Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I turn at this point to a matter that was brought up a little while ago by my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Senator Chris Dodd. He spoke very eloquently about the piece of legislation that he and I are introducing, a piece of legislation that we believe will dramatically improve health care available to America's children. We as a nation need to do a better job making sure our children get the pharmaceuticals that are appropriate for them. This is a matter I have been concerned about for some time, and it is a matter that as the father of eight children is near and dear to my heart. We are introducing the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. This legislation will provide an incentive in the form of 6 months of market exclusivity to encourage pharmaceutical companies to conduct the necessary clinical trials for FDA approval of their products for children. These studies would take away the guesswork that too many physicians and parents go through in trying to treat their sick children. These studies would do away with this guesswork by giving an incentive to the drug companies, by giving them a 6-months extension on their patent exclusivity so as to give them the incentive to do the trials and do the studies that would give parents and give physicians better information. This is not a new product. Let me give several examples to show my colleagues what the problem is. The first example goes back to 1960. There was a drug called chloramphenicol that was approved for use in adults to control bacterial infections. This drug was widely used with adults and it was successful, but when it was used on children the results were devastating. It shut down their liver. Many children got sick and, tragically, a number of them died. This came to be known as the gray baby syndrome. Let me give another example of the problem that our bill attempts to address. There was a little 4-year old leukemia patient named Stewart Baxter who had to scream through a spinal tap, had to go through immense pain because the doctors were advised they could not give him an anesthetic. The anesthetic was thought to be harmful to young patients. However, later they found that was not true. A few weeks later he was allowed to undergo the same procedure--this time, however, under the anesthetic. Better information earlier would have prevented that child's agony and would have made it possible for the parents not to have had to undergo that trauma as well in watching their child go through that pain. Let me give you another example. Dr. Ralph Kaufman, representing the American Academy of Pediatrics, testified in the House of Representatives about a 1-month-old infant that he treated. He was treating it for a life-threatening infection, the kind of infection that was resistant to all available antibiotics except one. That one antibiotic was not labeled for children. They had not done the testing. And it certainly was not labeled for a 1-month-old infant. But Dr. Kaufman took the chance, combining his knowledge with the physiology of the 1-month-old child with how the instructions said the antibiotic should be used for adults. In this case Dr. Kaufman said the gamble paid off. But sometimes the outcome is not so favorable. Physicians have to gamble, due to a lack of information. Sometimes physicians do not take the chance and they lose the availability of a very useful drug. Other times they do take the chance and maybe the results are not what they had expected. By passing this bill, we will change that. As a result, children can be treated for diseases with greater safety and with greater confidence. The problem this bill addresses is a very serious one. About 80 percent of the drugs on the market today have not been approved by the FDA for use in at least one pediatric age group--80 percent. As a consequence, the drugs do not carry labeling information explaining how they should be taken by children. This is because clinical trials are expensive. It is a dollars-and-cents issue, and often there is little market incentive for pharmaceutical companies to conduct these tests. The result is that drugs are usually prescribed for children on the basis of adult trials and the pediatrician's own experience. Children are not just small adults, and therefore this is a somewhat risky business. Physicians deserve better information and children deserve, as well as their parents, better information. I had experience in my own family. Senator Dodd alluded to this a moment ago. He just heard me talk about it. When you have children, you have a lot of medical experiences. But a number of years ago, my daughter Becky, who was very young, had developed asthma. As is the experience, sadly, of many parents who have children with asthma, we ended up spending many evenings and sometimes the middle of the night in emergency rooms when Becky would have an attack. Finally, the physician who was treating Becky said: Look, we need to do something about this. I don't think we should allow this to continue. There is something that is on the market today. We have information about its use by adults. I think we should go ahead and try it and I think we should see if it will work with Becky. He prescribed to her an inhaler that looks similar to the one that I am carrying right now, and gave it to Becky. She was able to use that. I was able to help her, and it lessened the trips to the emergency room for asthma attacks. She was able to get through childhood without anymore serious, horrible trauma, going to the emergency rooms because of asthma attacks. So I think this is an experience that many people have had. It is important, I think, to make the change in the law to give the drug companies the incentive so they can go out and do these tests. There are many drugs that are in this category, including those used to treat AIDS, as well as, as I mentioned, those to ease asthma attacks, drugs to alleviate pain, drugs even to treat other illnesses. Too often, physicians and parents are forced to guess about dosages or possible side effects. They should not have to play this kind of Russian roulette with their sick children. This problem has been around for a long time. In the last session of Congress this bill was passed by the Labor Committee, but unfortunately it did not reach the floor. We have had extensive discussions with the Food and Drug Administration, pediatric community, pharmaceutical companies, and makers of generic drugs. I am confident that we have come up with a practical way to remedy this problem. This bill is supported by health providers, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the Pediatric AIDS Foundation. I intend and hope to work with the FDA to solve this problem and find the best approaches, both legislatively as well as administratively. I look forward to continuing our dialog with the FDA. But I am not going to and Senator Dodd is not going to wait around for a proposal that they might make. This is our proposal. It is a legislative proposal. I believe it will do the job. I look forward to moving this bill through the Senate. Mr. President, we all want to see better labeling for drugs used to treat our sick children. Today, I believe, with this bill, we are taking the first step to resolve a very serious national health problem. Senator Dodd and I are serious about seeing this legislation pass both Houses of Congress this session. This project is a very high priority and we will do all we can to make it happen. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the legislation and encourage their help and assistance when the bill reaches the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Monday, May 12. