Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, my amendment would ensure that American taxpayers get a fair deal when it comes to the $900 million this bill authorizes us to pay in dues to international organizations. My amendment would ensure that the United Nations does not spend U.S. taxpayer money to sponsor conventions that result in stricter--and more expensive--environmental standards for Americans than other members have to bear. I know the chairman has worked very diligently to ensure that our money is carefully accounted for by these international organizations. He has placed some strict limitations on the use of our funds, both at the United Nations and by the various international boards in charge of spending our money, but frankly, I would like those limitations to be a little more explicit. My amendment would prohibit the use of U.S. funds by the United Nations or any affiliated international organization to propose or promulgate treaties that impose new environmental costs on the United States--until, all other members of the United Nations have reached our level of environmental standards and enforcement. Many Americans, and surely my constituents in Wyoming, have a hard time understanding why we are writing a $1 billion check to international organizations and then exercising little oversight on how the money is spent. I ask you to consider for a moment, the accountability requirements we place on our own citizens when it comes to use of public property or receipt of Government payments. Ask a farmer what paperwork he or she had to fill out for the Farm Services Agency and the Natural Resource Conservation Service in order to get that corn or wheat payment last year-- or what bureaucratic tests disaster victims must endure to enlist support from the Federal Government. Ask an independent oil or gas producer how many reports they have to file with the Minerals Management Service or with the Bureau of Land Management in order to maintain a lease on Federal land. Or ask a small business owner what records they have to keep in order to prove to Government inspectors that they are complying with OSHA regulations and with EPA regulations--or to prove they are complying with the Family and Medical Leave Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ask them how much it costs to have their taxes done. I raise these examples to show how much we expect of our own citizens. We place enormous levels of accountability on anybody who takes initiative in this country and we weigh them down with paperwork. We even hold them accountable to tell us exactly how much we will take from them in taxes. And then we turn around and hand out their money. We spread it around, far and wide. There are $900 million in payments to international organizations in this bill and there is almost no accountability. My constituents want fairness. I am particularly concerned by our participation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and my amendment is drafted to challenge that issue, among others. I am pleased that the committee wants to require the administration to tell Americans how much the treaty is going to cost. Americans should know how much it will cost and who will have to pay for it. We are using their money to negotiate this treaty. Let's be honest with them. I think they might be surprised at what is being proposed. According to one independent estimate, complying with United Nations targets for greenhouse gas emissions could cost this country as much as $350 billion per year! That is nearly $1500 for every man, woman and child. And while you are adding up that bill for the folks back home, don't forget to point out that we could also lose nearly 5 million jobs directly related to energy use and production. Then there will be several million more that are indirectly related. That should make an impact on those hardworking American taxpayers in your home State. But I'll tell you what will really get them--when they find out that developing countries don't have to comply. Countries like China, India, Brazil, and Mexico will only have to report on their emissions, not do anything about them. All of this information may seem reasonable to some, but I will tell you, they don't buy it in Wyoming. International organizations should not be using American money to impose unfair requirements on Americans. I understand the difficulty the chairman has had with these issues and I recognize his efforts in this bill to restrict the taxation authority of the United Nations. I would like to direct a question to the chairman from North Carolina, if I may. Mr. Chairman, is it your belief that this bill adequately safeguards American taxpayers from any unauthorized use of United States funds by the United Nations or its affiliated environmental organizations?

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 3:30 p.m.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as one of the newly elected freshmen it is a great honor and a privilege to have this chance to extend my congratulations and best wishes to the president of the senior class-- Strom Thurmond. A term of service that began on December 24, 1954, now enters the record books as the longest, and one of the most distinguished terms of service, by any Senator. Over the years, we have all witnessed Strom Thurmond's great successes in the Senate and back home in his beloved South Carolina. I think I have found the secret to his success, and I would like to share it with my colleagues. Simply put, Strom Thurmond listens to his constituents--otherwise known as voters--and he hears what they have to say. Then he brings that South Carolina brand of common sense back to the Senate as we tackle those thorny issues that come to our attention in committee and on the floor. Strom Thurmond has been doing that for over 40 years now, and it is clear that the people of South Carolina like his style. Anyone who has any doubts about Strom Thurmond's popularity back home need only check the record. There is no greater gauge of the strength of anyone's support in his or her home State than to see how you fare at election time. Again, Strom Thurmond has sole possession of the record for he is the only one who has ever been elected to the Senate on a write-in vote. Simply put, the people of South Carolina love him as much as he loves them. That is why they keep sending him back. Still, Strom Thurmond is not being celebrated and toasted by all of our colleagues because of his longevity alone. We take notice of his many years of service in the Senate, but we also make mention of our great appreciation of the wisdom, insight, and determined effort Strom Thurmond brings to the work of the Senate every day. Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote a letter to Julia Ward Howe on the occasion of her 70th birthday. In it he said, ``To be seventy years young is sometimes far more cheerful and hopeful than to be forty years old.'' As we mark Strom Thurmond's legacy of service in the Senate, I think it is clear that no one is younger in spirit, more cheerful in attitude, and more hopeful for a better future for our children and grandchildren than Strom Thurmond. It is an honor and a pleasure, as the Senator who sits on the 100th rung on the current seniority ladder, to take this opportunity to congratulate the Senator on the top rung, Strom Thurmond, as he hits No. 1 one on the all time seniority list. From this day forth Strom Thurmond will set a new record every day he comes to the Senate. He has been a powerful and effective voice for his constituents. May he continue to do so for many years to come.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to again voice my strong support for S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I have listened to several of my colleagues speak about this important and necessary legislation. I want to especially commend Senator DeWine for his steady work in the Labor Committee and for Senator Ashcroft for the many hours he has spent working on this bill. I comment that today we have heard several speeches dealing with S. 4. We have heard several speeches that did not deal with S. 4. The other speeches dealt with a very important topic, too. They dealt with the disaster funding, but that was actually a filibuster against this bill. It was a request by certain people in this body that S. 4 not be adopted. They do not want people to have that kind of flexibility. It was a plea to do disaster relief, but it was directed to keep this bill from ever coming to a vote. Disaster is on the mind of everyone that is affected. One of the things I have discovered in my years in the legislature and since I have been here is that the disaster is in the mind of the one who is affected as well. Everybody has different kinds of disasters. The disaster that was talked about for a long time tonight is being handled in the conference committee right now. There is another disaster in America that is being kept from being debated in this body, that is kept from being passed in this body, that a vast number of people in this country need. It is a disaster that is happening to them. There are people out there that need more flextime and comptime to be able to spend time with their families. Some of those people are married to Federal employees. That Federal employee is able to take that flextime and the other spouse is saying, why can't I? In fact, in the early days when this bill passed that allows the Federal employee to do just exactly what we are talking about for the private hourly employees, the discriminated-against group, the private hourly employees, when we allowed Federal employees to do it we should have included the private sector at that time. We should have given them the same right that the Federal employees had. I know that in Cheyenne, WY, at the Unicover Corp., some of the people that worked in that corporation were hired by the Federal Government. They got flextime and they got comptime. I want to emphasize they got flextime and comptime, both of the advantages that are being talked about in this bill. Not just one, like is being implied, both of those advantages were given to the Federal employee. Their spouses said this is really a great idea. We should take it to our boss and get it implemented, and they took it to the Unicover Corp., they took it to the management and the management said, you know, that really is a great idea. We should do it, and they did it. Then they found out that they were in violation of the law. The Federal employees could do it, the private hourly employees could not. For 19 years the Unicover Corp. has asked Congress to pass a bill that would give them the same right as the Federal employees--not a different right, the same right. The same right for flextime, the same right for comptime. They are not asking for a special break that nobody else gets. They are just asking for an even break. Well, they found out they were in violation of the law and they had to end it. They have been working on it for a number of years to try and get it changed. I heard about it when I was campaigning and I said I do not know why we do not have that, and now I have a better idea why we do not have that. Today, the Small Business Advocate Award luncheon was held here in Washington, DC, over in the Dirksen Building. I had the opportunity to attend, and I got to meet the Wyoming Small Business Person of the Year, and there were small business people from all over the United States there, being recognized for the leadership that they have taken in their company, in their State, to make a difference. Marjorie Mathieson of Jackson is the Wyoming Small Business Person of the year, and I am very proud of her. That is one of the few manufacturing businesses in Jackson and it has been there a long time. They have gone through