more flexibility, either through scheduling flexibility or choice of compensatory time in lieu of traditional overtime pay. In that same poll, Mr. President, 75 percent--three-fourths--favored a change in the law that would permit hourly workers such a choice. These poll results tally with what most of us know intuitively, what we know from talking to our own constituents. As both the economy and American family life grow more and more complex, the men and women in America's work force want greater flexibility to be able to cope with all of these changes. The legislation known as S. 4 would do that. It does not propose doing something untried, something unheard of, something never used before. On the contrary, this is not revolutionary. We have a history of its use in the public sector, and we have a history of its use among employers who are not hourly but are salaried employees. All this bill does is give workers and their employers in the private sector the same kind of workplace flexibility that their counterparts have had for years in the public sector. Mr. President, I don't think it is outrageous to say that workers in the private sector should have the benefit of the same kind of flexibility Government workers have today. In fact, all it is is a fair shake. It is only equity and equality; it is only fairness. Mr. President, American society has changed a great deal over the last few decades. The stereotypical role of management and labor, male and female workers, simply does not exist anymore today. In 1938, when the original underlying legislation was passed, less than 16 percent of married women worked outside of the home. Today, more than 60 percent of married women work outside of the home. And 75 percent of mothers with school age children work outside the home today. The world has gone around many times in those years and the world has changed. The American society has changed. The squeeze on these workers, between family and job, is so great that workers themselves believe that action is absolutely imperative. That is why we are trying to change the outdated Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. President, this would be a real, positive and necessary change for real American working families. A few weeks ago, I was on the floor and I talked about the Morris family, an Ohio family. Clayton Morris, a father and a husband, is a public employee. That means he has the option of choosing compensatory time over traditional monetary overtime pay. He is free to spend important extra time, because of this, with his 2\1/2\-year-old son, Domenic. However, Clayton's wife Ann is a sales assistant for a Cleveland area business form company. That means she can't take time off to be with Domenic in lieu of overtime pay. The Federal Government today prohibits her from doing that. Ann has said, ``He''--referring to husband Clayton--``has the ability, if he works overtime, to store those hours. He can use the stored comptime to be at home where he is needed. However, when I need to be able to leave work, I end up having to take sick time or vacation time to do the very same thing. It would be really nice if I had a flexible schedule.'' Mr. President, American workers and their employers want and are demanding this flexibility. Seemingly, countless studies and surveys have pointed out, time and time again, Americans' overwhelming need, desire, and support of a more flexible workplace schedule and the changes the Family Friendly Workplace Act would provide. Mr. President, if you look at a family like the Morrises, you can see one major reason for the broad public support for this bill. People in the private sector see their friends and family members who are in the public sector; they see how much this type of flexibility helps them and helps their families. They see it and know it works. Mr. President, I regret that thus far in the U.S. Senate, some Members of the Senate have chosen to stand in the way of the perfectly legitimate desire on the part of American workers and employers for a truly flexible, family-friendly workplace.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Missouri for the great job he has done. In survey after survey, the American people endorse the ideas and the basic principles of this bill. More flexibility in the workplace, letting workers choose how they want to be compensated for overtime, letting workers decide what they need most--time with their family, time to study, time to relax; or time-and-a-half overtime pay to meet their financial obligations. Madam President, an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer, I think, summarized it very well. ``A little flexibility would be a godsend to good workers who also want to be good parents.'' The article went on to say, ``It could benefit employers, too, who'd find it easier to recruit and retain productive workers.'' President Clinton has stated, ``We should pass a flextime law that allows employees to take overtime pay in money or in time off, depending on what is better for their family.'' Clearly, what we have here are the makings of a national consensus. I believe it would be a terrible shame if we let this popular and this necessary legislation fall victim to partisan wrangling here on the Senate floor. Madam President, this is a proworker bill. The bill requires that all participation be voluntary. Let me say it again--voluntary. All participation under this bill must be voluntary. If a worker does not want it, he or she can just say no. No punishment, no retribution, no consequence. Under no circumstances will participation be a condition of employment. Further, Madam President, the bill has powerful anticoercion provisions in very strong penalty language for any employer who violates those provisions. I believe, Madam President, we have already established some level of cooperation in this bill. For example, during the markup, Senators Kennedy and Wellstone were very concerned about the status of unused accrued comptime hours in the event of a bankruptcy--a legitimate concern. They wanted to create stronger protections for employees. In the spirit of compromise, I asked our distinguished colleague Senator Grassley, whose Judiciary subcommittee has the proper jurisdiction and expertise on this issue, to draft legislation to deal with these concerns. Yesterday, Senator Grassley came to the floor and offered his amendment to improve this bill. Unfortunately, regrettably, we have not yet been able to vote on Senator Grassley's amendment. Madam President, we should build on this bipartisan spirit of cooperation, the bipartisan spirit of that amendment, and work toward passage of this bill. I believe, Madam President, we need to put the focus on the needs of those workers. We should look at this issue from the perspective of the working people who are going to be directly affected. Let us pass a bipartisan response to their very legitimate concerns.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Mack's amendment to double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health over the next 5 years and to add $2 billion to NIH funding now for fiscal year 1998. I want to thank the Senator for bringing this amendment to the floor today and this issue to the attention of our colleagues. This level of funding is critical. It's clearly needed if we're going to tackle the serious medical problems that America faces--including cancer, diabetes, asthma, arthritis, AIDS, and the need for additional information about the special medical needs of children. Research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health has a proven track record that has touched the lives of many Americans. The broad scope of its achievements is truly impressive. It includes the development of new treatments for disease; identification of genetic mutations for a varied set of diseases; identification of genetic mutations for a varied set of diseases; and contributions to the development of new scanning technologies. These spectacular advances in health could not have been achieved but for the commitment of Federal dollars we make to the NIH. And let us be clear on this. The returns on the public investment in biomedical research have been impressive. Not only have we won Nobel prizes and built on decades of basic research, we have contributed to our national economic growth. Our investments have given life to America's biotechnology industry. Some have estimated that revenues in this industry will approach $50 billion annually by the year 2000 and create as many as 500,000 new jobs. I am supporting this effort because I believe it reflects a commitment to substantially strengthen our priorities toward biomedical research. We cannot rest on our laurels. We must work to improve the health of our citizens. I also want to make a personal commitment to work with my colleagues there in Congress and with the NIH to make advantage of the important opportunity this amendment presents to advance research that benefits all of us--and especially, all of our children. Let me highlight just one example of the type of activity that additional NIH research could support. Children under the age of 21 represent 30 percent of the population--and yet the NIH devotes only somewhere between 5 and 14 percent of its budget to their needs. Just as there has been a recognition in recent years that women and minorities have been neglected in research efforts nationwide, there's a growing consensus that children deserve more attention than they are getting. Children are not small adults. They go through different developmental stages, they metabolize drugs differently, and they respond to illnesses and treatments differently. Children's health needs are not only different--they're often ignored by the private sector. Federal funding for research--especially medical research--is a fundamental responsibility of Government. Today, the Senate must acknowledge that responsibility and act to enhance the ability of NIH to improve the health of all Americans.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, why do we argue with the Daschle amendment that sounds, on its face, reasonable? Why do we argue to say that it is a gutting amendment? Let me give my colleagues, very quickly, four reasons. When you look at the language of the Daschle amendment, you find that it creates a subjective standard. The underlying bill has an objective standard. The amendment says ``would threaten the mother's life,'' or ``risk grievous injury to her physical health.'' ``Risk'' is the key word. We have quoted Dr. Hern in Colorado who said, ``I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health''--``could cause.'' We cited this. But, frankly, I don't believe anyone, if you look just at the language, would disagree with what the doctor said. The reality is that any pregnancy has a risk. We are dealing with subjective language. Second, it is doctor self-certified. The operative language, the key language, is certification. No way you can look beyond and behind that certification. Once the certification is made, that is it. Third, the issue of viability: Before you even get to the question of certification, you have the issue of viability. All the doctor has to say is ``not viable.'' Who is going to look behind that? Senator Nickles has pointed out very well in citing the Supreme Court case that says when we are dealing with the issue of viability it is left up to the discretion of the physician. We look to the physician. My friends on the other side of the aisle can say, ``Well, who else would you look at?'' That is fine. But the reality is, you can't then tell me it is an objective standard. It is a subjective standard. It is self-certification, self-decided by the person who is performing the abortion. Finally, the fourth reason: The courts have historically given a very liberal interpretation to the whole issue of health as it pertains to a bill having to do with abortions. Four reasons, Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, why this very good-sounding amendment is a gutting amendment which really destroys the underlying bill.