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and that there then be a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Snowe for up to 10 minutes, Senator Dorgan for up to 30 minutes, and Senator Bumpers for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, further, on behalf of the majority leader, for the information of all Senators, Monday the Senate will, hopefully, begin consideration of the CFE treaty. However, no rollcall votes will occur during Monday's session of the Senate. Any votes ordered with respect to the treaty will be stacked to occur at a later date. As always, all Senators will be notified when any votes are ordered. It is the hope of the majority leader that the Senate could also consider the IDEA bill, possibly under a time agreement. Again, any votes ordered with respect to that bill will also be postponed to occur at a later date. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation on both of these matters.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 1997 supplemental appropriations bill. This bill does many good things, including the provision of an adequate level of support to our troops as they disengage from Bosnia. The bill also provides for a much-needed parking facility at the Wade Park VA Hospital in Cleveland. Representative Louis Stokes and I have believed for years now that this is an absolutely necessary improvement, and we are glad that we have finally been able to see it to this point in both the authorization and appropriation process. But on behalf of the people of Ohio, let me say that we appreciate most specifically some of the provisions that will help us cope with the consequences of the terrible flooding that took place in our State last month. The southern part of Ohio was ravaged by the worst flooding we have experienced in 33 years. Today, the flood waters have receded, but life is far from back to normal. In some towns, people still do not have permanent places to live. They are staying with relatives, or in RV's. Some have had their homes condemned--some have lost nearly everything and have to start again from scratch. When you drive through these towns, as I did, you see piles of people's belongings--like water damaged carpets--piled up outside their homes to dry, as they endeavor to rebuild their homes and their lives. Townships, villages, and counties all over southern Ohio are struggling to rebuild the roads and bridges that were damaged in the flooding. Some of the bridges dated back to the turn of the century. In Brown County, for example, they lost one covered bridge outright, and sustained serious damage to another one. In Clermont County, I saw Bear Creek Road that was completely washed away. They have been able to fix it temporarily, but school buses and garbage trucks can't use it. A permanent repair has to wait until money is available from the Natural Resource Conservation Service--or NRCS. Our hearts go out to all the people who are suffering the consequences of this flood, especially those who have lost family members and friends. We will do our best to help you carry on. We have already seen a wonderful outpouring of humanitarian assistance in response to this tragedy, the American Red Cross and the Ohio National Guard--along with many other concerned public and private organizations--have offered a desperately needed helping hand to some families who are having a really tough time. This legislation will help continue that process. It includes a $77 million appropriation for the Emergency Conservation Program, which provides cost-sharing assistance to the farmers whose land was damaged by the floods. It includes $161 million for the NRCS Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, which are designed to open the dangerously restricted channels and waterways, repair diversions and levees, and assist in erosion control on steep slopes. The people of southern Ohio have shown an incredible spirit in working together to get through this crisis. This bill will help them move forward in that same spirit. I thank the members of the Committee for the fine job they have done in crafting this legislation, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from New York and Rhode Island, Senator D'Amato and Senator Chafee, in offering this amendment to extend Supplemental Security Income [SSI] coverage to disabled, legal immigrants until the end of the fiscal year. This amendment is consistent with the recent agreement between the congressional leadership and President Clinton to allow disabled, legal immigrants to continue receiving SSI and Medicaid benefits. First, let me commend my friends from New York and Rhode Island, Senator D'Amato and Senator Chafee, for their extraordinary efforts on behalf of legal immigrants. It is safe to say that the bipartisan agreement to restore SSI and Medicaid benefits to disabled, legal immigrants would not have been made without their leadership. Plain and simple, this is an issue of fairness--fairness to those who played by the rules to become legal immigrants, only to see those rules changed to their detriment. While the budget agreement provides hope to legal immigrants, a temporary measure is needed to protect those immigrants who would stand to benefit from the budget agreement. That's the purpose of the amendment we are offering today. As my colleagues know, the 1996 welfare law bans legal immigrants from receiving SSI benefits beginning August 22, 1997--1 year after the day the law was signed. This 1-year transition period was designed to give legal immigrants time to obtain citizenship without losing eligibility, and to provide State and local governments time to adjust to increased demand for general assistance. The Social Security Administration estimates that roughly 525,000 legal immigrants currently receiving SSI could lose benefits under current law. Of that number, roughly 3,000 are from Ohio--and more than half of those immigrants, roughly 1,700 reside in Cuyahoga County. Many of these immigrants will seek and obtain citizenship and thus, can still receive SSI. However, many disabled immigrants currently receiving Federal support may not be able to become citizens. It is this population that stands to lose the most if current law is not changed. The Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland brought to my attention several families that would be affected if the law is not changed. Lev and Ada Vaynshtock, ages 64 and 60 respectively, came to this country from Moldova in 1991. They reside in Cleveland. Ada has passed her citizenship exam and is eagerly waiting to become a U.S. citizen. Lev's memory is getting worse and worse after open- heart surgery, and may never become a citizen. Both currently are eligible for SSI. Ada certainly will be able to retain her SSI eligibility when she gains citizenship, but Lev stands to lose this eligibility. If he outlives Ada, he will have no benefits at all-- unless we act to change the law. They are just one of many elderly Russian families--families that because of mental or physical disability, stand to lose their SSI benefits later this summer. It is for them, and for countless others, that compelled a bipartisan group of Senators to seek changes in the law to protect elderly people. Let me emphasize to my colleagues that our efforts on behalf of disabled legal immigrants does not alter the key policy changes made in last year's welfare and immigration reform bills. Our efforts do not alter the basic policy change made last year that sponsors of legal immigrants need to take more financial responsibility for legal immigrants. Newly arrived immigrants still will have to abide by the 1996 welfare and immigration laws. Again, we're here to help those already here, those already disabled immigrants who played by the rules. Although Congress and the President have made a commitment to help this population, it may not be until the beginning of the fiscal year before that relief is provided. We cannot hold disabled, legal immigrants hostage to the legislative process, especially when they stand to lose benefits in a few short months. Again, our efforts have been bipartisan. I want to commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Roth, and of course our majority leader, Senator Lott, for working to place a temporary measure in the existing bill. The amendment we offer today simply expands that effort, to ensure that all immigrants who stand to retain their benefits because of the budget agreement are not denied benefits while the details of this agreement are worked out. What this amendment offers is certainty--the certainty that these immigrants will continue to receive benefits for an additional 6 weeks. In short, the budget agreement reflects our long-term commitment to fairness. By passing this amendment, we can take a short-term first step to realize that long-term goal.