a number of different phases to keep current products that will sell to keep that small business in business. She talked to me a little bit about the Family Medical Leave Act. Some people have suggested that is an answer for all of the problems of meeting flexibility. Well, it is not. And it should not be expanded to be the answer to all of those either, because it is a paperwork nightmare, particularly for smaller businesses. Now, that is limited to businesses over 50 employees. There has been a request to bring that down to a smaller number. What we need is this Family Friendly Workplace Act that will provide the same kinds of benefits that we are talking about, bringing in the more complicated system, and bringing it down to a smaller level where they cannot handle the paperwork. A part of that business that the Wyoming Small Business Person of the Year runs is welding. They have five welders. Those welders make $40 an hour. Not bad. Five welders, $40 an hour. They want flextime and comptime. The business needs them to take flextime or comptime or both, and the reason they need them to take that is because they have work that has to be done. They have five welders. If one of the welders is to leave without doing some kind of a flex in the schedule, they lose 20 percent of their welding income. That is a significant portion of their business. That person loses $40 an hour. They do not want to lose $40 an hour. For overtime, they lose $60 an hour. They do not want to lose that. But the business can make arrangements for them to get flextime and comptime so that they can still have the time off, the revenue still comes into the business. More importantly, the paycheck comes to the individual. They want flextime. They talked to her about flextime. Marjorie wanted them to have flextime. She allowed flextime, and then found out that she couldn't have flextime, that she couldn't have comptime, that she could not offer this benefit to the people that worked for her. Jackson has some Federal employees. Those Federal employees get this. But these guys that weld can't have it not because the business doesn't want to give it to them, but because we have a law against it. And that is not fair. I have listened to the debate as we have gone through this topic. I am a certified professional in human resources. The Society of Human Resource Management, a national society, does education and testing in all of the areas of human resource management. When you complete the course and the testing, you can be certified as a professional in human resources. I have been through that process. They do an outstanding job of keeping track of the problems in the workplace. These are, for the most part, employees. I am not talking about employers. They are employees, employees who want benefits as well. And they see this as being a critical issue for the hourly worker in the workplace, a way for that worker to have more capability in their own scheduling. Everybody recognizes that this bill has provisions in it that both the employer and the employee have to agree to before it can be done. It isn't the case of forcing the employee to do it. It isn't the case of forcing the employer to do it. I am telling you, there are businesses across this Nation that want this and want it badly. And it is usually the employees that bring the idea to the employer and say, ``Why can't we do this?'' You know, they just do not believe that, since they know that the Federal employees get to do it. They just do not believe the employer when he says it is against the law. One of the biggest things raised in the hearing that we had was, ``Well, you can be paid for your hours anyway. Then you can save that money from being paid for your hours, and when somebody gets sick, if there is a soccer match, if you want to go someplace, or if you want to have an anniversary, or any of those great things that people would like to have time off to do, then you can use this money that you save.'' I ask you, how easy is it for you to save? It is pretty difficult. A lot of the people out there in the work force that we are talking about are women. They have gotten into the workplace because of some of the things that we have done back here. They have gotten into the workplace because of the way that taxes have gone up in the United States, the way that inflation has gone up in the United States. We have a situation now where in most families both people work. One of them works to pay the expenses, the other one works to pay the taxes. So it is not an option on whether they work or not. We asked a lot of women through the process in this thing why they didn't just bank the money and then use that money when they needed time off. And every one of them said to me, ``When it is time that I am banking, it is mine. I can use it for my family. But if I accept that paycheck, if I take the money, that is the family's money. It has to go for all of those family expenses. And there are always family expenses.'' But another unique part about this bill is that you can bank the hours and you can take the money. I don't know very many families in this country that do not come up with emergencies once in a while. If you have hours banked, there is a provision in this bill to be able to cash it in. So when the refrigerator breaks down and you don't have any alternative but to buy another refrigerator, even though it means putting off that vacation that you had planned, you can take some of the hours you have banked and cash it in. So they see this as a way to bank money for emergencies and to have time for themselves, time for themselves that they invest in their family. They really want to go to the soccer match. They really have to go sometimes to take their kids to the dentist. They like to celebrate those anniversaries. And this is a bill that allows it. The biggest complaint that I have heard about this bill is that there is a cap on the number of hours that they can have, a limit. And they say, ``Why do you have a limit on that--240 hours? Maybe my boss wants me to be able to bank more hours and maybe I have a bigger event than 240 hours.'' So that is a complaint on it. We are not even proposing that be changed. But we are asking for some consideration of the bill. The American workplace is dramatically different than it was 60 years ago when Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. We have all heard the stories about the dirty thirties from our parents. So I don't have to repeat them here. I will, however, illustrate how nice it was for Congress to pass that Fair Labor Standards Act to specifically address the numerous problems that existed back then. Cheap labor was abundant. Folks were awfully hungry for work. And there were many employers who took advantage of a bad economic situation. The 40-hour workweek did not exist. Overtime did not exist. Child labor was being exploited. There were some problems that stemmed from the trends of that era. Under the circumstances, Congress acted, and acted appropriately, by passing the Fair Labor Standards Act. We are never going back to that. There is no suggestion of ever going back to that. But there is fine tuning that needs to be done. It is important to illustrate how times have changed since the 1930's and why it is the responsibility of Congress to legislate for the present with the future in mind. As a certified professional in human resources, I have had the exhausting and daunting task of filling out the federally mandated forms and paperwork. I have worked one-on-one with my employees to try to meet their needs. Through it all, I have always found my employees to be well schooled and extremely intuitive. As a result, they inherently understand how the modern workplace functions. And the smaller the business, the better they understand how it works, the more connected they are to realizing that the success of that business and the time they spend there means their job and the way they work there means their job. They don't need someone to hold their hand and show them the way things work. That might have been the case 60 years ago. I certainly don't view employee knowledge as a problem, but rather welcome it as an important addition to the mix. Employers have every reason to reward employees who clearly understand how to use their time in the workplace to its full advantages. America's working parents want to decide for themselves whether or not they want overtime or paid time off. This is a modern day reality that requires a modern day legislative fix. This act does not eliminate overtime pay, nor does it eliminate the 40-hour workweek. That kind of talk is simply nonsense. These things will stay just where they are, and the Family Friendly Workplace Act guarantees that. Before coming to the Senate I was the owner and operator of a small business for 27 years. Folks in Washington, of course, have a completely different sense of what constitutes the small in small business. I have had several discussions back here about whether a small business is 500 employees or 125 employees. I can tell you that is not even close anywhere in America. A small businessman is one who sweeps the sidewalk and cleans the toilets and waits on customers. He does it all. He has to do it all. We held a small business hearing in Casper, WY, early this year. I was real pleased to have the honor of chairing that in Casper. We had about 75 to 100 people show up for that, rotating out and others rotating through. When it was over, one of the news media people said to me, ``How come you didn't have a better turnout?'' I said, ``That was a great turnout for a daytime hearing.'' Because we are talking about small businessmen. Quite frankly, they are different than big business because in small business, if they had one person that could take off for that day to just listen to a hearing, they would probably fire them because it would be one too many people. That is small business. So that illustration is radically different from that of a big business that has the financial and the employer resources to institute very sophisticated job training and flexibility problems that sidestep the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. And that is being done now. There are ways, very complicated ways. But if you can afford the attorney fees and have the specialists, you can provide this for some of your employees--not all of them. But this bill will allow the small business person to have the big business advantage, that extra flexibility. Sadly enough, small businesses are further behind under the flexibility of this 60-year-old antiquated law. That is a further reason for passing the Family Friendly Workplace Act. Personal computers, high-speed modems, cellular phones, pagers, and fax machines have all become commonplace in small business. Moreover, these popular commodities have paved the way for telecommunicating, telecommuting--a work environment that could not have been envisioned 60 years ago. While the number of working women in our country continues to rise, so does the number of telecommuters and in-home businesses. A lot of businesses are being started in the home. Then when they expand bigger than the home can handle, they become an outside business. But there are a lot of them working in the home that will be the future successes in this country. It will be the future opportunity for people who want the American dream. They will start a small business in their home. It is happening because of the growing trend of spending more time at home with our families. If they telecommute, they don't have to spend an hour each way driving. That is part of the flexibility. That is something that the modern age has provided us. It is impossible to bottle up workplace flexibility. But we have an antiquated law that is suggesting that we can. That