Mr. DeWINE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in reluctance, but very strong opposition, to this amendment. I join with the comments that my friend, Senator Santorum, has made about our colleague, the distinguished minority leader. I think he has made a very honest attempt to deal with this issue. But I would like to explain over the next few minutes why I believe that this attempt has failed and why I believe that this amendment, however well intentioned I know it is, is a gutting amendment and how this amendment strips really everything away. It is really not the Senator's fault. I do not know if it is anyone's fault. But the reality is, we have to live with previous Court decisions and we have to live with a whole body of law. Legislation that we write has to take that into consideration, how words have in fact been defined. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear in the Bolton case how broad the language of ``health'' is, and when there is a health exception what that really does, and that everything is taken into consideration. I understand the Senator has tried to craft this legislation maybe to deal with that. I do not think it can be done. I do not think, in light of those cases, that that really can be done at all. But let us walk through, for a moment, what has to take place. The word ``certification'' is important because what this amendment says is--you have several issues, but they are all decisions, let us keep in mind, that are made by the attending physician, by the person performing the abortion. You start with the issue of viability. Now, the reality is --you cannot change the reality--the vast majority of these occur before viability. And the vast majority of them--according to Dr. Haskell 80 percent--are elective abortions. That is a fact. Those are the facts. We cannot change those facts, which means that this amendment does not deal with that. It does not deal with all those abortions at all. But let us go beyond that, because what this amendment says is the doctor has to certify. But even before he gets to the certification process, he makes a determination about viability. If he says ``not viable'' then that is it; it ends the debate. Only if he or she then says this child is viable, the fetus is viable, then the language kicks in. It says the doctor must certify. I would submit that once the certification takes place, that is it. And, again, it is solely within the discretion of the doctor whether certification takes place or does not take place. The operative act is not an objective standard; it is the certification in and of itself. That ends the discussion. That is it. Let me, if I could, Mr. President, recap where we are and what I think we have learned in the last few days. But before that, of course, with testimony in the Judiciary Committee on several different occasions, the other floor debates that we have had, I think we have established certain things, that certain things are uncontroverted. We have all seen the graphic descriptions of what happens in this procedure. There is no dispute about that. There is no dispute about the horror. There is no dispute about the tragedy. I believe it has been established and recognized from the AMA to Dr. C. Everett Koop that this procedure is never the only procedure that will save the life, or the health, of the mother. I think we have established that even when the baby, for medical reasons, must be separated from the mother, there is no reason to kill the baby. The termination of pregnancy is not the same as an abortion. I think the evidence is clear that the real reason this procedure is done is because it is easier for the abortionists. We have heard what Dr. Martin Haskell, the abortionist from Dayton, OH, has to say. I read his quote yesterday. This is what he says in part: ``The goal of your work is to complete an abortion.'' To complete an abortion. That is the goal. So we know, Mr. President, why these babies are killed--not for health reasons, not because the mother needs it, not because the baby cannot be delivered and may be saved, but because an abortionist does not want the baby to survive. That is the object. That is what Dr. Haskell says in his quote. The amendment that is before the Senate purports to deal with the issue of health. The amendment would ban postviability abortions unless ``the physician certifies''--the operative language--``that the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her health.'' As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, I believe it is clear this amendment--and the Court cases show--this amendment would do nothing to stop partial-birth abortion. To the contrary, it would allow any abortion, any abortion, Mr. President, to be performed. Roe versus Wade provides, as we all know, that in the third trimester there is a legitimate State interest in prohibiting abortions after fetal viability. This amendment would add a health exception to the underlying bill. That sounds good on its face, it looks good, but when you look at the Court decisions and when you look at the reality of how this would work in the real world, we find that exception expands in practice. There are no health circumstances, the evidence has clearly shown, that require a pregnancy be terminated by administering this particularly horrible procedure. Yesterday, I quoted Dr. Nancy Romer, chairman of ob-gyn and a professor at Wright State University Medical School in Ohio. Dr. Romer said, This procedure is currently not an accepted medical procedure. A search of medical literature reveals no mention of this procedure, and there is no critically evaluated or peer review journal that describes this procedure. There is currently no peer review or accountability in this procedure. It is currently being performed by physicians with no obstetric training in an outpatient facility behind closed doors and with no peer review. Dr. Romer goes on to say, There is no medical evidence that the partial-birth abortion procedure is safer or necessary to provide comprehensive health care to women. So, Mr. President, it is clear there are no medical circumstances that would require this procedure. Well, then you could argue, if that is true, Senator DeWine, why, then, what is wrong with putting a health exception in? What harm would that do? If there are no such circumstances, why not add a health exception anyway? The answer is, this health exception is so broad that it would, in fact, swallow up the rule. It is so broad that, literally, any abortion would be permitted. How do we know that? When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe versus Wade, it also handed a decision entitled ``Doe versus Bolton.'' Bolton held that a State statute that forbade abortions based on a life exception had to be interpreted to mean that ``the medical judgment'' to provide abortion for health reasons ``may be exercised in the light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient.'' It is clear from other cases how that is interpreted. That is interpreted, basically, to mean that it cannot be enforced in any way, that health exception consumes everything. If we pass the Daschle amendment and require this concept of physician certification, that the pregnancy would risk grievous injury, I believe that clearly would render this bill meaningless. The courts, in interpreting the meaning of the word ``health,'' were accorded the broad interpretation that the Supreme Court has consistently applied. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, has already read the quote from Dr. Warren Hern, but it is appropriate to hear it again because it is directly on point to this issue. Dr. Warren Hern, a Colorado abortionist who has performed hundreds of late-term abortions, has already stated that he will certify that any pregnant woman can meet the standard of the Daschle amendment. ``I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.'' Any pregnant woman. So, Mr. President, there we have it. Under this exception, any abortion would be permitted. When we have the testimony of America's most respected doctor, Dr. C. Everett Koop, backed by the American Medical Association in support of the assertion that there is never a medical necessity for this procedure, it is clear what the health exception is. Mr. President, unfortunately, tragically, that purported exception is a hoax, it is a sham, it is a smokescreen, however well-intentioned the authors are. In conclusion, Mr. President, when you come down to it, I think it is a moral dodge. I think it puts us to sleep. It is a way we can try to convince ourselves that it is OK, this amendment is OK, even though, in effect, we are tolerating something very, very bad. Mr. President, we are not OK. We know what is going on behind the curtain and we cannot wish that knowledge away, however much we would like to. We have to face it and we have to do what is right. That means passing this bill to ban this barbaric, inhuman, unconscionable practice. Again, with respect to my distinguished colleague, the minority leader, it also means we must vote this amendment down. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the manager of the bill, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, not only for bringing this bill to the floor, for working on it for so many months, but also for that very eloquent statement about the tragedy that occurred in his family. I think his statement was the statement about the value of life and how precious human life really is. Each one of us, at different times in our lives, are reminded of the value of life, and sometimes how brief that life can be. As I look around the Chamber of the Senate this evening, I see three of my colleagues who have lost children, three of us who have lost children, who understand maybe more than we did before how precious human life is. Really, that is what this debate is about tonight, what it has been about today. One of the things that we do in this Senate, as we have the luxury, if you want to use the term, of unlimited debate, is to thoroughly discuss issues. And as we do that, this tradition that is over 200 years in this body, as we do that, many times we do, in fact, educate ourselves and understand things better. Maybe, as we try to educate ourselves, we help educate the American people. We have been at this debate for a long time because we had this debate last session of Congress. I would like, tonight, to talk about some of the things we have learned. I entered this Chamber, as my colleague from Texas, Phil Gramm, said earlier this evening, entered the Chamber a few months ago--I say now over a year ago--with not a whole lot of knowledge about partial-birth abortion. I think we all have become educated, not just from the debate here on the floor, but also we have been educated by the hearings. We have learned what partial-birth abortion is. I think the most telling description was given by Brenda Pratt Shafer, of Franklin, OH, when she testified in front of the Judiciary Committee. Let me, if I could, share with my colleagues in part what she said: Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee, I am Brenda Pratt Shafer. I am a registered nurse, licensed in the State of Ohio, with 13 years of experience. In 1993, I was employed by Kimberly Quality Care, a nursing agency in Dayton, OH. In September 1993, Kimberly Quality Care asked me to accept an assignment at the Women's Medical Center, which is operated by Dr. Martin Haskell. I readily accepted this assignment because I was at that time very pro- choice. She continues: So, because of the strong pro-choice views I held at that time, I thought this assignment would be no problem for me. But I was wrong. I stood at the doctor's side as he performed the partial-birth abortion procedure--and what I saw is branded on my mind forever. I worked as an assistant nurse at Dr. Haskell's clinic for 3 days--September 28, 29, 30, 1993. She continues: On the third day, Dr. Haskell asked me to observe as he performed several of these procedures that are the subject of this hearing. Although I was in the clinic on the assignment of the agency, Dr. Haskell was interested in hiring me full- time, and I was being oriented in the entire range of procedures provided by that facility. I was present for three of these partial-birth procedures. It is the first one that I will describe to you in detail. The mother was 6 months pregnant, 26\1/2\ weeks. A doctor told her that the baby had Down Syndrome, and she had to have an abortion. She decided to have this abortion. She came in the first 2 days and have the laminaria inserted and changed, and she cried the whole time she was there. On the third day, she came in to have the partial-birth abortion procedure. Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beat. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, the baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. Senators this is a baby that was a little bit smaller than the baby that I actually saw that day. She held something up. This is a mechanical model of a baby. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, and stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched Dr. Haskell doing these things. Next, Dr. Haskell delivered the baby's head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse, and she said it was just reflexes. I have been a nurse for a long time, and I have seen a lot of death--people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this. The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the baby and put it into a blanket and handed it to her. She cried the whole time. She kept saying, ``I am so sorry, please forgive me.'' I was crying, too. I couldn't take it. That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I think I have ever seen in my life. I was present in the room during two more such procedures that day, but I was really in shock. I tried to pretend I was somewhere else, to not think about what was happening. I just couldn't wait to get out of there. After I left that day, I never went back. The last two procedures, by the way, involved healthy mothers with healthy babies. That was the testimony of the nurse, testimony that has never been controverted. In fact, I will not take the Senate's time to read this in its entirety, but this is the actual paper that Dr. Haskell prepared that has been quoted before in this procedure. It is a paper delivered by Martin Haskell, presented at the National Abortion Federation, Risk Management Seminar, September 13, 1992. You can track in Dr. Haskell's own words exactly what nurse Shafer said. The doctor uses medical terminology. Part of this has already been read today by Dr. Frist, Senator Frist, when he gave his very eloquent comments in opposing the Daschle amendment. I will point out one thing that is very evident when you look at this description by Dr. Haskell of what this partial-birth abortion procedure is, that it takes 3 days, day 1, day 2, day 3. That was confirmed by what Nurse Shafer said. The dilation occurs in the first 2 days. They go in, go back home or go to a motel, and then come back the third day for the procedure itself. But actually the whole procedure takes 3 days. We have also learned not only what the procedure is, we have learned a lot about why it is done. Again, maybe the best evidence is to listen to the people who perform the abortions. Dr. McMahon has told us, he has said that a number of these were done for nothing more serious than cleft palates. Seven, eight, possibly nine, for cleft palates, the life was snuffed out. Dr. Haskell has told us that 80 percent--80 percent--of the abortions he performs are elective. The evidence is overwhelming of why these are done and under what circumstances. Mr. President, during the just concluded debate, a number of my colleagues spoke of how this issue has deeply divided this country. One even said that nothing really has divided this country as much as the abortion debate has since the debate over slavery prior to and leading up to and including the Civil War. I think that is correct. Few issues in our whole country's history have been so divisive. I would argue, Mr. President, this debate over abortion has been so protracted and intense because in a sense in a government of ``we the people,'' we are still trying to figure out who ``we''--what that means, who is included. I say, Mr. President, that the vulnerable babies that we have heard about are us. And whether or not we are willing to speak out, whether or not we are willing to say enough is enough, not only will determine whether some of these babies will live or die, but it also will determine what kind of a people we are, what kind of a society we want to live in, who we really are, who we are as a people, what do we value and what do we not value, what do we become indignant about, and what do we walk away from. How bad do things have to be before we speak up and say enough is enough? This is something we simply, even in 1997, this is something we will not tolerate. It is wrong. We will not put up with it. We will not allow it to occur in a civilized society. So, in a sense, not only is this a debate about the babies, not only a debate about who will live, it is also a debate about who all of us are and what kind of a country we have, what kind of a country we want. I think we have an obligation to speak up. I think that many times the sins that we commit as a people, as individuals, are sins of omission, what we do not do when we do not speak up. I would like to quote from my friend, Henry Hyde, from a book that he wrote that I think summarizes what I believe. This is what Congressman Henry Hyde said: I believe . . . that when the final judgment comes--as it will surely--when that moment comes that you face Almighty God--the individual judgment, the particular judgment--I believe that a terror will grip your soul like none other than you can imagine. The sins of omission will be what weigh you down; not the things you've done wrong, the chances you've taken, but the things you failed to do, the times that you stepped back, the times you didn't speak out. Not only for every idle word but for every idle silence must man render an account. I think that you will be overwhelmed with remorse for the things you failed to do. Mr. President, let us move to pass this bill. Let us speak out for what is right. And let us hope that the power of the arguments that have been heard on the floor--no, rather the facts that have been clearly disclosed on the floor--will then persuade the President of the United States to rectify a mistake that he made last year when he vetoed this bill. We know more today. Many of the statements that were made by the President in his veto message are clearly, clearly not true. It was clear to many of us at the time they were not true, but now that we have had the opportunity for more debate, more evidence, it is clear that the reasons he gave, the rationales he gave, are simply not there. So let us pass this bill. Let us send it again to the President. And let us pray that the power of the facts will convince our President to sign the bill. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise once again to support the ban on the procedure known as partial-birth abortions. Mr. President, we have heard a lot in the last year or two about this procedure. We have heard the graphic details, the details which are certainly not very pleasant. But we know that they are true. They are indisputable. We know exactly what this ``procedure'' consists of. Senator Santorum earlier this afternoon very graphically described it. It is unconscionable. Mr President, the public reaction to disclosure about this ``procedure''--the disclosure of what partial-birth abortion really is--has been loud and convincing. There is a good reason for this. Yes, this procedure is barbaric. There is simply no other way to describe it. Many people have asked the question. Why? Why does it take place? Why is it done? Why do they do this procedure? Is it really necessary?'' Then the question is, ``Why do we as a people allow this to happen?'' The opponents of this measure argue that it is medically necessary. Mr. President, this is simply not true. This is not a valid argument, when you have probably the single most respected physician in this country, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who says exactly the opposite. Dr. Koop in an interview with the American Medical News on March 3 of this year says: ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described . . . partial birth, and then destruction of an unborn child before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the mother.'' Mr. President, America's most respected physician is not alone in this view. Dr. Nancy Romer, chairman of OB-GYN and professor at Wright State University Medical School in Ohio says: ``This procedure is currently not an accepted medical procedure. A search of medical literature reveals no mention of this procedure, and there is no critically evaluated or peer review journal that describes this procedure. There is currently no peer review or accountability of this procedure. It is currently being performed by a physician with no obstetric training in an outpatient facility behind closed doors and no peer review.'' Dr. Romer also says, Mr. President: ``There is no medical evidence that a partial-birth abortion procedure is safer or necessary to provide comprehensive health care to women.'' Let me stress, Mr. President, what the doctor said, ``no medical evidence''; none. Just this week the American Medical Association also endorsed this view. This is what they say. They said there were no situations in which partial-birth abortion ``is the only appropriate procedure''; no circumstances, Mr. President, where partial-birth abortion ``is the only appropriate procedure.'' I think it is often instructive to look at what those who perform the abortions have to say. One of the most famous or infamous abortionists is Martin Haskell. He has admitted--this is uncontroverted; no one disputes this--Dr. Haskell, who has performed hundreds of thousands of these probably, admits that at least 80 percent of the partial-birth abortions he performed are elective. And the late Dr. James McMahon, a person who performed many abortions, says he performed nine of these partial-birth abortions because the baby had a cleft lip. Let me repeat that. Nine were performed, according to Dr. James McMahon, for no other reason than the baby had a cleft lip. Medical necessity, Mr. President? Medical necessity? So much for medical necessity. Why then is this procedure performed? Is it because some of these fetuses are deformed? Betty Friedan, in a televised debate, called such little babies ``monsters''; ``monsters.'' She said it not once but twice. Are we now in the business of killing people for being defective, Mr. President? My colleague from Pennsylvania has pointed out very eloquently the irony of this argument, the fact that today--we tried earlier this week to protect people with handicaps, protect them in school to make sure they had a full education, but at the same time abortions are being performed, partial-birth abortions are being performed not for medical necessity but rather this child is somehow not ``perfect,'' at least as we see perfection. Are we now, Mr. President, in the business of killing people for being defective? I would submit that the world has gone down that path once already in this blood-soaked 20th century. Are we really willing to go down that road again? Are we willing to go down that road again in this country that is based on the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of human rights? I hope not. Mr. President, when the child which is subject to a partial-birth abortion exits the birth canal, once he or she is out, the child, of course, is protected by the U.S. Constitution. If the doctor performing the abortion slips, sneezes, something happens, and as a result the child's head exits the mother's body, then that doctor cannot legally kill that child. Mr. President, do we as a nation really believe that those few inches between being inside the mother and being outside the mother, do we really believe that defines the difference between a legitimate medical procedure and barbaric murder? I hope and believe that we are better than that, that even our jaded, contemporary public morality would rebel in calling this a legitimate medical procedure. Mr. President, the defenders of this procedure used to try to change the subject. They used to say that it rarely happens, so we shouldn't get all worked up about it. Well, it is funny. You do not hear much of that argument anymore. The reason we do not hear that argument much anymore is because of the shocking confession made by a leader in the abortion rights movement. Ron Fitzsimmons is the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. In 1995, when the Senate was considering the partial-birth abortion bill, he was helping lead the fight against this very bill. He went on ``Nightline'' to argue that the procedure ought to remain legal. At that time, he said the procedure was rare and was primarily performed to save the lives or the fertility of the mothers. You know, a funny thing happened after that. Apparently his conscience starting gnawing at him. He says now that he felt physically ill about the lies he had told. He said to his wife the very next day, ``I can't do this again.'' Meanwhile, President Clinton was using Mr. Fitzsimmons' false statements to buttress his case for vetoing the partial-birth abortion bill that this Senate passed. But a couple of months ago Mr. Fitzsimmons admitted that, in his own words, he ``lied through his teeth.'' The facts, as he now publicly acknowledges them, are clear. Partial-birth abortion is not a rare procedure. It happens tragically all the time. And it is not limited to mothers and fetuses who are in danger. It is performed on healthy women, it is performed on healthy babies--all the time. Remember Dr. Haskell's quote that 80 percent of the abortions he performed are elective. Mr. President, it is true that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But people are not entitled to their own facts. Ruth Padawer of the Record newspaper in Bergen, NJ, reported last September 15 that 1,500 of these partial-birth abortions happened in one local clinic in 1 year. Once you confront the reality of what partial-birth abortion really is, you realize that from a moral perspective one of these atrocities is as bad as 1,500, but let nobody say this procedure is somehow de minimis, that it does not happen often enough to deserve legal notice. Let me now describe briefly some of the proposed amendments to this legislation. I know we will have the opportunity later during this debate to talk about this at length. Let me just for a moment talk about several of the amendments at least as I now understand them. Under the Boxer-Feinstein amendment, the exceptions swallow the rule. It is the old trick. Make it sound good, but then put an exception in there that, in reality, the way it really works as interpreted already by courts, the exception swallows up the entire rule and really makes the bill, in this case the amendment, meaningless. Under the Bolton precedent, the Bolton case, the ``health'' language clearly has unlimited meaning. So