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for the next 10 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues from Hawaii, Senator Inouye and Senator Akaha, to congratulate Ambassador Charlene Barshesfsky and her team at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for the efforts they have taken in their case against the European Union [EU] banana regime, which is pending before the World Trade Organization [WTO]. I know this is an issue of interest not just for the three of us, but also my Ohio colleague, Senator Glenn, my distinguished friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, and the majority leader, Senator Lott. Last week, the six of us joined together in a letter to Ambassador Barshefsky, expressing our appreciation for her office's great work to date. The case in question was brought before the WTO by the United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and Ecuador. Last March, a panel of the WTO made public an interim report, which found the EU banana regime to be in violation of more than 20 WTO principles. As the senior Senator from Hawaii pointed out, this one case has produced more violations than any other in the history of the WTO dispute settlement process. I am sure one could ask why a Senator from Ohio would be interested in a trade dispute involving bananas. It's easy to answer: I am a Senator who represents a large number of farmers in Ohio. Ohio farmers produce agricultural goods for both domestic and international markets. Indeed, if American agriculture is to remain a growth industry, we need to increase our presence in world markets. It's that simple. The hard fact for many farmers is that free and fair trade on the world stage hasn't always been simple, particularly when they have to go up against the EU. It is our job in Washington to achieve and advance trade agreements that protect and advance our agricultural interests. That can be easier said than done. It took years of negotiations before Congress finally ratified the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and supported the creation of the WTO. Despite this progress in our trade laws and agreements, I still hear from farmers who believe that international trade agreements don't do the job, or express a lack of confidence in the WTO system. That's why I followed with great interest the case against the EU banana regime. The ultimate outcome of this case stands to shape both the real and perceived effectiveness of our U.S. trade team, and the WTO as a means to achieve those goals. Last month's interim report represents the most significant and hopeful sign that our Nation's interests can be voiced effectively in the WTO. It's important to emphasize the interim report is a first step. The report still must be adopted by the WTO and the EU be compelled to achieve full conformity with its findings. If the WTO adopts the report, it will be the first time the United States has won a case brought against the EU in the WTO. If adopted, U.S. agricultural trade policy will stand at a vital crossroads. America's farmers have battled the EU's tough and predatory trade practices for decades. Now, it appears that the WTO is in a position to shift the balance toward fairness and respect for U.S. agricultural interests in two ways: First, by offering an impartial forum to hear and resolve trade disputes; and second, by serving notice to the EU that its past practices will not be tolerated. Again, I congratulate Ambassador Barshefsky and her team for their persistent efforts to stand up for America's farmers before the WTO. I urge my colleagues to express their support as well. I hope we will see continued success as this report proceeds through the adoption process, and as other cases are brought before the WTO.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to call the attention of everyone in the Senate to a very important article that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post Magazine. The article profiles a woman by the name of Diane Hendel. Diane Hendel was the foster mother of twins who had been abandoned by their natural mother. In telling Diane Hendel's story, this article paints a devastating portrait of the foster care system, the foster care system not just in the District of Columbia, but the foster care system across this country. It is Diane Hendel's story, and it is told from her point of view. But much more important, it is really the story of these two children, these twins, and what our foster care system did and is doing to them. It tells the story of these two children who were abandoned with serious physical problems, and it tells the story of the foster mother, Diane Hendel, who for 2\1/2\ years nurtured them, loved them, kept them going, became their mother. Then this article tells the story of a foster care system bent on family reunification, that when these little children were 3\1/2\ years of age, that system decided the natural mother, who had abandoned them, was now the person that they should go to. It tells the horrifying and sad story of these little 3\1/2\-year-old children being taken away from the only mother that they ever really knew, to their new mother. All in the name of family reunification. All in the name of protecting the rights of the natural mother, without, in my opinion, any consideration for the rights not of the foster mother, but for the rights of those two little girls. Mr. President, there are 450,000 children in foster care across this country today. These children are spending far too great a portion of their lives in a legal limbo. Early childhood years are a crucial time in the development of any child. Indeed, there was a recent White House conference devoted to this very subject. It seems to me that as we pay more and more attention to what we all intuitively know--and that is how important the early years are in a child's development, and there was a whole magazine, in Newsweek, this past week, a special issue devoted to early childhood development. We realize, more and more, how precious and important those first few months, those first few years are, to the development of the child and who we become, and what we are is shaped in the first year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years. Is it not time that we reexamined in society how cavalier we are about having children who have been taken away from their parents, then sit in sort of a legal limbo, for a year, 2 years, 3 years or 4 years, all the while we, in society, we adults, try to reunify these families? But all the while, all the while, these children are growing up. Mr. President, children do not have a second opportunity to have their childhood. You never have a second chance to be 2, 3, or 4. What is happening across this country in too many cases is that children are taken, put in a foster home--sometimes multiple foster homes--all the while we, as a society, wait until that magical