is why it is so important to modernize this archaic Federal law that squelches any chance of giving American hourly workers more time at home with their kids, a true investment in our Nation's future. Congress must legislate with the times to provide the opportunities for our Nation's parents to make that investment. It is often the case with a lot of families that both parents work. They do this, and they do it happily because they have to meet the bills. They also do it because they cannot get extra hours off from the job the way they would really prefer to do it unless they work for another business as well. If they work two jobs, they don't get any overtime. But a lot of them work two places. They don't get comptime. They don't get flextime. They don't get overtime. This unfortunate trend in the business world can be addressed by providing this workplace flexibility with the choice of paid time off for flextime. Times have changed and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 does not permit employees to choose between paid time off or overtime pay. My experience is that there are a lot of people out there who know that if they take the money, they will spend the money. They want the time instead. I also found that fact to be more prevalent among women in the work force. They feel the need for the time to spend with their children, and they understand that money belongs to the family. They have a much stronger family belief than most of the men I have worked with. So they prefer to take flextime or comptime and use that for themselves or their family. One of the businesses I worked for often had additional assignments that employees could take on, if they chose to do so. When we asked if the employees wanted additional work, they said ``yes,'' if they could have time off the following week with compensation, but if they could only choose to be paid, they didn't need it. They would rather have the time off this week than to take the money next week. We explained to them that they had the capability of taking the overtime pay, not working the following week, and spending that extra pay that week. But somehow those paychecks don't get distributed at home quite the same way they do on paper or here. I am hoping that everyone will reflect a bit on the trends that our modern work force is talking about and not the mandatory things that seem to be implied by this legislation imposed upon us. The downsizing problems today are leading to less flexibility as well as families making less money than if they were doing the job they preferred to do, not the second jobs they are having to do without getting overtime because it is a second job. There has been a tremendous increase in temporary positions in this country. This has taken flexibility away from the families. It has taken money away from the families. This a modern day problem that requires a modern day solution. This matter cannot possibly be addressed by legislation that we have crafted to address the problems of the 1930s. We have taken care of those problems. We are not going back to that situation. But we need to adjust for the future. Indeed, our society is constantly driven by changing trends. I can comfortably argue that our society is one of the most trendy in the world, a fact that has kept America on the leading edge of technological innovation. We have been at the peak in technology and at the tail in taking care of the hourly worker. I hope that before people begin making up their minds on this bill, they will take a close look at the language and what it really calls for rather than relying on misstatements, and I see those misstatements in the paper from time to time, misleading statistics, partisan posturing. Read the bill. Ask for a copy of the bill. Read the bill. It is amazing. Our Nation's work force is calling for this much-needed change. I again urge my colleagues to support the Family Friendly Workplace Act. Bring this to a vote. Give the hourly working people of this country the opportunity to choose how they want to work, the way that they want to choose to help their families. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which will enable Devil's Tower National Monument to retain its historic and traditional name. This, our first national monument, has been known as ``Devil's Tower'' for over 120 years. It is an unmistakable symbol of Wyoming and the West and is known internationally as one of the premiere crack climbing locations in the world. Consequently, Devil's Tower, and it's worldwide recognition by that name, is very important to my State, which depends so heavily on its tourism industry. And yet, there are those who would attempt to fix that which is not broken. I am fully sensitive to the feelings of those Native Americans who would prefer to see the name of this natural wonder changed to something more acceptable to their cultural traditions. Many tribal members think of the monument as sacred. However, I believe that little would be gained from a name change, and much would be lost. It is important to remember that there is no consensus as to which Indian name would be most appropriate. In fact, there seem to be as many proposals for new names as there are special interest groups proposing them. Among the candidates are Bear's Lodge, Grizzly Bear's Lodge, Bear's Tipi, Bear's Lair, Bear Lodge Butte, Tree Rock and several others. The only thing they seem agreed upon is what the monument should not be called: Devil's Tower. The initiative to change the name of Devil's Tower would accomplish little more than to dredge up age-old conflicts and divisions between descendants of European settlers and the descendants of Native Americans. This would be most unfortunate and would result only in economic hardship for all the area's citizens. My legislation will prevent such hardship and will embrace the least offensive option offered so far--the preservation the traditional name of Devil's Tower. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which will enable Devil's Tower National Monument to retain its historic and traditional name. This, our first national monument, has been known as ``Devil's Tower'' for over 120 years. It is an unmistakable symbol of Wyoming and the West and is known internationally as one of the premiere crack climbing locations in the world. Consequently, Devil's Tower, and it's worldwide recognition by that name, is very important to my State, which depends so heavily on its tourism industry. And yet, there are those who would attempt to fix that which is not broken. I am fully sensitive to the feelings of those Native Americans who would prefer to see the name of this natural wonder changed to something more acceptable to their cultural traditions. Many tribal members think of the monument as sacred. However, I believe that little would be gained from a name change, and much would be lost. It is important to remember that there is no consensus as to which Indian name would be most appropriate. In fact, there seem to be as many proposals for new names as there are special interest groups proposing them. Among the candidates are Bear's Lodge, Grizzly Bear's Lodge, Bear's Tipi, Bear's Lair, Bear Lodge Butte, Tree Rock and several others. The only thing they seem agreed upon is what the monument should not be called: Devil's Tower. The initiative to change the name of Devil's Tower would accomplish little more than to dredge up age-old conflicts and divisions between descendants of European settlers and the descendants of Native Americans. This would be most unfortunate and would result only in economic hardship for all the area's citizens. My legislation will prevent such hardship and will embrace the least offensive option offered so far--the preservation the traditional name of Devil's Tower. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 802 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senate Concurrent Resolution 27, the Budget resolution. The budget resolution before us has gone through an incredible amount of negotiating to get to this point. I commend the Budget Committee chairman and the ranking member for working so diligently on this budget. As we began our work on the blueprint for our Nation's future, I had certain criteria in mind the budget resolution had to meet in order for me to support it. Unfortunately, this budget does not meet enough of my criteria to justify my support. I would like to take this opportunity to explain my position and those provisions which I feel leaves this agreement short of the mark. I feel that a good budget agreement should balance the budget before the year 2002. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a $225 billion windfall of unexpected revenues over the next 5 years. We should be giving this unexpected revenue back to the American people and use it to reduce the deficit. It also concerns me that there are no enforcement measures in place to ensure that the budget will remain in balance after the year 2002, let alone before that. Finally, the spending cuts are back loaded in the last 2 years of the agreement, and will take place after President Clinton leaves office. That isn't right. I believe the American working families expect action from us today--not promises for a better tomorrow. I voted for amendments that I felt would make the budget more enforceable and realistic. Without these meaningful amendments, the resolution does not go far enough. The amendments would ensure that the debt limit would not be increased, and that these additional unexpected Federal revenues and the projected $225 billion revenue windfall would go toward tax cuts and deficit reduction. If we don't produce a balanced budget, we lose, and generations to come will lose right along with us. A balanced budget only gets more difficult to achieve the longer we wait. If we are genuinely concerned about the welfare of our children, we should first look at balancing the budget while it is still realistic and possible for us to do so. The longer we wait the more we turn our children's dreams and hopes for a brighter future into a terrible nightmare. They look to us for leadership. They look to us to pass a budget that actually balances, and continues to balance the budget every year. I have no intention of letting them down. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 765 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am very pleased and proud to rise and speak in support of S. 765, the Safety and Health Advancement Act that I have sponsored. I thank all of the people who have been involved in the process of coming up with an OSHA modernization bill. You notice I mentioned modernization, not reform. There have been a lot of people involved in this. My colleagues, my staff members, and over 50 organizations have been involved in reviewing suggestions that we have had for modernizing the OSHA process. Over the last 6 years, there have been bills introduced by both Republicans and Democrats that wound up on the great scrap heap of unfinished business because they have been put in to make a statement, a political statement. For every time that a bill is put into committee, there is a committee report, an 8\1/2\ by 5\1/2\ inch booklet that lists a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the bill, the majority opinion, the minority opinion, every amendment that has been suggested for the bill, and how people voted on it. We have gone back through the last 6 years of those bills, and we found on the issues that there seem to be common ground, and we have put those in the bill. We have looked for the issues that were conscientious that were dividing, and we found some new approaches for some of those things. We have not been able to address everything. But we have a bill that will help to move small business forward, that will give small business a better chance to have safety in the workplace for their workers. That is the main point of this bill. Again, I thank all of the people who have helped me on it, and I look forward to working with everybody on what I think will be a very reasonable approach that can go through both bodies and help out the workers in the workplace. For 6 year's Members on both sides of the aisle have seen the need for modernization. Unfortunately, its been approached each year as reform--and often as drastic reform. Big business and big union have seen the bills as an opportunity to make a statement--a political statement. The workers and small business have needed some clarification and a lot of help that has gotten lost in the statements. The issue of workplace safety and health is extremely important to a healthy America. Advancing safety and health in the American workplace is a matter of great importance and it must be considered in a serious and rational manner by Congress, by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, by employers, and yes, by employees too. This bill is overdue, common sense legislation. When I began my service on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, I was surprised to discover the volume of documentation and resources available to us and our staffs. Each time a bill is reported out of committee, a 5\1/2\- by -8\1/2\ booklet is made available to us that lists every detail about that bill--a luxury I never had when I served in the Wyoming State Legislature. Included in that booklet is a paragraph by paragraph analysis of the bill, with a majority and a minority opinion on each section. It shows every amendment, discusses them at length and reports who voted for and against them in committee. With this abundance of committee reports, I felt like a kid in a candy store. I just picked up 6 year's worth of OSHA bills and began reading. Surprisingly enough, I found that the things that business and labor needed to have done were pretty commonly agreed upon as necessary. Just the politicized statements separated the two sides. The fate of each bill was determined when such statements reared their ugly heads and squelched any chance of improving the safety and health of America's workplaces. Each year, legislators in the House and Senate introduce bills that appeal to a wide variety of special interests-- setting the stage for a lot of mudslinging. These bills contained good ideas, but they eventually toppled from a barrage of political attacks--tossing them all onto the great scrap heap of Congress' unfinished business. It just goes to show that people who sling mud, lose ground. I found that both big businesses and big unions have made a lot of statements over the years, but statements don't become law and they certainly don't change things. Good legislation becomes law. It is time that we tuck the statements back into our coat pockets and start passing some common sense legislation that advances the safety and health of the American workplace. We all want a healthy and safe workplace. Legislation should therefore revolve around not what we want, but how to get there in a manner that is fair and equitable to all. There is no room for politics in the arena of human life. For this reason, I spent the last 14 weeks pouring the foundation for a new, comprehensive OSHA bill. This foundation does not consist of cement, but something stronger--the thoughts, suggestions and good ideas of employees, employers, and the individuals that govern them. I want to be clear that this bill does not include all the concerns of every interested party, but I do believe that it constitutes an important first step. This bill sticks to a theme-- ``the advancement of safety and health in the workplace.'' I am proud to say that it has been crafted to promote and enhance workplace safety and health--rather than dismantle it. We are addressing an issue that affects people from all walks of life. It is essential that we take each step with care. To be successful and effective, a well-crafted bill must provide incentives for employers and employees to act more responsibly. We need to make the profit motive work for worker safety, not against it. This spirit of cooperation must overpower political polarization if true improvements are to be achieved. OSHA must recognize that the vast majority of employers are not heartless and cruel. Having played the wage payer role for over 26 years, I take great offense when employers are characterized as Ebenezer Scrooges or Simon Legrees. The majority of employers cherish their most valuable assets--their employees. It is truly misleading and deceptive for anyone to say otherwise. For without the employee, management will ultimately have no staff, no profits--and no business. Watching out for employees is just good business When the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted 27 years ago, its intended purpose was to make the workplace free from ``recognized hazards that are causing, or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to . . . employees.'' As is the case with many programs established by Congress over the years, OSHA strayed from its original mission of protecting people from occupational safety and health hazards through preventative measures. The focus has instead been heavily weighted toward and concentrating on penalties and enforcement. OSHA should retain the ability to punish employers who don't embrace workplace safety and health, but it should reward those who do. The carrot and stick approach has always worked before, but OSHA prefers using the stick by itself--and they rarely walk softly. I want to be clear that this bill does not dismantle OSHA's enforcement capabilities. That approach has been tried time and time again. But, enforcement alone cannot ensure the safety of our Nation's workplaces and the health of our working population. America would be better served by an OSHA that places a greater emphasis on promoting employers and employees working together and this bill would strike that balance. To continue the course set by Congress' original intent back in 1970, consultative services must be drastically expanded. My bill calls for that. Studies have shown that many sites where serious workplace accidents have occurred were not inspected by Federal OSHA inspectors for several years prior to the accident. This lack of attention to potential problem areas is due in part to an overemphasis on enforcement. If just the inspectors are working on safety, you can't possibly have enough inspectors. Everyone has to be involved. My legislation will allow OSHA greater flexibility in allocating its resources so it can give the most serious workplace problems its highest priority and most careful attention. This bill advances safety and health by allowing employers to actively promote employee/employer discussions concerning occupational safety and health hazards. Voluntary compliance by employers would be encouraged as part of the solution, not as part of the problem--as part of the prevention, not as part of the penalty. Employers would have the option of implementing an alcohol and substance abuse testing program in order to ensure a safe workplace. I have had the opportunity to see first hand the benefits of this type of program. I have been tested and given tests and I know about validity and dignity. Employees would be held accountable for misconduct in a site that has been determined by OSHA to be in compliance with existing regulations. Employees have the ultimate control as to whether safety toes, hard hats or safety goggles are worn. Employers would receive incentives from OSHA for utilizing the services of third party consultants. Moreover, continuing education and professional certification for OSHA consultants and inspectors would be required to ensure that the rapid advancement of technology doesn't surpass OSHA's ability to identify occupational safety and health hazards in the workplace. Not only have 6 years of OSHA proposals been reviewed, Meetings have been held with over 50 interested groups from the National Federation of Independent Businesses to the AFL-CIO. Contact has been made and some explanation given to every member of the Labor Committee. All suggestions received have been considered. Those that meet the goal of safety and health improvement without appearing contentious have been included. I am looking forward to a bipartisan effort to create the kind of workplace we want and need in America. This bill doesn't call for radical change, but it does start the progress and the process to safety. It makes changes small business can't wait any longer for. The Safety and Health Advancement Act represents a clean, fresh start to addressing the problems that affect OSHA, employers and employees. I am quite eager to work with each of my distinguished colleagues as this issue winds its way through the legislative process. By working together, we can return OSHA to its original course as envisioned by Congress when it crafted the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. I urge my colleagues to give fair consideration to this bill and I welcome your support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am very pleased and proud to rise and speak in support of S. 765, the Safety and Health Advancement Act that I have sponsored. I thank all of the people who have been involved in the process of coming up with an OSHA modernization bill. You notice I mentioned modernization, not reform. There have been a lot of people involved in this. My colleagues, my staff members, and over 50 organizations have been involved in reviewing suggestions that we have had for modernizing the OSHA process. Over the last 6 years, there have been bills introduced by both Republicans and Democrats that wound up on the great scrap heap of unfinished business because they have been put in to make a statement, a political statement. For every time that a bill is put into committee, there is a committee report, an 8\1/2\ by 5\1/2\ inch booklet that lists a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the bill, the majority opinion, the minority opinion, every amendment that has been suggested for the bill, and how people voted on it. We have gone back through the last 6 years of those bills, and we found on the issues that there seem to be common ground, and we have put those in the bill. We have looked for the issues that were conscientious that were dividing, and we found some new approaches for some of those things. We have not been able to address everything. But we have a bill that will help to move small business forward, that will give small business a better chance to have safety in the workplace for their workers. That is the main point of this bill. Again, I thank all of the people who have helped me on it, and I look forward to working with everybody on what I think will be a very reasonable approach that can go through both bodies and help out the workers in the workplace. For 6 year's Members on both sides of the aisle have seen the need for modernization. Unfortunately, its been approached each year as reform--and often as drastic reform. Big business and big union have seen the bills as an opportunity to make a statement--a political statement. The workers and small business have needed some clarification and a lot of help that has gotten lost in the statements. The issue of workplace safety and health is extremely important to a healthy America. Advancing safety and health in the American workplace is a matter of great importance and it must be considered in a serious and rational manner by Congress, by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, by employers, and yes, by employees too. This bill is overdue, common sense legislation. When I began my service