once the term ``health'' is in there, as interpreted by the Court, it swallows up the entire amendment and makes it useless. It is determined by the existence of health circumstances as decided by the very same doctor who performs the abortion. That is who does the decision. That is who makes the decision about the health under the Boxer-Feinstein amendment. Clearly that exception renders the bill meaningless. Furthermore, if this really is about maternal health, then why do we have to kill the baby? Senator Santorum very eloquently talked about this a few minutes ago. No doctor, no witness, no Senator has yet offered any evidence that tells us why, when the health of the mother is in danger, you have to kill the baby. Why? Why can't we, if it is threatening the mother's health, deliver the baby and, if possible, save it? Why does this child have to be killed? Senator Santorum earlier read in part from this letter, the letter from the Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth. I want to read one of the paragraphs because it addresses this very issue, and this is what the doctors said: As specialists in the care and management of high-risk pregnancies complicated by maternal or fetal illness, we have all treated women who during their pregnancies have faced the conditions cited by Senator Daschle. We are gravely concerned that the remarks by Senator Daschle and those who support the continued use of partial-birth abortion may lead such women to believe that they have no other choice but to abort their children because of their conditions. While it may become necessary, in the second or third trimester, to end a pregnancy in order to protect the mother's life or health, abortion is not required--i.e., it is never medically necessary, in order to preserve the woman's life, health or future fertility, to deliberately kill an unborn child in the second or third trimester, and certainly not by mostly delivering the child before putting him or her to death. What is required in the circumstances specified by Senator Daschle is separation of the child from the mother, not the death of the child. Why then can't we as a society, if the child is threatening the mother's health, deliver the child and, if possible, to try to save it? Why does that child have to be killed? There is no medical answer for that, there is no medical reason. But let me submit a reason that I think is critically clear from the debate and, more importantly, from the evidence and, more importantly, from the words of the doctors who perform these abortions. Why is it done? Why does the child have to be killed? The child has to be killed because that is the goal. That is the goal. That is what the doctor wants to do. Now, Dr. Haskell, who has performed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of these, has said as much. In an interview with the American Medical News, he said: You could dilate further and deliver the baby alive, but that's really not the point. The point is you are attempting to do an abortion. And that's the goal of your work, is to complete an abortion. Not to see how do I manipulate the situation so that I get a live birth instead. Dr. Haskell admits it. He admits what the goal is. He admits why it is done. Why can't we on the Senate floor? An abortion is legal in this country. I happen to be pro-life. But nothing says we have to allow this procedure simply because it allows the doctor to speed up the procedure and move on to the next one. These are done for the doctor's convenience. Let me specifically go back to the issue of the Daschle amendment, and again we will have the exact language in the Chamber, I am sure, and we will have the opportunity to more thoroughly debate this. Let me address the third trimester ban that is proposed by this amendment. The reality is that the exceptions are simply too numerous and the way they will be applied it will again swallow up the amendment. The facts are that the vast majority of these partial-birth abortions occur in the fifth and sixth months. All the abortionist has to do under this amendment is to certify that either the baby is not viable, just certify it, or that the abortion is medically necessary. The conditions are spelled out apparently in the amendment. In practice, this means there will be no limit on the will of the abortionist. The same person who will be certifying is the person such as Dr. Haskell who has described why he performs this procedure. In practice, there will be no limit to what the abortionist does. Our colleague, my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, has compared it--he does it better than anybody I have heard--to passing an assault weapons ban and then entrusting gun dealers to decide what constitutes an assault weapon. Would anybody propose to do that? I think not. Viability has also been proposed as a standard. I fail to see what viability has to do with whether this procedure should really be permitted. Whether it should be permitted is a question of humaneness or arguably a question of health. If one can show that the fetus threatens maternal health and that abortion is the only way to save the mother's health, the opponents of the ban are still confronted with the insufferable difficulty of proving this specific procedure, partial- birth abortion, is the only way to accomplish that goal. As Dr. Koop and Dr. Romer have testified, there is absolutely no way the partial-birth supporters can meet that test because this procedure is never medically necessary. The proponents of partial-birth cannot hide behind a false claim of medical necessity. There is no medical necessity. The evidence is abundantly clear. Let us again, because I think it is so instructive, hear what Dr. Martin Haskell says, the abortionist who has performed so many of these abortions and who, frankly, has been so very candid about what he does and why he does it. Let us hear Dr. Haskell describe this procedure, again a procedure that is not medically necessary. This is what he says, not Mike DeWine, not Senator Santorum, not Senator Boxer. This is what Dr. Martin Haskell, who performs these abortions, has to say. I just kept on doing D&Es because that is what I was comfortable with up until 24 weeks. But they were very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed that some of the later D&Es were very easy so I asked myself why can't they all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot-length presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was easy. It was easy, Mr. President, it was easy for Dr. Haskell. Dr. Haskell does not say it was easy for the mother. I suspect that he really does not care. His goal is to perform abortions. Under these proposed amendments, is Dr. Martin Haskell, a man who has said--you have heard what he had to say--is he the person we are going to trust to decide whether abortions are necessary? He has a production line going. Nothing is going to stop him from meeting his quota. Dr. Haskell concludes, again quoting: I would reach around trying to identify a lower extremity blindly with the tip of my instrument. I'd get it right about 30-50 percent of the time. Then I said, ``Well, gee, if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I wouldn't have to feel around for it.'' I did that and, sure enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of serendipity. Kind of serendipity, Mr. President. Let me conclude. I believe we need to ask ourselves, what does our toleration of this procedure as a country, as a people, say about us? What kind of a people are we? What kind of a nation are we? I think you judge a country not just by what it is for. I think you also judge a country and a people by what we are against, and we judge a country and the people by what we tolerate. We tolerate a lot in this country, unfortunately. This is one thing that we should not have to tolerate. Where do we draw the line? At what point do we finally stop saying, oh, I really don't like this, but it doesn't really matter to me so I will put up with it? It really doesn't affect me so I will put up with it. At what point do we say, unless we stop this from happening, we cannot justly call ourselves a civilized nation. I think it is very clear what justice demands. That is why I strongly support this ban. That is why I strongly support this bill to ban a truly barbaric procedure. I look forward to the opportunity as this debate continues to debate the various amendments and talking about this bill further. At this point I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended for the recess by an additional 20 minutes. That would enable, I think, the Senators who are now on the floor to make their statements. I ask unanimous consent that we extend our time until 12:50.

Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DeWINE. How much longer would the Senator like to go so that we can get a unanimous-consent for him to finish?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Family Friendly Workplace Act once again. Senator Jeffords earlier today submitted to the Senate the committee substitute. I would like to take a few moments now to explain the terms of that substitute to the Senate. I note the time. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that our time for the recess be extended by an additional 7 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as has been pointed out by my colleague, Senator Wellstone, we had the opportunity to have hearings. We had the opportunity to thoroughly discuss this bill in not only the subcommittee but the committee. We listened to the criticism. We listened to the constructive comments that were made. I believe that the committee substitute that has been brought forward today addresses the legitimate concerns that were, in fact, raised by many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think this committee substitute is a fine work product. I am pleased to be able to discuss today some of the details. First, the collective bargaining process. When we drafted this bill, we wanted to give nonunion employees the ability to select flexible work options through individualized agreements with their employers--and to give union members the ability to select these options collectively. We wanted all unionized employees to use the collective bargaining process to select these options. During the markup, however, it was pointed out by Senator Kennedy that the bill actually limited the scope of coverage to unions who are recognized representatives of the employees under section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA]. It's true that a great many unions are recognized under section 9(a)--but that provision does not, in fact, cover all union members. Under the committee substitute before us today, all employees who are members of unions will obtain their flexible work options through the collective bargaining process. The new language says, and I quote, ``where a valid collective bargaining agreement exists between an employee and a labor organization that has been certified or recognized as the representative of the employees of employer under applicable law,'' end of quote, the employee may obtain flexible work options through collective bargaining. I would like to point out, Mr. President, that notwithstanding this amendment, it has always been our intention to ensure that employees participate in S. 4's flexible options through agreements with their employer. Under no circumstances can an employer provide flexible options to an employee without either a written agreement from a non- union employee or collective bargaining agreement on behalf of a union employee. This measure, along with the bill's anti-coercion measures, was intended and designed to protect employees from being forced to participate in any of the options available under S. 4. Today we simply strengthen that policy. Senator Wellstone expressed concerns about the tenuous and short- lived nature of certain types of jobs in certain industries-- questioning the ability of some workers to use and benefit from the flexible work options provided by S. 4. To address this concern, Senator Wellstone offered an amendment in markup which would have exempted part-time, seasonal, temporary, and garment-industry workers from the comptime provisions of the bill. Even though we found Senator Wellstone's concerns legitimate, the majority of the Committee disagreed with the proposed solution--the exemption of whole industries and classes of workers as well as giving the Secretary of Labor broad authority to determine the eligibility of other industries. We believe that workers should be protected from potentially abusive situations and that employees and employers that enter into any agreements have a stable relationship. However, we believe that it would be unfair to exempt whole industries and classes of workers-- eliminating even the possibility of participating in a flexible work option, even if they have worked with the same employer for many years. The solution provided by the committee substitute states that before an employee is eligible for a flexible work option, or before an employer can offer a flexible work