time when the parents have been fixed--the natural parents. They have been cured, they no longer snort cocaine, they no longer drink alcohol all the time, they no longer abuse their children, and some day we hopefully will put them back, put these children who have been removed, back with these natural parents. I think, Mr. President, that we have to start worrying about the children's rights and less about the rights of the natural parents. Every piece of new evidence shows us, Mr. President, that the system, the foster care system, is keeping children in foster care for too long. I think this should spur us to action. If any of the Members of the Senate want to become horrified, want to see what is wrong with our foster care system, let them read this story. I think it would shock any American to read it. The Washington Post article that I just referred to outlines how the principle of making reasonable efforts to reunify troubled families is too often misinterpreted to mean reunifying families at all costs--even abusive families that are really families in name only. Abusive parents, abusive birth parents, are, today, Mr. President, given a second chance, a third chance, a fourth chance, a fifth chance, and on and on, to get their lives back together so then they can welcome their children back home. All the while, while they are trying to get their act together, their lives together, their poor little children are shuttled from foster home to foster home, spending their most formative years deprived of what all children should have--a safe, stable, loving, and permanent home. The article that I just talked about describes a case where two children, twins, were abandoned by their natural mother, a natural mother who had serious substance abuse problems. These children were then placed in foster care for 3\1/2\ years while efforts were made to fix the mother, efforts were made to reunify that family. These particular children happened to be fortunate. They are probably the exception, because they spent the majority of that time with one person, Diane Hendel, who wanted to adopt them, Diane Hendel who nursed them back to health, who helped them get through some very, very tough times. But now, Mr. President, the system says they cannot stay with the only person that they have known as their mother. They have to go back to their natural mother, the person who abandoned them in the first place. Mr. President, does that really sound like a good idea? I do not think so. The article quotes child psychiatrist Marilyn Benoit of the Devereux Children's Center in Washington, DC: Three and a half years? And then the biological mother gets the children back? You have now disrupted the emotional development of those children. You, the court, have created a new abandonment. You have deliberately interjected separation and loss into their lives. What we know that does is disrupt development. You have depression. You have regression. You undermine a sense of trust. You introduce a sense of powerlessness. Children that age, what they want to develop is a sense of mastery, and you have done everything to thwart that, and you have really compromised that child's ability to move on. Mr. President, I think that comment by a child psychiatrist confirms what all of us know, any of us who know anything about children. Children need a stable and permanent home, a permanent home where they will learn the skills of love, the skills of friendship and survival. Mr. President, I think that Sister Josephine Murphy, who runs a home of severely abused children in Hyattsville, MD, is also exactly right. She is quoted in the article as saying the following: I know what they say, blood is thicker than water, and it is, but we're adults, and at some point we have to have the guts to say, ``This is it. No more.'' No more, Mr. President. Enough is enough. Who benefits from the current bias toward reunifying abusive families? Certainly not the children. Whose interests were taken into account when the decision was made to rip these two children away from the only mother that they ever knew? Was it the children's? I don't know any rational person who would say that was in the best interest of the child. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me quote from this article. There is a portion of the article on page 10 that describes the scene when these children were taken away from their foster mother. . . . Off they go. Goodbye to the toys. Goodbye to their drawings. Goodbye to their bedroom. Goodbye to the house. Goodbye to everything. Just like that. And then, goodbye to Diane. Who leaves the children, as ordered, so they can say hello a moment later to their new mother, who is the woman who conceived them and abandoned them and was charged with neglecting them and now, 3\1/2\ years after they were born and 2\1/2\ years after Diane took them in with the hope of adopting them, has been declared legally fit to take them with her to a new place, a strange place, their true home. Just like that. Goodbye. Hello. Mr. President, we have before us in this Congress several bills, one that just passed the House, the Camp-Kennelly bill, one that has been introduced in the Senate, which I am a cosponsor of, the Chafee- Rockefeller bill. Both of these bills, while they will not solve this problem, I think will help because they say quite simply what we all know deep in our hearts the fact should be, which is, yes, whenever possible, whenever reasonable, we should try to reunify families; but while we do that, we should not forget what our ultimate goal should be, which is to be concerned about the safety and welfare of the children. I think, Mr. President, if we focus on the child and focus on what is in the best interest of the child, we will have fewer crazy, ludicrous decisions, such as the one we have seen recounted in the Washington Post story of this past Sunday. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for the kind comments. I am sorry he is leaving, but he has an important mission on the Budget Committee. I have debated this issue on a number of different occasions in committee. But I must say that he is particularly eloquent today, because I do not even recognize this bill after he finished describing it. It is an entirely different bill than the bill I thought we passed out of committee. And I am sure many of the points that he raised today are going to be points of contention as this debate continues over the next few weeks. Mr. President, let me first congratulate Senator Ashcroft and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for the great work that they have done to bring this bill to the floor today. In the House, my colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, has done tremendous work on this bill. This is a bill that I am particularly proud to have been involved in to help bring to the floor today, because I think it will help bring the American workplace into the 21st century and, more importantly, bring the underlying labor law into the 21st century and make both more conducive, more understanding, to the changing nature of American society and of the American workplace, particularly of the American family and how people really live today. In the hearings that we held in the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on this bill several months ago, we heard facts that substantiate the monumental changes that have taken place in American society in this century, particularly in the last 20 to 25 years, changes that make it absolutely essential that we pass this legislation. Mr. President, today more than 60 percent of married women work outside their home; 75 percent of married women with school-aged children work outside the home; 75 percent of married couples with children have both spouses working. We compare these statistics, Mr. President, to