on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, I was surprised to discover the volume of documentation and resources available to us and our staffs. Each time a bill is reported out of committee, a 5\1/2\- by -8\1/2\ booklet is made available to us that lists every detail about that bill--a luxury I never had when I served in the Wyoming State Legislature. Included in that booklet is a paragraph by paragraph analysis of the bill, with a majority and a minority opinion on each section. It shows every amendment, discusses them at length and reports who voted for and against them in committee. With this abundance of committee reports, I felt like a kid in a candy store. I just picked up 6 year's worth of OSHA bills and began reading. Surprisingly enough, I found that the things that business and labor needed to have done were pretty commonly agreed upon as necessary. Just the politicized statements separated the two sides. The fate of each bill was determined when such statements reared their ugly heads and squelched any chance of improving the safety and health of America's workplaces. Each year, legislators in the House and Senate introduce bills that appeal to a wide variety of special interests-- setting the stage for a lot of mudslinging. These bills contained good ideas, but they eventually toppled from a barrage of political attacks--tossing them all onto the great scrap heap of Congress' unfinished business. It just goes to show that people who sling mud, lose ground. I found that both big businesses and big unions have made a lot of statements over the years, but statements don't become law and they certainly don't change things. Good legislation becomes law. It is time that we tuck the statements back into our coat pockets and start passing some common sense legislation that advances the safety and health of the American workplace. We all want a healthy and safe workplace. Legislation should therefore revolve around not what we want, but how to get there in a manner that is fair and equitable to all. There is no room for politics in the arena of human life. For this reason, I spent the last 14 weeks pouring the foundation for a new, comprehensive OSHA bill. This foundation does not consist of cement, but something stronger--the thoughts, suggestions and good ideas of employees, employers, and the individuals that govern them. I want to be clear that this bill does not include all the concerns of every interested party, but I do believe that it constitutes an important first step. This bill sticks to a theme-- ``the advancement of safety and health in the workplace.'' I am proud to say that it has been crafted to promote and enhance workplace safety and health--rather than dismantle it. We are addressing an issue that affects people from all walks of life. It is essential that we take each step with care. To be successful and effective, a well-crafted bill must provide incentives for employers and employees to act more responsibly. We need to make the profit motive work for worker safety, not against it. This spirit of cooperation must overpower political polarization if true improvements are to be achieved. OSHA must recognize that the vast majority of employers are not heartless and cruel. Having played the wage payer role for over 26 years, I take great offense when employers are characterized as Ebenezer Scrooges or Simon Legrees. The majority of employers cherish their most valuable assets--their employees. It is truly misleading and deceptive for anyone to say otherwise. For without the employee, management will ultimately have no staff, no profits--and no business. Watching out for employees is just good business When the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted 27 years ago, its intended purpose was to make the workplace free from ``recognized hazards that are causing, or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to . . . employees.'' As is the case with many programs established by Congress over the years, OSHA strayed from its original mission of protecting people from occupational safety and health hazards through preventative measures. The focus has instead been heavily weighted toward and concentrating on penalties and enforcement. OSHA should retain the ability to punish employers who don't embrace workplace safety and health, but it should reward those who do. The carrot and stick approach has always worked before, but OSHA prefers using the stick by itself--and they rarely walk softly. I want to be clear that this bill does not dismantle OSHA's enforcement capabilities. That approach has been tried time and time again. But, enforcement alone cannot ensure the safety of our Nation's workplaces and the health of our working population. America would be better served by an OSHA that places a greater emphasis on promoting employers and employees working together and this bill would strike that balance. To continue the course set by Congress' original intent back in 1970, consultative services must be drastically expanded. My bill calls for that. Studies have shown that many sites where serious workplace accidents have occurred were not inspected by Federal OSHA inspectors for several years prior to the accident. This lack of attention to potential problem areas is due in part to an overemphasis on enforcement. If just the inspectors are working on safety, you can't possibly have enough inspectors. Everyone has to be involved. My legislation will allow OSHA greater flexibility in allocating its resources so it can give the most serious workplace problems its highest priority and most careful attention. This bill advances safety and health by allowing employers to actively promote employee/employer discussions concerning occupational safety and health hazards. Voluntary compliance by employers would be encouraged as part of the solution, not as part of the problem--as part of the prevention, not as part of the penalty. Employers would have the option of implementing an alcohol and substance abuse testing program in order to ensure a safe workplace. I have had the opportunity to see first hand the benefits of this type of program. I have been tested and given tests and I know about validity and dignity. Employees would be held accountable for misconduct in a site that has been determined by OSHA to be in compliance with existing regulations. Employees have the ultimate control as to whether safety toes, hard hats or safety goggles are worn. Employers would receive incentives from OSHA for utilizing the services of third party consultants. Moreover, continuing education and professional certification for OSHA consultants and inspectors would be required to ensure that the rapid advancement of technology doesn't surpass OSHA's ability to identify occupational safety and health hazards in the workplace. Not only have 6 years of OSHA proposals been reviewed, Meetings have been held with over 50 interested groups from the National Federation of Independent Businesses to the AFL-CIO. Contact has been made and some explanation given to every member of the Labor Committee. All suggestions received have been considered. Those that meet the goal of safety and health improvement without appearing contentious have been included. I am looking forward to a bipartisan effort to create the kind of workplace we want and need in America. This bill doesn't call for radical change, but it does start the progress and the process to safety. It makes changes small business can't wait any longer for. The Safety and Health Advancement Act represents a clean, fresh start to addressing the problems that affect OSHA, employers and employees. I am quite eager to work with each of my distinguished colleagues as this issue winds its way through the legislative process. By working together, we can return OSHA to its original course as envisioned by Congress when it crafted the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. I urge my colleagues to give fair consideration to this bill and I welcome your support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first I want to commend the Senators and staff who have committed so much time to the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. It is a good bill that incorporates the insights and experiences of the hundreds of groups who have been involved in the development process. I planned to offer my strong support, however, for the amendment that was to have been offered by Senator Gregg because I believe the underlying bill would be better if it contained a strong commitment on Federal funding--for a number of reasons. I am familiar with education spending at the State level because I come to this process as a former State Legislator. I served the State of Wyoming for 10 years--5 years in the State House and 5 years in the State Senate. During that time, in my tenure as chairman of the Senate Revenue Committee, I felt all of the constraints in the State budget. The most difficult one, however--the one that was always fraught with protestation and controversy--was how we spent money on education, where it came from and where it went. Elementary and secondary education is my State's largest single expenditure. In the 1995-96 school year, the Wyoming State Government expended $237 million, or 44 percent, of the total amount of money spent on K-12 education in Wyoming. Fifty percent of the funding, or $280 million, came from local sources. I am proud of that commitment. The people in my State invest over $5,800 per student, per year, and that is the second highest amount in the country as a percentage of State income. But let me focus for a minute on the other 6 percent--the Federal contribution. Federal support for elementary and secondary education is a sensitive issue in Wyoming. Federal dollars always come with Washington strings attached and that is a problem for me and for a great number of my constituents. I believe we should leave more of our tax revenue in the States and let the people who live there make the decisions about education. Special education is different, however, because the strings are already in place. The distinction is that they don't come with much money. Wyoming's State and local taxpayers spent $58 million for special education last year. That was matched by only $5 million in Federal funds--about 8 percent. Mr. President, IDEA is a good law. It protects disabled kids from discrimination in public education. It is an issue that needs national attention, coordination, and support. We should recognize why this law exists, why these services are mandated, and understand why there should be an assurance of strong Federal funding. The Gregg amendment would have made that commitment. It would say that we, as a body, believe the Federal Government should pay more for special education. Why is this amendment so important? Because Congress has failed to support its share of the cost for 20 years. Without this amendment, the States really have no reason to expect that the situation is going to change. To add insult to injury, the bill places a new maintenance of effort requirement on State education agencies. That is a difficult pill to swallow when the Federal maintenance of effort has been so clearly lacking. I would have objected to the new State maintenance of effort because my State currently pays 85 percent of special education costs. The local relief provided in this bill will do little to offset the State's heavy burden. The bill does, however, allow for a waiver if the State can show it is providing all kids with a free appropriate public education. That is an important consideration and I think it adds enough flexibility to the law to make it acceptable. But it does not solve all the problems. This legislation will also require States to provide some new services. Without a guarantee of additional Federal funding, the States are going to have to bear that cost. One expense will be the mandate to provide alternative education for kids who are expelled due to disciplinary problems. There is also a requirement to provide State mediation as an alternative to due process. I support these changes. I hope they will actually reduce costs in the long run. But if we cannot even pay the Federal share for current mandates, then we should not be adding new ones. Congress needs to ante up the Federal share. If we are unable to do that, then this bill loses some of its luster. The Gregg amendment would have made that commitment. I understand the problems a conference might present on this bill. I sympathize with Members who have spent so many hours working to reach consensus, but I believe the Gregg amendment is important enough to deserve conference consideration. Mr. President, I do support the bill. It makes some sorely-needed improvements to the law--particularly in the areas of discipline, State coordination, and legal fees. We have before us a compromise that will improve current law, but it still lacks a strong funding resolution. That would have been an important part of this legislation that I think members of both parties would have supported. If we are going to help States live up to their responsibility in providing a free appropriate public education to all kids, then we need to do it. And that means more than just piling on regulations.