option, the employee must work for the employer for 12 months and 1,250 hours within 1 year--ensuring that a stable relationship exists between the employer and the employee. This solution may sound familiar. That's because it's the same basic requirement that exists under the Family and Medical Leave Act. This requirement effectively creates the exception Senator Wellstone suggested. Employees whose duration is too short-lived or tenuous to take advantage of S. 4's options are excluded. However, employees who are not so situated have an opportunity to develop a stable trusting relationship with their employer. In addition to satisfying Senator Wellstone's concerns, this change will allow long-term employees an opportunity to determine whether their employer is the type to respect the parameters of S. 4's flexible options and to determine if they want to participate or not. The purpose of this provision--as of the bill in its entirety--is to increase the freedom and flexibility of the workers. Mr. President, let me now turn to a third change we propose in the bill. We propose aligning the potential damages available for violations of S. 4's bi-weekly and flexible credit hour provisions. Some of our colleagues appear to believe that it's impossible to modify the Fair Labor Standards Act and still provide adequate protection to working men and women. If my friends believe this, they are wrong. The purpose of our bill is worker protection. There are severe penalties for employers who violate the workers' rights. S. 4 had strong penalties under the comptime provisions. The committee substitute takes these strong penalties and extends them to violations under the other flexible workplace options. Mr. President, the committee substitute will also include an addition to the provisions for biweekly work schedules and flextime options. It will require the Department of Labor to revise its Fair Labor Standards Act posting requirements so employees are on notice of their rights and remedies under the biweekly and flextime options as well as the comptime option. Let me now discuss the salary basis provision. Under the FLSA's salary basis standard, an employee is said to be paid on a salary basis--and thus exempt from the FLSA overtime requirements--if he or she regularly receives a straight salary rather than hourly pay. These individuals are usually professionals or executives. Furthermore, the FLSA regulations state that an exempt employee's salary is not subject to an improper reduction. For years this subject to language was noncontroversial. Recently, however, some courts have reinterpreted this language to mean that even the possibility of an employee's salary being improperly docked can be enough to destroy the employee's exemption, even if that employee has never personally experienced a deduction. Seizing upon this reinterpretation, large groups of employees, many of whom are highly compensated, have won multimillion-dollar judgments in back overtime pay--even though many of them never actually experienced a pay deduction of any kind. This problem is especially rife in the public sector. Mr. President, this legislation would not affect the outcome in cases where a salary has in fact been improperly docked. If an employer docks the pay of a salaried employee because the employee is absent for part of a day or a week, the employee could still lose his or her exempt status. The purpose of S. 4, in this regard, is to make clear that the employee will not lose his or her exempt status just because he or she is subject to--or not actually experiencing--an improper reduction in pay. Mr. President, we're making progress on this legislation--a bill that would help give American workers the flexibility they need and deserve as they confront the challenges of a dynamic new century. This bill will strengthen America's families, by allowing millions of hourly workers to balance family and work. Let's move forward in a bipartisan way to get it passed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this afternoon I honor the memory of a truly great figure in the history of Ohio, Charles D. ``Chuck'' Shipley, who died on April 5 of this year at the young age of 54. Chuck Shipley leaves Ohio a better place than he found it. Chuck dedicated his whole life to public service, to improving the lives of his fellow Ohioans. He first spent 16 years in the Ohio State Highway Patrol. Chuck was later director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety and served under Gov. George Voinovich in that position from 1991 to 1997. He served as the director of the department of public safety for the entire 4 years that I served as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Ohio. While he served in that capacity, he was in charge of several agencies including the highway patrol, and he was in charge in general of highway safety for the 11 million people who live in our great State. Chuck and I both had experiences in law enforcement that dramatically shaped our attitudes toward highway safety. I had been a local county prosecutor and in that capacity I dealt with the shattered lives of families who had lost loved ones who had been killed in auto fatalities, sometimes by drunk drivers. When I was in the State senate, a little 7-year-old boy in my home county, a little boy by the name of Justin Beason was struck and killed by a driver who had been driving and drinking. Little Justin was killed as he was getting off his school bus. In response to this tragedy, with the help of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, we succeeded in 1983 in writing a tough new drunk driving law in the State of Ohio. While I was working on safety issues as a prosecutor and as a State senator, Chuck Shipley was on the front lines as a highway patrolman. He saw much more often than I ever did the devastation that is brought by highway fatalities. It was Chuck who was often the one to notify the parents of a child who had been killed in a highway accident. Chuck told me about that experience, and as he told me about it I could see it had left an unbelievable impression on him. He told me it was the toughest thing he ever had to do in his life, and tragically he had to do that more than once. That kind of experience, as Chuck told me, leaves a deep impression on a person. It certainly left an impact on Chuck. Chuck Shipley became a committed, dedicated fighter in the cause of highway safety. When I was Lieutenant Governor and he was director of the public safety department, I was, frankly, very grateful time and time again for the passion that Chuck brought to his work. It was contagious. His energy and enthusiasm helped him change attitudes. It helped him win converts who had worked to make Ohio safer. Chuck and I spent a great deal of time together traveling the State, many times on holidays because that is when you always try to put the emphasis on highway safety--Memorial Day, Labor Day, or some other holiday. We spent a lot of time talking and a lot of time traveling the State to promote antidrunk-driver campaigns or designated-driver campaigns and just overall highway safety. Chuck helped us implement, among other things, administrative license suspensions, to help crack down on drunk drivers, and he took many, many other actions in his official capacity to save lives in Ohio. He was a worker, a hard worker in a good cause, and Chuck got results. I can truly say something about Chuck Shipley that any of us would be incredibly proud to have said about ourselves: There are people alive today who would not be alive but for Chuck Shipley. I join all Ohioans in being grateful for the life he dedicated to our State but even more I am grateful for our friendship. He was a wonderful human being, a person who would not get upset even in the most difficult circumstance. I do not ever recall, all the hours I spent with Chuck, him ever getting upset. He always had a smile. He was always calm. He always went about his business. I am very proud to have known Chuck Shipley, and I want to express my condolences to Chuck's family, express to all of them my greatest sympathy for the loss of Chuck, to his wife Jana, their children David and Carli, and their family. Their loss is great, and so is Ohio's.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President and colleagues, let me first congratulate Senator Jeffords for bringing this bill to the floor and for a very eloquent statement about the merits of this bill. I see Senator Ashcroft, who is the author of the bill, in the Chamber. I know he wishes to speak about the bill, as I do. I also see Senator Kennedy, who wishes to speak as well. Before I begin to talk about this bill, I would like to talk about two other items.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise this morning to note the passing of a friend and former colleague. Russell A. Bradley died yesterday morning. It was to me rather ironic that as I heard the news, I was preparing to go to a Judiciary Committee hearing to talk about the crime problem in this country because Sheriff Bradley, Russell Bradley, was my home county sheriff for 30 years. Russell Bradley was a dedicated public servant, a great politician, and was my friend. Russell Bradley served as Greene County Sheriff from 1957 to 1987. For 30 years, Russ Bradley was the sheriff. Elected eight times, he built the Greene County sheriff's office into the professional organization that it is today and that today we, frankly, take for granted. It was not so when he became sheriff in January 1957. I first met Russ Bradley when I was a young boy growing up in the village of Yellow Springs. Russ Bradley at that time was the chief of police. Russ Bradley was a person whom you would go to if you had a problem in the community. I remember talking with him, being with him, fishing with him when I was a very, very young boy. In 1956, when I was 9, Russ Bradley was elected county sheriff. He ran in the Republican primary and beat the incumbent, a shock to everyone across the county. Frankly, it was a shock to most of us who were his friends because we did not think he could win. That was the first of eight victories he won running for the office of sheriff in Greene County. He remained sheriff long enough so that a 9-year-old boy who knew him when he was first elected had an opportunity to grow up, go away to college, go to law school, come back home and become assistant county prosecutor and then have the opportunity to work on a professional basis with Sheriff Bradley. I had a chance for a little over 2 years to serve as assistant county prosecutor, then to serve as the elected county prosecutor for 4 more years. I had the opportunity then to see this man whom I had known as a young boy, to see him up close and personal and work with him literally on a daily basis as we dealt with crime problems in our county. Russ Bradley really taught a whole generation, really two generations of Greene County and Ohio public servants and politicians how to win elections. He was the person we watched, we copied, we emulated, we stole ideas from. He was literally the master and we were the students. He taught us how to campaign door to door and the significance of that, the tenacity to continue to do that night after night. He taught us how to work the county fair. He even taught us things such as how to go out and put your signs along the road to make sure the signs were positioned in exactly the right position so that the headlights of the car would strike that sign just as you came around the corner. He had it all, he did it all, and he taught us very well. The most important thing that he taught politicians and people in public office in our area was how to be a public servant. He taught us the essential lesson of politics, that public service is good politics and good politics is public service, and that the way to ensure being elected, the way to ensure being successful is always remember where you came from and always remember who you serve. Russ Bradley was a person who was dedicated to service. He delivered service every single day. I remember talking to him when I was county prosecutor. He would say: Mike, you are worried about this and you are worried about that. The only thing you really have to worry about is giving people service. Give them what they are paying you to do. When anybody comes in here with a problem, you try to help them solve that problem. And even if you cannot solve it, if you try to help them solve the problem, that is what you should be doing. That is a lesson I certainly have never forgotten. Russ Bradley was a great investigator. I have been involved and seen an awful lot of people in law enforcement over my now quarter-of-a- century career. I have never seen anyone as good as Russ Bradley at heading up an investigation. The tougher the case, the better he was. I remember many days going into his office as he assembled his team at 8 o'clock in the morning, his detectives and his road men. You have to keep in mind this was not a huge department. Our county is only 130,000, 135,000. But we would have, unfortunately, our share of murders, our share of very difficult cases. I remember