the situation in 1950: 11 percent in 1950--11 percent--of married mothers with children under the age of 6 worked outside the home. Today, almost 50 percent do--47 percent. In less than half a century--in my lifetime--we have gone from around 10 percent of these mothers working outside the home to nearly half of them. This is truly a historic social change. I believe the sponsors of this bill in both the House and the Senate believe that it would be a good idea for the dynamics of the American workplace to finally catch up with the dynamics of our society. It would be a good idea, Mr. President, for our laws to reflect the reality of how people live today. Put simply, Mr. President, there are more single parents and dual income families in our work force today than ever before, and their numbers are growing. In today's society, employees are faced with a difficult task of balancing their obligations to family, to spouse, to children, to work, school, other important things. Mr. President, it is significant--it is significant--that for many years Federal, State, and local governments have enjoyed the statutory ability to offer their employees a flexible work schedule, thus allowing them an opportunity to spend more time with their families or more time to continue their education. Mr. President, as our colleagues consider this bill, I ask them to consider how many times they have had a Federal employee, when they have been back to their State, come up to them and say, ``I don't like this. I don't like the comptime. I don't like the flexibility that the law gives me today.'' They have had this, Federal workers have, for several decades. State employees have. I was Lieutenant Governor of Ohio for 4 years. I do not recall one State employee ever coming up to me and saying, ``I don't like the flexibility that we have.'' In fact, just the contrary. Everyone who has ever talked to me about it has said, ``I enjoy it. I like it. It helps my family.'' Mr. President, there are actually antiquated Federal laws which are still on the books that are preventing some of the necessary changes in the non-Government workplace. This is what this bill does. It sweeps away some of these old laws that prohibit workers from doing what they want to do. Let us say, for example, a mother wants to take her daughter to a doctor's appointment. She wants to make up the working hours she missed by stacking them into other work days. Today, Federal law, written by Congress in 1938, says the employer cannot do that. The employer has to say to her, ``No. I am prohibited by law from doing this. I want to do it. You want to do it. We are prohibited by law from doing it.'' Mr. President, that simply does not make sense as we approach the next century. Workers in this country need more flexibility. Mr. President, earlier this month the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee passed this bill, a bill that would reduce some of the stress on America's working families by making the American workplace more family friendly. As chairman of the Employment and Training Subcommittee, I handled this bill and we held several hearings. The hearings strengthened my conviction that this bill is long overdue. Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the committee, was on the floor a few minutes ago and talked about Christine Korzendorfer, a woman, a mother of several children, who works at TRW. This is what she said, and I quote. She is talking about overtime pay. ``Pay is important to me.'' That is important. ``However, the time with my family is more important. If I had the choice,''--if I had the choice--``there are times when I would prefer to take comp time in lieu of overtime. What makes this idea appealing is that I would be able to choose what option best suits my situation.'' Mr. President, that pretty well sums it up. Individual choice is really what this is all about. It is the Christine Korzendorfers of this country, the hard-working Americans, who know best what kind of work schedule fits their needs. Giving these workers the freedom of choice is the purpose of this legislation. The bill before us today, S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, will amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to finally provide employers and employees in the private sector with the same benefits public-sector employees have enjoyed for many, many years. The bill contains three options for making the workplace more flexible--compensatory time off in lieu of monetary overtime pay, biweekly work schedules, and flexible credit hours. Participation, Mr. President, is voluntary. Let me stress this again and again. You are going to hear this word from me throughout this debate. It is voluntary. No one has to do it. If the employee does not want to do it, the status quo prevails. The employer has to want to do it, the employee has to want to do it before this law really even kicks in. Mr. President, I think that most people would be shocked if they knew that current law prohibits, absolutely prohibits, employees and employers from making the types of arrangements and agreements that people in the public sector can do today. If that law was not in effect today, if that law did not prohibit that type of arrangement, do you think, Mr. President, Members of the Senate, that anyone would come to the Senate floor and offer a bill to do that? Would anyone come to the Senate floor and offer a bill that said the Federal Government is going to step in and tell employees and tell workers in this country that, if you want to make an arrangement with the employer that allows you more flexibility in your life, that allows you to better decide when you are going to work, how you are going to work--does anybody think that bill would pass? Does anybody think that the Federal Government, if it did not have that law in effect today, that we would want to put that law into effect? The answer obviously is no. I think it tells us something when we look at that answer and look at the question in that way. Such a bill obviously would never pass. Mr. President, the Fair Labor Standards Act and its underlying regulations simply do not allow private-sector employers to meet the demands of their employees for more flexibility in various forms of compensation. As a result, working families are faced with tremendously difficult decisions. For example, will a mother sacrifice hard-earned vacation time off to take her child to the doctor or to the hospital? Should she forgo the compensation to make sure her sick child is properly cared for? Should she try to run home for an hour here or 20 minutes there? Can a single parent afford to leave work early to attend a teacher conference, to help chaperone a class trip? Will a single parent ever find the time to pursue greatly needed continued education? These are the options that this bill will give. I see, Mr. President, my colleague from Texas is on the floor. She has worked long and hard to bring this bill to the floor. I congratulate her for her great work. I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, my colleague from Minnesota indicated he was ready to proceed. Let me see if he is ready. For the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague from Texas for not only an excellent statement but for the tremendous work she has done, not just on this bill, but on many pieces of legislation that really reflect how American families live today. Government, many times, has a hard time keeping up with changes in society. She has worked, for example, on the homemaker IRA bill, another bill that, again, tracks the changes in society and gives families flexibility to allow them to make adjustments in their life, to live their lives the way they want to live them. I congratulate her for her great work and look forward to working on this bill and continuing this debate in the future. Mr. President, I think one of the points that my colleague from Texas made very well is that this bill--the current law discriminates against hourly workers. We have a situation today where two people can be working together, one is a salaried employee, the other is an hourly employee, and the hourly employee, really because of the way the law is written, because of a quirk of history, legislative history, the hourly employee does not have the same flexibility today that a salaried employee does. The salaried employee can make an arrangement with the employer to shift time, to be gone a Friday afternoon, to work extra some other time, that flexibility is not available to the hourly employee. That is discrimination. That is wrong. That is what this bill is aimed at rectifying. Mr. President, it is also discrimination to say if you work for the Federal Government or if you work for local government, you have to follow one set of rules and you have many options as far as the time you work. But if you work in the private sector, the Federal Government says, ``Oh, no, you do not have that flexibility.'' That is discrimination. Again, that is what this bill is designed to rectify, change, and stop that discrimination. S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, Mr. President, will finally provide the flexibility that today's work force so desperately needs. The act will allow employers and employees to mutually agree, voluntarily, on whether an employee will receive overtime compensation in the form of the traditional time and a half--money; or, that same time and a half as compensatory time off. That choice this bill gives to that employee and that employer. Employers and employees will be able to mutually agree to biweekly work schedules instead of the traditional workweek. Employers and employees will be able to mutually agree on the use of flexible credit hours. These choices will alleviate the pressures working women, single parents, constantly face today, Mr. President, in their attempt to balance the responsibilities at work with their obligations to their children, their obligations to their family. The cornerstone to each of these options is this foundation of choice. It is voluntary. It is giving the employee one more tool. Mr. President, I and my colleagues are not alone in recognizing that our work force, our workplaces have changed. We are not alone in understanding that the Fair Labor Standards Act passed many, many years ago no longer in this respect totally meets workers' needs. We are not alone in understanding that it is time for change. A 1994 study by the Department of Labor stated that the primary concern of two-thirds of working women with children was the difficulty in balancing work and family. No surprise. A poll taken by Money magazine, just published in this May's issue, states, ``Sixty-four percent of the public and 68 percent of women said that if they had a choice between taking cash or time off for working overtime they would definitely choose the time.'' Let me repeat that. Two-thirds said if they had a choice they would choose the time. It is a question of choice. The point is, Mr. President, that current law does not give the average American worker--the person who is working in the private sector, the person who is working paid by the hour--does not give them per law that choice, and, in fact, prohibits employers and employees from making that choice; that determination. In that same poll, Mr. President, 82 percent said they would support the Family Friendly Workplace Act. An article in the Cincinnati Enquirer read, ``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 find it easier to recruit and retain productive workers.'' An article in the Akron Beacon Journal quoted Ann Morris as saying very simply and for obvious reasons, ``In the long run, my time is more important than the extra dollars.'' Mr. President, furthermore, the President of our country, President Clinton, has stated on more than one occasion that he understands the need for more flexibility in the workplace and that he favors opportunities for workers, such as compensatory time in lieu of traditional overtime pay, flexible credit hours, and biweekly work schedules. This is what he said at the Democratic National Convention. I quote President Clinton. ``We should pass a flextime law that allows employees to take overtime pay and money, or time off, depending on what is better for their family.'' In describing his own initiative, this is what President Clinton said: This legislative proposal is vital to American workers-- offering them a meaningful and flexible opportunity to balance successfully their work and family responsibilities. The legislation will offer workers more choice and flexibility in finding ways to earn the wages they need to support their families while also spending valuable time with their families. Mr. President, these options have been on trial in the public sector. It is not as if we do not have a wealth of experience in this area. We do have years and years of experience, and thousands and thousands of employees who have benefited from this. It is always instructive, I think, before Congress to act to look to see what experience we have. I think this has shown, Mr. President, that this is clearly what we need to do because the experience has been in fact good. This is what President Clinton has to say about this. Let me quote: Broad use of flexible work arrangements to enable Federal employees to better balance their work and family responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism. That is the view our President expressed on July 11, 1994. The President recognized that people sometimes have to struggle very hard to balance the demands of work and families. A couple of years after he made that earlier statement, the President went even further calling on all Federal agencies to develop a plan of action for better implementation of these flexible work schedules. Again I quote: I am directing all executive departments and agencies to review their personnel practices and develop a plan of action to utilize the flexible policies already in place . . . flexible hours that will enable employees to schedule their work and meet the needs of their families. That is from a Presidential memorandum dated June 21, 1996. Finally, in his State of the Union Address, this is what the President said. ``We should pass flextime so workers can choose to be paid overtime and income, or trade it in for time off to be with their families.'' This is a quote the Democratic Leadership Council: Public policy should support two-parent families by giving them as much flexibility as possible to balance family and income needs. The tools and protection workers need in the information age are different from those required in the industrial era. The Fair Labor Standards Act needs to be modernized. Even with squeezed family budgets, for some workers time off may be as valuable as extra money. Mr. President, this type of bipartisan support I think provides us with a remarkable opportunity. A Democratic President and Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress are united on an important national issue facing the American workplace. We may never have a better opportunity to pass this legislation. For the sake of those Americans who are faced daily with the difficult challenge of deciding between their livelihood, their family, their employers, and the American work force as a whole, I urge swift passage of this bill. I would like, Mr. President, to take just a moment--I am sorry my colleague from Minnesota is not here. He indicated that he was looking forward to continuing this debate. I know he will in the weeks ahead. He had to leave to attend a budget hearing. But I would like to briefly address several comments