him bringing people together every day, and he orchestrated how his men and women were to go out that day and continue to follow every lead they could come up with. Russ Bradley knew what all people in law enforcement know. This is not a glamorous job. It is a tough job. It is hard work. It is grunt work, really, and following leads and being lucky if 1 out of 100 turns into anything. And if you are lucky, that 1 out of 100 turns into something else and you can keep trying to unravel the crime and try to put the puzzle together to solve the crime. He was an expert at what, for want of a better word, I would call the drive-by shooting, the roadside murder where, when the police get there, the sheriff gets there, the only thing they can find is the body. There is just no other evidence at all. I have seen him take cases like that and reconstruct those cases and slowly build them week after week after week and ultimately lead to a conviction of the person who committed the murder. Russ Bradley was the best I have known at getting a confession, and he managed to operate in the pre-Miranda days and in the post-Miranda days, which is quite an accomplishment. As Russ said, if anyone could get a confession, I could. If I couldn't get them, nobody could. He would laugh with people. He would cry with them. He would pray with them, whatever it took, but he would get that person's confidence and he would ultimately get that person to tell him what the facts were. He was a master at that. Sheriff Bradley was also a great judge of people. When I would go into a case, the first thing, of course, you do in a case, as a prosecutor, you begin the process of selecting the jury. That is a judgment call of who you want to serve on that jury. I always wanted Russ Bradley right by my side to eyeball that jury and tell me who he thought would be a good juror, who he thought might not be such a good juror. He was able to do this, not only because he knew about everybody in the county or knew their sister or brother or cousin or somebody, but also because he was a consummate judge of human nature. He knew people very well and could size a person up, his or her character, what kind of people they were--he could do that probably better than just about anybody that I know or ever met. This is a time to recall Sheriff Bradley, though it is not a time to be sad. I do not think anyone who knew Russ Bradley could think of Russ Bradley without smiling. He was someone who was a great practical jokester, someone who loved to laugh, someone who loved to hunt, someone who loved to fish, someone who loved to have a good time. He was a tremendous coon hunter. I remember many mornings coming in and, as we were about to start a trial at 9 o'clock, in Judge Aultman's court or Judge Weber's court, the sheriff would come rolling in. I would meet him at the courtroom. I would look over and say, ``Russ, you been out coon hunting?'' He would say, ``Oh, no, just a little bit last night.'' Then it would come out from one of his deputies he had been up to 4 a.m., gone home, taken a shower, a little catnap, and was able to come into court raring to go. He was able to do that night after night. Russ Bradley was once interviewed about his prowess as a coon hunter. He said: ``A coon hunter has got to be tough. There's a lot of them who can walk faster than I can, but not many who can walk longer than I can.'' Russ Bradley, a great coon hunter, a great fisherman, someone who liked to have a good time as well as someone who was a great politician and a great public servant. I pause at this point to remember my friend, Russ Bradley. There will never be another like him. He is someone who taught me a great deal over the years. He is someone whom we should honor. It was an honor for me to actually serve with him on a daily basis for 4 years when I was county prosecutor, but it was also, frankly, a lot of fun to serve with him as well. For the rest of my life I will have great memories of him, what kind of person he was and the fun that we had with him, all the time he continued to do an excellent job as our county sheriff.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, let me at this point turn to another topic, which I believe is very timely. It has to do with a meeting that President Clinton is having tomorrow. Madam President, President Clinton will be meeting tomorrow with President Preval of Haiti. This is a very important meeting. It is important because Haiti is at a crossroads and the United States needs to provide all the leadership it can to help Haiti choose the right path. In view of this important meeting, I think it is important to review Haiti's situation. I have visited the country of Haiti four times in the last 2 years, most recently just this past month. I have done so to examine the conditions there and to find out about the progress being made by U.S. policies in regard to that country. Let me begin, if I could, by talking about the economy. The economy is today, as it has been for many years, to put it bluntly, in a shambles. Unemployment--no one knows how high the unemployment is, but it is said to be running at about a 65 percent rate. Privatization has yet to occur, but it is essential. It must occur if Haiti is to recover. While it has not occurred yet, the good news is the Haitian Government has announced a calendar for privatization, something we had not seen before the last several months. There is a calendar, there is a schedule. Everyone from President Preval, through the president of Haiti's central bank, to members of the legislature, all personally assured me that this privatization calendar will be maintained, it will be met. Privatization will, in fact, occur, they tell me, and guaranteed to me, while I was there, that this would happen. Let me say, for the good of the people of that country, this privatization simply must begin to take place. The people of Haiti have to have jobs. They need hope. They are not going to have jobs, they are not going to have hope unless privatization begins, because it is only with privatization that they will be able to get the economy moving again. It is only by privatization that the climate will be created and the right signals will be sent to the world so the world community will begin to invest in Haiti. Promises will not create jobs. The people of Haiti have been fed on promises for two centuries. Only action will create jobs and only action will start to break this cycle of despair. This privatization is important for basic economic reasons, but it is also essential for the preservation of democracy, a goal for which this country risked American lives and has already spent hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. For democracy to survive in Haiti, people need to see real improvement in the lives of their families, of their children, of their loved ones. Real improvement in their lives will only come with privatization. If democracy is to survive, it is not enough to have elections. People have to have something to eat as well. Elections are just not enough and people know that. The turnout in the recent legislative elections in Haiti was less than 10 percent. I believe we have to view that as a vote of no confidence in the progress being made by the Haitian Government. Clearly Haiti needs to turn it around. They need, if I can use the term--they need some victories. All politicians need victories. The Government of Haiti has to have some victories. They need to take the kind of action that will inspire confidence in their common future, the kind of confidence that is a prerequisite for economic success. The way to do this is to send the right message to the rest of the world. That message is that Haiti is serious about participating in the global economy. Only by doing this, by doing what is necessary to participate in the rising tide of international growth, can Haiti hope to spark a real economic upturn. The first privatization is scheduled for this July. They first start with cement factories and the flour mills. The schedule further calls for, in November, the Haitian Popular Bank to privatize; in December, the National Port Authority; in January, the airport and the National Bank of Credit; finally, in February, the telephones and in March the electric company. When I was in Haiti last month I stressed to my hosts that they must act on this plan. Frankly, no one in Congress was going to believe what they said or be convinced that they were serious until, actually, some action took place. I have also spoken to President Clinton about this matter, and I have asked the President, when he meets with President Preval tomorrow, to stress the importance of this privatization, to make sure the President of Haiti understands our very legitimate concern that this privatization really take place. Madam President, another key area in which Haiti needs to follow through is the investigation of the political murders. Palace security forces are alleged to have killed two prominent opposition politicians, Mr. Fleurival and Reverend Leroy. In response to these murders, the Government of Haiti suspended the chief of palace security, they suspended his deputy and seven Presidential Security Unit guards who were allegedly at the scene. The Haitian Government needs to send the strongest possible message that this kind of subversion of democracy, murder of political opponents, will simply not be tolerated. There is a reasonable chance the Leroy case will be solved, but only if there is adequate leadership from the top of the Haitian political system. In my view, this is a test case of the rule of law, one that President Clinton must take up with President Preval at their meeting tomorrow. In other areas, Haiti is making real and measurable progress. One such area is the civilian police. In my visit to Haiti, I met again with United States police officers who are helping retrain the Haitian police. These are Haitian-born, Creole-speaking United States citizens on leave from their jobs as city police officers in this country. They come from cities such as Boston--I see Senator Kennedy on the floor. I met with a number of those police officers from Boston. They come from New York. They come from Miami. They are veterans, and they are mentoring these inexperienced, young Haitian police recruits. Madam President, nobody expected miracles from this training program, but they are making slow but solid progress. This is a program that works. I am glad the State Department has responded positively to my urging that the number of United States advisers be doubled. That has taken place, and we are now up to the number of 49. Frankly, I believe it is in our national interest to again significantly increase the number of these dedicated United States police officers who are serving in Haiti. I met with these advisers during my recent visit. I was gratified by what I saw. They are doing an excellent job and they need our continuing support. These advisers, I believe, are America's signal to the Haitian people that we will help them in the difficult process of building the rule of law in their country. I, later today, will continue to discuss the situation in Haiti. At that time I intend to talk about the agricultural situation and several other suggestions that I have that I believe will help the situation there. I believe, in conclusion for now, the meeting the President of the United States is having tomorrow with President Preval is a crucial meeting. I believe Haiti is at a crossroads. I believe it is important for our country to continue to work internally in this country to develop a bipartisan foreign policy in regard to Haiti. But, ultimately, it is abundantly clear that, no matter what we do, the important players are really the Haitian politicians, Haitian Government officials, and the Haitian people. Our message to President Preval and to the Haitian people must simply be this: We can and we will help you, but the destiny of your country really lies in your own hands. Madam President, I will turn to this later in the day. I also will have the opportunity, later, to discuss the comptime and flextime bill. I do see my colleague from Massachusetts on the floor, so at this time I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is always a real treat to be on the Senate floor when my friend and colleague and neighbor from West Virginia speaks. That was a very moving and eloquent statement about Mother's Day, but, of course, also about his own natural mother and also about the mother who raised him.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes. I advise my colleagues, I do not believe I will use 10 minutes, but I ask for that in a unanimous consent at this time.