that he made when he talked about this bill. I rather jokingly, as he was leaving the floor, said to him that the bill he had described was not the bill that I thought we passed out of the committee. Let me explain to my colleagues. He cited four problems that he saw with this bill. The first was he said it was a pay cut. He said that overtime should be sacred. Mr. President, he is absolutely right. Overtime should be sacred. Overtime is sacred in this bill. What we are simply saying is that if an employee, because of his or her family situation, or for whatever reason, decides that they would rather take time and a half in time at some other date instead of money, they have the option to do that providing both the employee and employer want to do that. That is all it says. That is flexibility. That is allowing workers who work by the hour to get paid by the hour, to have the same rights Federal workers have, that State workers have, and the same rights that salaried employees have today. So it preserves the concept of overtime, and time and a half. In fact, with that time and a half it gives it more flexibility. It gives certainly more potential value for the employee because it allows the employee to decide how to take that. My colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, also said it cuts benefits. It is simply not true. We will have the opportunity to talk about this at length. There has been no evidence brought forward that shows this at all. The facts simply aren't there. He also said that it abolishes the 40-hour work week. That is not true. It just isn't true. I ask what is wrong with an employee having the option to design his or her biweekly time with the consent of the employer, if they both want to do it? What is wrong with them designing the work week that says the employee will have every second Friday off? Maybe he or she wants to spend time with their family. Maybe they want to volunteer. Maybe they want to go fishing. Maybe they want to go hunting. It is not Government's business. The current law prohibits employees and employers who do not work for the Federal Government and who work by the hour from being able to make that kind of an arrangement. Is that an attack on the 40-hour workweek? I don't think so. And I don't think the American worker thinks so either. My colleague talked about enforcement. We listened to the testimony. We listened to the complaints that were made and the criticisms of the bill. And some of them, quite frankly, were justified. No bill is perfect, as it is introduced. We took those criticisms, and altered the bill to try to deal with the constructive criticism from the other side of the aisle. This is a better bill as it comes to the floor, quite frankly, than it was when we started. My colleague suggested that they certainly get credit for that. But the enforcement is there. The enforcement is there. It relies on the current enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act--enforcement that has been in place. The mechanism is there. And it provides very, very specific and tough penalties if, in fact, an employer in any way tries to coerce an employee, if they in any way try to abuse the privileges that are given employees and employers in this bill. So I look forward, Mr. President, to having the opportunity to discuss this bill in the future. I yield to my colleague from New York.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Missouri for the excellent statement and explanation about his bill and also congratulate him for bringing this bill to the floor. As he stated, we knew as we began the debate today that we would only just get started and that, because of concerns about the budget and other scheduling matters on the floor, we would have to ask to have this bill pulled down temporarily. We will be back on this bill. It is a very important bill to American workers. It is a question of fairness. It is a question of equity. It is a question of really trying to bring our laws up to date to reflect the reality of how people live their lives today, the reality of the American workplace. It is a bill about eliminating discrimination. The current law, frankly, as we talked about it, does in fact discriminate against hourly workers who are in the private sector who do not have the benefit of working for the Federal Government. So, at this point I do ask unanimous consent to withdraw the motion to proceed.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may need to the sponsor of the bill, the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I think our friends in the House of Representatives deserve a great deal of praise for what they did yesterday. They passed a bill that would save the lives of many gravely threatened young people in this country. I am referring, of course, to the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997, the Camp-Kennelly legislation, which passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 416 to 5. For the children in foster care in this country, the average time they spend in foster care is almost 2 years. That is just the average time. These 2 years are often the most important time in that child's development. We need to do everything we can to get these children in safe, stable, permanent, loving adoptive homes. Why are these children being kept in foster care for so long? I said the average time was 2 years. Sometimes it is 3, 4, 5 years. Sometimes the most important years of their lives are spent in foster care, and sometimes they move from foster home to foster home to foster home. Why do they get shoved from one home to another? Why do they spend so many years in foster care? One reason is that, in some of these cases, the child protective services feel hemmed in by a misinterpretation of a Federal law, a well-intentioned Federal law that this Congress passed in 1980, a law that has done a great deal of good, but a law that contains one provision that I believe has caused a great deal of harm and has caused a great deal of confusion. Under this 1980 law, the Federal Child Welfare Act, for a State to be eligible for Federal matching funds for foster care expenditures, that State must have a plan for the provision of child welfare services approved by the Secretary of HHS. The State plan must provide, that in each case, reasonable efforts will be made, first, prior to the placement of a child in foster care to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of a child from his home and, second, to make it possible for the child to return to his home. In other words, Mr. President, no matter what the particular circumstances of a household may be, the State must make reasonable efforts to keep that household, that family together, and then to put it back together if it falls apart. There is very strong evidence, evidence that I have seen firsthand as I have traveled the State of Ohio and talked to people who are professionals in this field, talked to judges, talked to child services workers, very strong evidence that reasonable efforts have, in some cases, become extraordinary efforts, efforts to keep families together at all costs, efforts to keep families together that are families really in name only. This has resulted in children being put back in abusive homes, put back in situations where no child should have to exist or live. Every day in this country, three children die of abuse or neglect. Children who are being abused by their parents should simply not be reunified with those parents. That is common sense. The legislation passed yesterday by the House of Representatives makes it clear, by an overwhelming vote, that this is what the House thinks. Now is the time for the Senate to take action. We have a very good piece of legislation, the Chafee-Rockefeller bill, of which I am honored to be a cosponsor, that has been introduced in