Mr. DeWINE. My colleague can proceed and I will come back at an appropriate time to finish my remarks.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we have been this morning, now this afternoon, talking about the issue of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I would like to spend just a few more minutes talking about this issue. We are proud, once again, to bring before the Senate this piece of legislation that we believe will help bring the American workplace into the 21st century. The Family Friendly Workplace Act will make our Nation's working environments more flexible, more productive and more hospitable to the changing needs of the American family. Last week, in my opening comments about this bill, I described what we discovered in the hearings, and I use the term ``discover'' rather loosely because, really, I think we all knew what we saw in those hearings, what we heard in the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. The testimony was very clear that the American workplace today is a dramatically different place than it was when the underlying bill was enacted 60 years ago. The facts are that the stereotypical roles of management and labor and of male and female workers really no longer apply. The testimony in front of our committee was that individual workers are too often faced with a brutal squeeze today, a squeeze between their duties at work, their obligations, and what they want to do with their families. This worker squeeze is so great that I believe it calls for immediate action. And this bill is that action. The static and outdated Fair Labor Standards Act that was enacted over 60 years ago must be modified, must be changed. It must be changed to allow American workers today the flexibility that they demand, the flexibility that they want. The facts are fairly clear. When the underlying legislation, the underlying bill was enacted in 1938, less than 16 percent of married women worked outside the home. Today, more than 60 percent of married women work outside the home. And 75 percent of mothers with school-aged children today work outside the home. And according to a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, the top concern--top concern--of working women is flexible scheduling in the workplace, flexible scheduling which will allow them to balance their responsibilities at work with the needs of their children and the needs of their families. The chart that is behind me depicts the pattern of change the American workplace has undergone over the last 25 years. ``The Changing Labor Force Trends of Families, 1940-1995.'' Look at the complete contrast between the family structure today and the family structure as it existed in 1940--1940--only 2 years after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 1940, Mr. President, 67 percent of all families had a working husband and a wife who stayed at home, what we considered in those days, the typical family. At the same time, only 9 percent of families had two working spouses. And in 1940 only 5 percent of the families were actually headed by women. Clearly, this is no longer the case. By 1995, only 17 percent of families had a working husband and a wife who stayed at home. And 43 percent of American families had two working spouses. And 12 percent were actually families headed by women. Society, Mr. President, has changed. But the workplace, at least the laws governing the workplace, has not kept pace. I believe that Americans are crying out for relief. They are demanding of this Congress that we change the law, that we change the law to reflect the way people really live today. Take for example, the Morris family. Clayton Morris--father, husband--is a public employee. As a public employee he has the option of choosing compensatory time over traditional monetary overtime pay. He gets a choice which way he wants it. He is free to spend important extra time with his 2\1/2\-year-old son Domenic, while his wife Ann, a sales assistant for a Cleveland area business form company, cannot. She is prohibited by law from having that option. This is what Ann has said: He [referring to her husband Clayton] has the ability if he works overtime to store [up] those hours . . . [he] can use the stored comp time to be at home where he is needed. [However, when] I need to be able to leave work, I end up having to take sick time or vacation time to do that. [That's what I have to do.] It would be really nice if I had a flexible schedule [also]. Mr. President, seemingly countless studies and surveys have pointed out time and time again that Americans overwhelmingly need, desire, want, and support a more flexible workplace schedule and the changes the Family Friendly Workplace Act would bring about. Let me take the opportunity now to highlight what this bill will do, S. 4, and explain briefly the different provisions of the bill. The first option of the bill we refer to as comptime. This allows workers to voluntarily--voluntarily--choose to take their overtime pay as time off instead of taking their overtime pay in money. They get the time off as opposed to taking the money. But it is the worker's choice. Under this bill, compensation in the form of compensatory time off is paid out at the same rate as an employee's normal rate of overtime pay. That is, one-half hour of compensatory time off for every hour of overtime worked. Mr. President, under this option employers and employees must agree to provide and receive, respectively, compensatory time in lieu of monetary overtime pay. It is an agreement, a voluntary agreement entered into by both the employer and the employee, an agreement that does not take place under this bill or situation that does not take place unless both sides voluntarily say, ``That's what I want to do.'' Union employees do this through the collective bargaining process. Nonunion employees must do so by agreement prior to the performance of the overtime worked. The employee must enter this agreement--this is from the bill--``knowingly and voluntarily.'' A nonunion employee's decision to participate in a compensatory time off program must be in writing or must be otherwise verifiable and kept by the employer, according to the Fair Labor Standards Act's recordkeeping provision. An employer may withdraw from his decision to provide a compensatory time off program by providing 30-day written notice to the participating employees. On the other hand, nonunion employees may withdraw by providing written notice to their employer. The terms of a union employee's withdrawal would be reflected in the collective bargaining agreement. Mr. President, upon an employer's discontinuance of this compensatory time off policy, or on the occasion of an employee's withdrawal, the resignation or termination, an employee is then entitled to the cash equivalent of any unused comptime hours. An employee under this bill may accrue up to 240 hours of compensatory time during a 12-month period. If after the 12-month period an employee has not used his accrued time, the employer has 31 days, under the bill, to remit the cash equivalent of those hours. An employee must be allowed to use any accrued comptime within a reasonable period, a reasonable period of time after the request is made provided that it does not duly disrupt the workplace. Under a compensatory time-off program, an employee enjoys the preexisting protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. These are not impacted. The underlying bill is still there. And the underlying protections are still there. These protections include prohibitions against violation of section 7, the FLSA discrimination provision, as well as S. 4's anticoercion provision. No employee may be coerced, intimidated, or threatened to accept or deny participation in any of the bill's flexible workplace options. To be absolutely perfectly clear, let me spell out what the penalties under this bill will be. First, S. 4, as an amendment to section 7(r), will enjoy the already established penalties provided in the Fair Labor Standards Act. This will obviously include the new amending provision in S. 4. The penalties are: First, the availability of criminal penalties in the event of a willful violation; Next, civil penalties in the event of repeated or willful violations; They will include the remittance of unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages; It will also include appropriate legal or equitable relief and liquidating damages for any retaliation by the employer against an employee who complains of or testifies about an employer's conduct, as well as attorney fees and costs to the employee who sues for retaliation. Additionally, the Secretary of Labor may take action to acquire the employee's unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages. As stated, in addition to the penalties already provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act for a violation of section 7(r), S. 4 provides additional penalties for direct and indirect intimidation, threats, and coercion. Furthermore, S. 4 dictates penalties for any violation of this anticoercion language. Further, this bill provides for unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages or injunctive relief should the Secretary be required to bring a cause of action against the employer. Mr. President, behind me is a picture, headlined ``Akron Beacon Journal,'' and ``A Juggling Act.'' It is a picture of a real family, the Morris family of Ohio, and a description that I think, in the story, tells the importance of this bill. I think this family demonstrates why we need to have this bill. Here is what it says: Ann Morris of Akron has to use vacation or sick days when two-year-old Domenic is sick, while her husband Clayton has the option of using comp time. That is what this bill is about, Mr. President. This bill is about some equity and equality in the workplace. Does it make any sense to have a law today, as we do, that says to an hourly worker, who doesn't work for the Government, the Federal Government is going to prohibit you and your employer from entering into agreements that are flexible and allow you to spend more time with your family? That is what current law says today. Current law discriminates against the person who works by the hour, and it says that in a business or in a shop, if there is a worker who works by the hour and right next to him or her is a worker who is paid salary, the person who is paid salary may have comp time or flextime, but the person who works by the hour is denied that. Does that make any sense? In the case of this family, the discrimination exists right in that family. The husband has these benefits, has these rights; yet, the Federal law says that the wife, the mother, can't have them. What this bill does is change that and eliminates that discrimination. It says to all American workers that whether you work for the Federal Government or don't, whether you work by the hour or are salaried, as long as the employer and employee both agree, voluntarily, you can do many different things in regard to flextime and comptime and making your life easier, making it better, accommodating the workplace rules to the way people have to live today. Mr. President, I began a few minutes ago, a discussion of the four principal parts of this bill. I talked about the comptime section. I now want to move to the second section of biweekly work schedules. Mr. President, let me turn to the biweekly work schedules. The second option this bill provides is the biweekly work schedules. Under this option, an employee may choose to work 80 hours over 2 weeks, in any combination that that employee works out with the employer. For example, a worker may choose to work 9 hour days but, every other Friday, get the whole Friday off. Maybe that worker wants to spend time with his or her children. Maybe they want to go hunting or fishing, or maybe they don't want to do anything. They have the right to make that agreement and have that long weekend. Biweekly work schedule programs are simply another way to ensure workplace flexibility. Biweekly work schedules enable employees to craft schedules that coordinate their work obligations to go along with their personal obligations. Mr. President, here is how it would work in practice. If an employer chooses to offer a biweekly schedule option, and if the employee elects to participate--it is purely voluntary--prior to each 2-week work period, the employer and employee will arrange a schedule for the 2- week period. Regardless of how the hours are divided, the employee will be paid overtime for working over 80 hours during the 2-week period. Again, the decision is to be made together, mutually, voluntarily. Additionally, employees would be entitled to overtime for all hours worked that are outside that predetermined biweekly work schedule. For example, if an employee agrees to work 45 hours during the first week, 35 hours during the second week, any hours worked above 45 in the first week would, of course, be overtime, and any hours worked over 35 during the second week would also be overtime, because that is what they had agreed on. Simply, Mr. President, if an employee is required to work any additional hours above the agreed-to schedule, he gets overtime. Let me turn to the third provision of this bill, flexible credit hours. The third option that this bill provides that is not provided under current law, Mr. President, is flexible credit hours. Under this option, an employee may choose to work additional hours. That is more than 40 hours, more than 40 hours a workweek in order to use these extra hours to shorten another week at a later date. Biweekly schedules and flexible credit hours provide flexibility to employees who may not traditionally work a great deal of overtime. The flexible credit hour program would give more employees a greater ability to balance work with family. A flexible credit hour program would allow an employee to bank--``to bank''--up to 50 hours over his or her regularly scheduled hours. The employee under this bill may use those banked hours at any future date to reduce the workday or a workweek. Mr. President, when used, the flexible credit hours represent time off from work at the employee's regular rate of pay. An employee must be allowed to use accrued credit hours within a reasonable period of time following his or her request, so long as doing so will not unduly disrupt the workplace. As is true with comptime and biweekly programs, an employer has the initial decision of whether to offer the flexible credit hour program at all. Then participation in a flexible credit hour program is, of course, voluntary on the employer's part and on the employee's part. An interested employee must elect to participate. If he or she does not, then the status quo under current law would be in effect. Mr. President, union employees can do this in accordance with their collective bargaining agreements. Nonunion employees must submit a written or otherwise verifiable statement acknowledging his or her participation in the program. The anticoercion remedy sanctions provision which we talked about before are applicable to the comptime and biweekly schedules and are also applicable to this flexible credit program as well. Mr. President, let me turn now to the fourth major provision of the bill clarifying Federal law. I have talked about the three chief options provided by the bill. Let me also point out in the interest of completeness that S. 4 also makes important clarifications in the regulations delineating the salary basis test. The bill makes it clear that the fact that a particular employee is subject to a deduction in pay for absence of less than a full workday or less than a full workweek may not be considered in determining whether that employee enjoys exempt status. Only actual reductions in pay may be considered. Mr. President, for more than five decades the ``subject to'' language generated little or no controversy. However, in recent years courts have begun to reinterpret the salary basis test. Seizing on the phrase ``subject to'' in the regulations, large groups of employees have won multimillion-dollar judgments. These awards have been given in spite of the fact that many of the plaintiff employees have never actually experienced a pay reduction of any kind and have never expected to receive overtime pay in addition to their executive, administrative, or professional salaries. Mr. President, included in this bill--in part to stop the large number of cases that are being brought against State and local governments--it is true that the Department of Labor attempted to solve this problem through regulations as they applied to State and local employees in 1992. This legislation in no way preempts those regulations. The legislation also clarifies that employers may give bonuses and may give overtime payments to salaried employees without destroying their exemption from FLSA. In summary, Mr. President, let me talk again briefly about the four provisions. Comptime, first of all, allows workers to voluntarily choose to take their overtime pay as time off instead of as overtime pay. Biweekly schedules, the second provision, allows workers to choose to work their 80 hours for 2 weeks in any combination that they so elect and if they agree with their employer. Flexible credit hours, the third provision, allows workers to choose to work additional hours and to bank these hours for use as time off at some point in the future. All of these flexible workplace options are designed to expand the choices available to working families. They are, Mr. President, completely voluntary. No employee can be forced to participate in a flexible workplace option. No employer can be forced to offer one. If any employer directly or indirectly coerces employees to participate in a particular option, the employer can be punished under the Fair Labor Standards Act, be forced to pay back wages, and maybe even face imprisonment. Mr. President, that is what the bill would accomplish. This bill would accomplish a real change for the betterment of the lives of working families, and the American people absolutely agree with this. A national poll conducted in September 1995 shows that the American work force endorses flexible work options. When asked, Mr. President, about a proposal to allow hourly employees the choice of time and a half in wages or time off with pay, 75 percent of the workers agree with that proposal; 65 percent said they favored more flexible work schedules. Mr. President, according to a poll recently taken, 88 percent of all workers want more flexibility, either through scheduling flexibility or choice of compensatory time in lieu of traditional overtime pay. In that same poll, 75 percent of the workers favored changes in the law that would permit hourly workers such a choice. The evidence is overwhelming about what the American workers want. I think these poll results square with what most of us know, frankly, intuitively. As both the economy and the American family and life grow more and more complex, the men and women in America's work force want greater flexibility to be able to cope with all of the changes that we have in life today. I think that this consensus presents us, this Senate, with a remarkable opportunity. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we work on what should be a bipartisan approach to this bill. Mr. President, this bill is about equity. It is about equality. It is about families such as this that are pictured behind us. Families want options. They want flexibility. This is what this bill gives them.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like at this point to turn to a topic that I began the discussion about this morning. That is the topic of Haiti. I said this morning, Mr. President, that the situation in Haiti is at another critical point. President Clinton will meet tomorrow with the President of Haiti, President Preval. In that discussion, what will take place, I think, is very, very important. I talked earlier today about my recent trip to Haiti, which was the fourth trip that I have taken to Haiti in the last 2 years. I talked about what I considered to be some of the imperatives, some of the things that absolutely have to take place if this fledgling democracy in Haiti is to survive. They have to have privatization. They have a schedule now for privatization. It is laid out with a timetable. Everyone who I talked to in Haiti, all Government officials, assured me that they would follow this timetable. But, as I expressed to them, no one, frankly, in this country is going to take that seriously until we actually see privatization take place. So it is important that, as we approach the date of the first privatization in July, it actually takes place. It is important because that democracy cannot survive just on elections. People have to have hope. People will only have hope if there is food to feed their children and if there is hope and opportunity for their future and the future of their children. That will only occur if some of the state- controlled industries that have really strangled the economy in Haiti for so long can be freed up, if they can be privatized, and if the economy can then begin to grow. Privatization is also important because by privatizing these industries, that will send a sign to the international community that the leadership in Haiti, from President Preval down, is in fact serious about doing the things to create a market-oriented economy that will in fact allow Haiti's economy to begin to grow. That is No. 1. No. 2 is Haiti must make progress in regard to these high-profile political murders. Based on my own investigation when I went to Haiti, I believe they have the capability of doing this. I believe that some of these cases can in fact be solved--the case for example, of Reverend Leroy. I believe that case can be solved. But it can only be solved if there is political leadership. It can only be solved if there is leadership from the top, from President Preval down saying it is a priority that we bring these people who committed this act to justice. I would like to turn now, Mr. President, to a third area; that is, the agricultural situation in Haiti. Seventy percent of Haiti's people live in rural areas. That is about 4 million out of a total population of 7 million. Eighty percent, it is estimated, of these rural Haitians farm on hillsides. But Haiti's agriculture clearly is troubled, to say the least. Haiti loses about 36 million metric tons of topsoil every year to erosion. That is enough to cover, they tell me, about 15,000 acres. About half a million people in the northwest part of Haiti are facing today a very serious drought. Mr. President, 30 years or so ago Haiti produced most of its own food. Today it imports two-thirds of its food. Haiti is having trouble feeding itself, and a number of causes have been assigned to that. I will mention just a few. The environment in Haiti is certainly fragile. Seventy percent is hillside land. Intensive cropping of 60 percent of the land-surface businesses have been decapitalized--less capital. Effective loss of capital has been magnified by the 1991-1994 embargo. Land plots are sometimes too small. There is a lack of land security under the land tenure system, and, as a result of the country's weak infrastructure, farmers are many times isolated from their markets. The USAID has instituted two programs to address these programs. The Agriculturally Sustainable Systems for Environmental Transformation, or ASSET, as it is called, is a $45 million program to improve hillside farming to help poor urban neighborhoods, improve water supply and waste management, and strengthen the Haitian Government's agricultural food security and environmental policy. Mr. President, the Program for the Recovery of the Economy in Transition, or PRET, is an $8 million program aimed at strengthening the Haitian private sector's role in national economic and business policymaking, providing innovative sources of credit, and helping key industries export the domestic market potential. Mr. President, under ASSET's coffee project, USAID has helped over 20,000 coffee farmers produce a premium coffee that is now marketed under the trademark of ``Haitian Blue.'' Since 1990, farmers have exported almost 200,000 pounds of this coffee. USAID has implemented a program of tree planting to reverse the impact of almost 30 million trees being cut each year. USAID plans to expand the ASSET program to assist the Haitian Government in establishing an agricultural data collection system, disseminate technology, and provide environmental management. There is currently not a single--this is amazing--not a single source of information on agricultural production in Haiti, no central collection of this data, even though agricultural production affects the lives of approximately 70 percent of the people who live in Haiti. The USAID Agribusiness Loan Guarantee Fund provides incentives for financial institutions to extend credit to midsized agribusinesses. By financing these businesses such lending institutions also help small farmers from whom the middlemen buy their goods. In the first 18 months of its operation, the fund had resulted in 1,300 permanent jobs and 10,000 seasonal jobs. While our program has shown some success, I think it is important to point out to my colleagues in the Senate that United States assistance in the agricultural area still only reaches approximately 1 out of 7 Haitian farmers. Clearly the goal of our policy is and always must be self-sufficiency for Haiti. The outlines of the bipartisan United States policy toward Haiti I think are clear. The United States should help Haiti become self- sufficient in food. We should help them build a system of law and order. After all, United States law enforcement is the best in the world and the Haitians can benefit greatly from our expertise. We should help the Haitians attract the kind of private investment that is the cornerstone of long-term economic growth. I cannot stress enough that our good intentions cannot succeed, will not succeed in and of themselves. No matter how much we want to help Haiti, there is a limit to what we can do. There is a limit to what we will do. Ultimately, the democracy that is slowly growing in Haiti can only be preserved by Haitians themselves. Haiti has to have the will, Haiti has to have the perseverance to carry through with the real reforms that we have talked about today. And that is what I believe President Clinton must underscore in the conversation that he will have tomorrow with Haitian President Preval. Our message to President Preval and to the Haitian people must be very simply this: We can help you, we will help you, but the destiny of your country really lies in your own hands.