this body. It is a piece of legislation that contains many good provisions. One of the provisions it contains is identical language to what the House passed yesterday to simply say what we all know in our heart was intended by the 1980 act, and that is, yes, we should make reasonable efforts to put families back together, we should try to help them, but--but--when those decisions are made at the local, county level or city level, the people who make those decisions must always put safety and the welfare of that child first. The safety of the child must always be paramount. That is good common sense; it is good legislation. We are halfway there. Now is the time for the U.S. Senate to complete the action and send that bill on to the President. The President has already said that he supports this language, that he supports this concept, that there is, in fact, a problem. The Senate should act very quickly and move on this legislation and really plug this loophole, which has caused a great deal of pain and many problems for our young people in this country today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 968, and further that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, last Saturday's Washington Post told the story of a devastating, but avoidable, tragedy. It is the story of a little 5-year-old boy in Montgomery County, MD, who was locked in his bedroom for 22 hours a day, tied to his bed with a cat leash. This little boy's mouth was taped shut, his hands and his feet were bound together. Little Richard Holmes suffered the kind of abuse that no child in this country, or anywhere, ought to suffer. That there are 3 million reports of child abuse in America every year is a tragedy, but there is an even deeper tragedy in cases like that of Richard Holmes. It is the tragedy of a system that tries too hard to keep some families together when they are families in name only. According to the story in the Washington Post, Richard's grandmother and his aunt complained to Montgomery County child protection services that Richard was being abused. They made this complaint last year, describing to county officials how Richard was returning home from visits to his father famished and with bite marks--bite marks--on his arms. Their complaints were ignored. In fact, they were accused of being troublemakers. Richard's father and his girlfriend are now in prison on child abuse charges. This is not new territory for Richard's father, who was sentenced to 2 years probation back in 1992 after his neglect of Richard came to the court's attention the first time. Mr. President, what on Earth was this little child, this little boy, doing back in his father's custody? It is easy to fault the child protection services to say that they should have done more, and they should have. What I would like to stress today is that those of us in the U.S. Senate should do more. As I have discussed on this floor on numerous occasions, too often child protective services feel themselves hemmed in by a misinterpretation of a law that was passed by this Congress in 1980. Under the Federal Child Welfare Act, for a State to be eligible for Federal matching funds for foster care expenditures, the State must have a plan for the provision of child welfare services approved by the Secretary of HHS. The State plan must provide ``that in each case, reasonable efforts will be made (A) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home, and (B) to make it possible for the child to return to his home.'' In other words, no matter what the particular circumstances of a household may be, the State must make reasonable efforts to keep that family together and to put it back together after it falls apart. There is strong evidence to suggest that in practice, throughout the 50 States, reasonable efforts have become extraordinary efforts, efforts to keep families together sometimes at all costs and sometimes to the detriment of these children. I believe that the sad story of Richard Holmes is a very eloquent case in point. So is the story of a little Ohio girl named Jenny Lynn. She is only 3 years old, and she has already been in eight foster homes. Let me repeat that, 3 years old and this poor child has already been in eight foster homes. One set of foster parents after another have given her up because they are not likely to ever be awarded permanent custody, not likely ever to be able to adopt her. She now reacts with panic, understandably, whenever she sees trash bags. You see, every time she is moved, her clothes, her possessions are moved in trash bags. Now when she sees trash bags, she is afraid that she is being moved once again. Why, Mr. President, is she being moved? Why is this little 3-year-old being moved time and time again? Because the county, Mr. President, is still trying to reunify her family in this case, still trying to reunify her with her parents. The problem is, nobody knows where her parents are. Meanwhile, she will continue--I guess until they are found--to be shuttled back and forth, back and forth, from foster home to foster home. This child, this little 3-year-old, is being deprived of what all children deserve: Stability, love, loving parents, a home. She is being deprived of her childhood. Mr. President, you do not need to be an expert on child development to know that that kind of childhood will not help Jenny Lynn grow up to be a happy adult. Frankly, the whole situation is absurd. And I believe we need to do everything we can to make this kind of nightmare occur less frequently in this country. Today, our friends in the House of Representatives passed legislation--the Camp-Kennelly bill--that will help us avoid this kind of tragedy. Mr. President, the Senate should do likewise. I have been working on similar legislation here in the Senate, legislation sponsored by Senator Chafee, Senator Rockefeller, and other Members of this body, legislation to make it plain that the health and safety of children is and ought to be the primary concern of child protective services. Mr. President, we are building a bipartisan consensus in support of this idea. The case of Richard Holmes ought to remind us that there are a lot of kids out there who need our help. We should not delay any longer. Again, Mr. President, the action of the House of Representatives today is great news. I look forward to moving our bill on the Senate floor, the Chafee-Rockefeller bill, which among other provisions contains this ``reasonable efforts'' language to clarify what we all really know and what we all believe and what I am sure Congress meant in 1980, and that is, while we should always try to reunify families, the best interests of the child, the safety of the child, the welfare of the child always--always--must be of paramount concern. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1001, which was received from the House.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning the Senate will begin consideration of the bill, S. 543, the Volunteer Protection Act. It is the understanding of the majority leader that there are a few amendments which are expected to be offered to this bill. Therefore, Senators can anticipate votes throughout Thursday's session of the Senate. Mr. President, it is the hope of the majority leader that the Senate will be able to complete action on this important legislation tomorrow. Also, there is the possibility that the Senate could consider items on the Executive Calendar. Therefore, additional votes could occur other than votes on the Volunteer Protection Act during tomorrow's session. In addition, if the Appropriations Committee completes action on the supplemental appropriations bill tomorrow, it is the intention of the majority leader that the Senate proceed to consideration of the supplemental on Monday.

Mr. DeWINE

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