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. I am proud today to join the Senator from Pennsylvania and my other colleagues in voicing support for H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997. I was an original cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill, and I commend my friends in the other body for passing this legislation by such a compelling majority. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to take action and pass this bill by a margin that can withstand the President's threatened veto. Mr. President, we are debating an issue that has an important bearing on the future of this Nation. Partial-birth abortion is a pivotal issue because it demands that we decide whether or not we as a civilized people are willing to protect that most fundamental of rights--the right to life itself. If we rise to this challenge and safeguard the future of our Nation's unborn, we will be protecting those whose voices cannot yet be heard by the polls and those whose votes cannot yet be weighed in the political process. If we fail in our duty, we will justly earn the scorn of future generations when they ask why we stood idly by and did nothing in the face of this national infanticide. We must reaffirm our commitment to the sanctity of human life in all its stages. We took a positive step in that direction a few weeks ago by unanimously passing legislation that bans the use of Federal funds for physician-assisted suicide. We can take another step toward restoring our commitment to life by banning partial-birth abortions. In this barbaric procedure, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet first out of the womb and through the birth canal except for the head, which is kept lodged just inside the cervix. The abortionist then punctures the base of the skull with long surgical scissors and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the head to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now dead baby. I recount the grisly details of this procedure only to remind my colleagues of the seriousness of the issue before the Senate. We must help those unborn children who are unable to help themselves. Opponents of this legislation have relied on distortions to bolster their position. Just this past February, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, Ron Fitzsimmons, admitted that he lied through his teeth about the true number of partial-birth abortions performed in the United States every year. Mr. Fitzsimmons had originally joined Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League in falsely claiming that this abortion procedure was used only in rare cases to save the life of the mother. Mr. Fitzsimmons now admits that partial birth abortions are common and that the vast majority of them are performed in the second trimester--at 4 to 6 months' gestation--on healthy unborn children with healthy mothers. Mr. Fitzsimmons summed up the chilling truth of this procedure when he admitted that partial-birth abortion is ``a form of killing. You're ending a life.'' Opponents have argued that this procedure is necessary in some circumstances to save the life of the mother or protect her future fertility. These arguments have no foundation in fact. First, this bill provides an exception if the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother and no alternative procedure could be used for that purpose. Moreover, leaders in the medical profession including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop have stated that this procedure is never necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, it is more dangerous medically to the mother than allowing the child to be born alive. Finally, a coalition of over 600 obstetricians, perinatologists, and other medical specialists have stated categorically that there is no sound medical evidence to support the claim that this procedure is ever necessary to protect a woman's future fertility. These arguments are offered as a smoke-screen to obscure the fact that this procedure results in the taking of an innocent life. The practice of partial birth abortions has shocked the conscience of our nation and it must be stopped. Since I was sworn in as a Member of this distinguished body in January, we have had the opportunity to discuss a number of pieces of legislation which will have a direct impact on our families and our children. I have based my decision on every bill that has come before this body on what effect it will have on those generations still to come. We in the Senate have deliberated about what steps we can take to make society a better place for our families and the future of our children. We as Senators will cast no vote that will more directly affect the future of our families and our children than the vote we cast on this bill. Mr. President, when I ran for office, I promised my constituents I would protect and defend the right to life of the unborn. The sanctity of human life is a fundamental issue on which we as a nation should find consensus. It is a right which is counted among the unalienable rights in our Nation's Declaration of Independence. We must rise today to the challenge that has been laid before us of protecting innocent human life. I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a vote for life by supporting the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Now, I know there has been a big change in the approach to the whole situation by Mr. Fitzsimmons, who testified a year ago that this was not a common practice. I know now that he says it is common practice, and that is part of the debate that made a big difference on the House side, and I am convinced it will make a big difference on the Senate side, someone who is admitting that this is a common practice, that it takes lives and that he regrets what he said and what has been done as a result. I think that will make a difference in the vote we have over here, and I hope it will make a difference in the approach that the President takes to the bill. I would like to concentrate my remarks on the miracle of life. A year and a half ago, I had a torn heart valve and was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery. I had never been in a hospital except to visit sick folks before. I have to tell you that I am impressed with what they were able to do, but I have also been impressed with what doctors do not know. That is not a new revelation for me. Over 24 years ago, a long time ago, my wife and I were expecting our first child. Then one day early in the sixth month of pregnancy, my wife starting having pains and contractions. We took her to the doctor. The doctor said, ``Oh, you may have a baby right now. We know it's early and that doesn't bode well. We will try to stop it. We can probably stop it.'' I had started storing up books for my wife for 3 months waiting for the baby to come. However, the baby came that night, weighing just a little over 2 pounds. The doctor's advice to us was to wait until morning and see if she lives. They said they didn't have any control over it. I could not believe the doctors could not stop premature birth. Then I could not believe that they could not do something to help this newborn baby. Until you see one of those babies, you will not believe what a 6-month-old baby looks like. At the same time my wife gave birth to our daughter, another lady gave birth to a 10-pound baby. This was a small hospital in Wyoming so they were side by side in the nursery. Some of the people viewing the other baby said, ``Oh, look at that one. Looks like a piece of rope with some knots in it. Too bad.'' And we watched her grasp and gasp for air with every breath, and we watched her the whole night to see if she would live. Then the next day they were able to take this baby to a hospital which provided excellent care. She was supposed to be flown to Denver where the best care in the world was available, but it was a Wyoming blizzard and we couldn't fly. So we took a car from Gillette, WY, to the center of the State to Wyoming's biggest hospital, to get the best kind of care we could find. We ran out of oxygen on the way. We had the highway patrol looking for us and all along the way, we were watching every breath of that child. After receiving exceptional care the doctor said, ``Well, another 24 hours and we will know something.'' After that 24 hours there were several times we went to the hospital and there was a shroud around the isolette. We would knock on the window, and the nurses would come over and say, ``It's not looking good. We had to make her breathe again.'' Or, ``Have you had the baby baptized?'' We had the baby baptized in the first few minutes after birth. But that child worked and struggled to live. She was just a 6-month-old--3 months premature. We went through 3 months of waiting to get her out of the hospital. Each step of the way the doctors said this isn't our doing. It gave me a new outlook on life. Now I want to tell you the good news. The good news is that the little girl is now an outstanding English teacher in Wyoming. She is dedicated to teaching seventh and ninth graders English, and she is loving every minute of every day. The only problem she had was that the isolette hum wiped out a range of tones for her, so she cannot hear the same way that you and I do. But she can lip read very well, which, in the classroom, is very good if the kids are trying to whisper. But that has given me an appreciation for all life and that experience continues to influence my vote now and on all issues of protecting human life. When I first came to the Senate, we talked about cloning. I thought cloning had been going on for a long time. Of course, we used to call it identical twins, and it was pretty unpredictable. But I want to tell you, through all of that cloning, nobody produced life. They took life and they changed it. Life is such a miracle that we have to respect it and work for it every single day in every way we can. I think this bill will help in that effort, and I ask for your support for this bill. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today not only as a proud original cosponsor of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, but also as a parent of three wonderful children. I am a working parent of three wonderful children. Many of my colleagues know from personal experience that being a parent is tough work--even for Senators. I come to the floor today to speak as an advocate for more family time. My family is my lifeblood. They were by my side long before I became a Senator, and they will be by my side long after I leave this job. If I had to make a choice between politics and parenting, my duties as a father would receive my vote. Having said that, I think it is important that my colleagues keep in mind that there are millions of working American parents in their States who confront far greater difficulties managing work and families than we do. As a Senator, I have flexibility to spend time with my family. But what about the millions of working parents that want paid time off with their kids? They can't have it because they remain tethered to a 60- year-old act that prevents them from crossing that bridge to the 21st century. This is a different world from 60 years ago. In 1938, only 2 out of 12 mothers worked. Now, 9 out of 12 mothers work. We have had so much Government help that two parents in a family have to work. One works to pay the bills; the other one works to pay the taxes. We have to reverse that trend. Until we do, we have to find ways that they can keep the family together and have time to spend with their families. S. 4 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938--not eliminate it from the pages of history, as the opponents of this bill would like us to believe. This vital piece of legislation would provide American working parents with flexible work schedules and increase their choices and options for their time at work and quality time with their families, even if they don't work for the Federal Government. Ensuring that such opportunities are provided for working parents can only serve to strengthen our American families. I do recognize that there are changes in this Nation's work force that have been made over the past 60 years. There has been this influx of women into our Nation's work force. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, 63 percent of mother and father households now see both parents working outside the home. Moreover, 76 percent of mothers with school-age children now work. Americans want flexibility. This month's Money magazine shows that 64 percent of the American public and 68 percent of women would prefer time off to overtime pay--if they had a choice. I predict that these percentages will continue to increase. I urge my colleagues to invest now, while it is still a meager 68 percent. That number will continue to rise and the payoff will be big for our Nation's workers--not just in paid time off from work, but paid time off with family--a true investment in America's future. Wage payers are not the heartless and cruel reincarnations of Ebenezer Scrooge and Simon Legree, like we keep hearing on the floor here. Having played the wage payer role for more than 26 years, I take great offense when employers are characterized as being the bad guys in this thing. I have been a small businessman, and my wife and I had shoe stores, small shoe stores, family shoe stores. We employed, in each store, three to five people. It gives you a different perspective on the world and on flexibility. Back here, I have been in partisan discussions where we have talked about whether small businesses have 500 employees or 125 employees. I have to tell you, that isn't even close. Small businesses have 1 to 5 employees. These are small businesses where the guy that owns the business sweeps the front walk, cleans the toilet, and waits on customers. That is a focus that we have to get in this United States. We have to think about those small businesses and the flexibility they need, instead of overburdening with continuous regulations and tough forms to fill out for taxes. Eighty percent of the American work force works in those small businesses--90 percent in my State. Now, they used to have flextime. Why don't they now? They can't afford to litigate. We have become a Nation of victims. If something doesn't go just exactly the way we want it to work, we complain about it, try and figure out how we have been a victim, and we try to figure out how to make somebody pay for it. When it gets into a contentious situation like that, some of the things not provided for in law have to be watched very carefully. That is why there isn't as much flextime now as there used to be. I went to a small business hearing in Casper, and when it was over, the news media said, ``You only had 75 people here at a time. Why were there not more here?'' They are kind of prohibited from coming to daytime hearings, because if they had an extra person to be able to attend the hearing, they would fire them because it would be too much overhead. That is the kind of perspective we have to look at. Those are the people this seeks to work with. It seeks to give people working in the small businesses some flexibility so they can do the things they need to, without being overburdened by the problems that are provided in the Family and Medical Leave Act. That excludes businesses under 50, and there is a good reason for it. If they have employees with less than 50, they have problems filling out just the paperwork for that bill with 300 pages of regulation. This is a 45-page bill. I can picture small businessmen trying to handle what we may force on them with this many pages of legislation. As for the Ebenezer Scrooges and Simon Legrees, they are probably out there; 2 percent of the businessmen probably fall into that category. We have to quit writing laws to take care of the 2 percent in this country and write laws that take care of the 98 percent, the good employers that want to work together, that want to keep their business going. That is a focus we lost in this discussion. Part of the reason for this flextime is so that the business can still function. They say, why isn't there a provision in here that absolutely guarantees the employee to take off any time that he wants to? If you only have three people and the other two who don't have an investment in the business insist they are going to leave tomorrow morning, you don't have enough help to take care of the customers. If you do that a few days in a row, you don't have anymore customers. If you don't have the customers, then you don't have a business. I have to tell you, in small business, the employee understands that. He is more sensitive to the business than anybody in the big businesses, and he knows that it is his job that goes. So he is interested in having a flexible work situation that we are trying to provide with this bill and that it does provide with this bill, without putting anybody out of business and taking away all three to five of those jobs. I have heard some things against the Family Friendly Workplace Act besides the ones mentioned on the floor. Employees have talked to me and say, ``How come there are limits in this bill on how many hours I can collect?'' They would like to work extra so they could have the biggest anniversary party you could ever imagine. They may have a son graduating from college and they want some extended time together, probably their last time together. They may want to build up some hours for that. In this bill, there are limitations on that. So they are going to have to pick one or the other, or maybe neither. I hear the employer saying, well, by golly, this puts us in a bit of a bind, because if there is enough work force around here now, and they have enough flexibility on where they go to work. If my competitor offers this flex, then I am going to have to offer the flex. So it isn't a perfect bill for anybody. But it is a perfect bill for most and it will provide solutions in the work force. Four years ago, the President signed the Family and Medical Leave Act into law. While well intended, the Federal Government took 13 pages and made it into 300 pages, instead of targeting employees with choices and options, and overburdened everybody with a bunch of paperwork. It is making a difference, but it is unpaid time, without any option in the private sector to change that around so it is paid time. One of the things that came up in the committee was a request or suggestion that people could take their time, time and a half, take the money, and when they had an emergency or just wanted to see a ball game, they could just pay for it. That isn't how America works. When you get that money, you spend it. Particularly with working mothers, if they get the paycheck, they say this paycheck is now my family's and it has to go for the bills. But they can bank hours; the hours are theirs. The hours are theirs to spend the way they want to. It is a way to bank it. Then if they run into that family emergency where the refrigerator breaks down, they can make that trade and take the money. This bill says you can take the cash if you want to. You can bank the hours, and you can take cash. It is a much easier situation than trying to meet all of the Federal guidelines on everything else that we have. I have to tell you one of the reasons I am in on this bill. When I was in my campaign, I was in Cheyenne, WY, a company down there does first-day stamp covers; it's one of the biggest ones in the world. If you want a first-day cover on any stamp, there is a place in Cheyenne--not just for the ones that are going to happen, but for the ones that already happened. It's one of the greatest museums of stamps. When the Federal Government passed this law that said that employees can have flextime and comptime in the Federal Government, the same proposals we are talking about here, some of the people working for that company were married to Federal employees. Now, the ones working for the Federal Government could do that kind of time. The ones working for the private business could not. So they got the employees together and said let's offer this opportunity, and they took it to management and management said, ``why not?'' They offered it to the employees. Then they got in trouble because it is only a Federal law. I ask you, how fair is Government if two people in the same family don't have the same advantages and the one that gets all the advantages is the one working for the Federal Government? Businesses are not Ebenezer Scrooges or Simon Legrees. They are the ones who want it to work for the employees. They have worked on this for 19 years now, and they are overjoyed that we are considering this at this moment. They sent somebody back at their expense to testify on behalf of the employee to get this kind of flex in the schedule. I ask you, are those people working for Unicover crazy? No, they want flextime in their schedule. Private sector employees know that the Federal employees have this flexibility. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving the employees the opportunity to balance their work and family obligations. This bill is just common sense. We can put all kinds of smoke screens behind it. We can make it look like it is just for big business. But, please, on behalf of the small businesses of this country, on behalf of the working people, particularly the working mothers of this country, let's give them some flexibility in their work schedule so that they can have better families. If we have better families, we will have a better America. And the Family Friendly Workplace Act will provide that. I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, today there will be a period for morning business to allow a number of Senators to speak until 11 a.m. It is hoped that following morning business, the Senate will be able to begin consideration of the IDEA legislation. As the majority leader previously announced, no rollcall votes will occur during today's session of the Senate. Any votes ordered with respect to the IDEA bill will be stacked to occur at a later date. As always, all Senators will be notified when any votes are ordered. It is also possible that the Senate could consider the CFE Treaty during today's session. Again, any votes ordered with respect to that treaty will be postponed to occur at a later date. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation in both these matters. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, thank you. I thank the Senator from Georgia for this important piece of legislation. I rise to join my colleagues and friends in supporting the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. This bill aims to protect one of the bulwarks of our democratic Government, and that is America's volunteers. That is the foundation of the United States. That is a principle that we have been working on for a long time. We seem to be losing a little of the momentum that our forefathers had in the area of voluntarism, and part of that has to come out of fear. Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to preside over the Senate for several hours. During that time, I was amazed at the direction of this particular debate. While my Republican colleagues have been working to achieve meaningful legal protection for volunteers, one Democrat after another has paraded on to the Senate floor to discuss matters absolutely unrelated to protecting volunteers from frivolous litigation. I have heard speeches on the budget, on flood relief, on Medicare and on Alexis Herman, just to name a few. But I have not heard any meaningful discussion by my colleagues across the aisle on protecting America's volunteers. It is time that we get serious about helping our Nation's volunteers, and this is not going to happen by wandering into these other various and sundry tangents. I heard the debate on the budget. The budget is not this debate. The budget is still being negotiated, and I understand that is going well, but it is not possible for us to debate the budget on the floor right now. It is not being held up by this piece of legislation, which should only take a little while to debate and pass. I heard them talk about the supplemental budget, and a portion of that, of course, is emergency relief, and it is important. It is important in my State as well as for the people who have debated this. But that is not before this body either. That is in committee, and the issues that have been raised on that are not ones that are being affected by this debate. I have heard discussions on Medicare and Alexis Herman. Alexis Herman may be more at the center of this delay than anything else that has been brought up. Right now, there is a hearing taking place on a bill that will solve the Executive order. Hopefully, that bill will get a quick hearing--it appears to be--and it will be brought over here and will undo any misconceptions that there might be on the Alexis Herman situation, which appears to be a basis of a major Presidential change since the hearings were held in committee. Those hearings were held, but the President has changed the momentum of his policy with labor since the time of those hearings, but that is not a part of this debate either. We have not had any debate from the other side of the aisle about protecting our volunteers. Instead, we have had a filibuster on a motion to proceed. This is not even the bill itself, this is just the motion to proceed. I assume we will have another filibuster when we get to the bill itself. This is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. We are a volunteer country, or we used to be. We are becoming a country of mercenaries. We are beginning to pay people to volunteer. Can they truly be called a volunteer if they are paid to do that? And if we begin to pay and pay constantly, will we ever have true volunteers? We talk about the momentum of volunteers, and that has been a long and proud tradition in the United States. Volunteer organizations represent a distinctly American manner of living, living out the golden rule by strengthening our neighborhoods, our schools, and our churches. When I was mayor of Gillette, we had tremendous growth, more than doubled in size, and we needed everything basic that a community could possibly have. That included mostly water and sewer and streets. We did not have money for parks that the people moving there wanted. We got an intern from the University of Wyoming to sit down with any group that wanted a park, and he would design a park for them. The catch was they had to build it, and they did. We built seven parks in one summer with volunteers. These were young people who were moving into a boom community. If they had known about liability, I do not know that they would have participated. I spent 10 years as a soccer coach. I am not sure today I would be a soccer coach. I don't think I could take the liability. I have worked with Boy Scouts. It has become such a litigious society that the Boy Scouts now have requirements that any time there is a boy working on a project, there have to be two adults around, and that is to prevent lawsuits. The Boy Scouts used to have annual Christmas tree sales in Gillette. When I went to serve with my son selling Christmas trees, I had to have another adult along, because of our litigious society. That definitely discourages volunteers. Volunteer organizations have strengthened and nourished the lives of our citizens and influenced every facet of our culture. A brief reflection on the myriad of volunteers and volunteer organizations that serve our fellow citizens should remind us of their tremendous value. The volunteers of the Salvation Army help feed and clothe the less fortunate and provide Christmas gifts for thousands of children every year. Meals on Wheels has for years provided more meals and conversation to many of our Nation's homebound. Habitat for Humanity has helped revitalize our inner cities by providing privately owned houses for the Nation's poor. Mother Theresa's Missionaries of Charity cares for thousands of dying AIDS patients and unwed mothers in the poorest neighborhoods across the country. I could go on and on with the Jaycees, Lions Clubs, the Kiwanis, the Rotary and the Optimists. The Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts help instill in children the virtues of responsibility and enterprise, while Little League and youth soccer leagues teach children the values of team cooperation and hard work. Volunteers in these organizations, and countless others, have given generously of themselves in order to help their neighbors and better their communities. Unfortunately, even these volunteers have fallen prey to our suit-happy legal system. Lawsuits, in recent years, have resulted in enormous verdicts against volunteers and nonprofit organizations. Too often these suits are for what most of us would consider frivolous claims that penalize volunteers who are simply doing their jobs. The threat of costly litigation and large verdicts have frightened many good citizens away from giving their time and energy to volunteer organizations. It is time to curb that trend. The Volunteer Protection Act would relieve a volunteer from liability if the volunteer is acting within the scope and responsibility and if the volunteer is properly licensed, certified and authorized by the State in which the harm occurred, if such authorization is required. It also limits punitive damages that may be awarded against volunteers and nonprofit organizations for the actions of the volunteers. This bill does not protect volunteers from liability for actions which are willful or criminal or which involve gross negligence. As such, this bill strikes a healthy balance. It provides broad protection for volunteers who are performing their duties, while still allowing people to recover against volunteers who cause harm from acts that are willful, criminal or grossly negligent. Mr. President, it is time to restore some sanity to our tort system. Let's begin by protecting our Nation's volunteers from the slings and arrows of outrageous litigation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Volunteer Act. As we were growing up, we were taught to do what is right, to do our best, to treat others as we wanted to be treated, to take the common courtesy of asking others what they need to have done, and in America, we not only ask what they need to have done, but people follow up on that, not to the degree that we could, not to the degree that we used to. My mother always taught me that service is the price that you pay for the space that you take up on this Earth. The service concept in this Nation is a foundation that we have to continue to promote, and our system of litigation has taken that away from us. Let us restore service and voluntarism in this country and give some protection. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. On behalf of the majority leader, I will announce the schedule for today's session. This morning, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 11:30 a.m. to accommodate a number of Senators who have requested time to speak. By a previous consent agreement, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate will begin consideration of S. 562, the reverse mortgage bill. It is the understanding of the leadership that no Senator will request a rollcall vote on passage. Therefore, Senators should not expect a rollcall vote to occur during today's session of the Senate. Following disposition of S. 562, it is the intention of the majority leader to ask the Senate to begin consideration of S. 543, the volunteer protection bill. If there is an objection to proceeding to that bill, it may be necessary for the majority leader to move to proceed to S. 543 and file a cloture motion on the motion to proceed. That cloture vote would occur on Tuesday of next week, and therefore there would be no rollcall votes during Monday's session of the Senate. Consequently, Senators can expect the next rollcall vote to occur on Tuesday, April 29, at 2:15 p.m. As always, Senators will be notified as soon as any agreement is reached and the rollcall vote is scheduled. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, one of the charges made consistently during the weeks of debate over this treaty is the charge that supporters of this treaty desired to see chemical weapons abolished from the earth, while opponents have no such interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. Opponents of the treaty also desire to see these heinous weapons abolished. We have simply contended that a poorly drafted treaty will not only fail to achieve that worthy end, but could even lead to their increased proliferation. I am pleased to report that, as of this morning, opponents of the original treaty draft have prevailed in our efforts to add teeth and additional safeguards to what was heretofore an unacceptable document. To begin with, the Senate yesterday voted to add twenty-eight additional provisions to the CWC. These provisions tighten our intelligence sharing procedures to keep classified information out of the wrong hands, would maintain the stricter exporting restrictions as outlined in the ``Australia Group'' protocol, would enhance monitoring and verification of compliance, and would greatly beef up our military's chemical warfare defense capabilities. In addition, the Senate leadership this morning received a letter from the President committing him to withdrawing from the convention if it leads to the degradation of our chemical weapons defenses, or leads to chemical weapons proliferation. I believe this treaty is now worthy of ratification and will vote accordingly. Rest assured, however, that a treaty is only as reliable as the offices administering it. Consequently I have every intention of continuously evaluating the performance of the administration and the United Nations relative to their implementation of these treaty provisions. Should any party come up short in their verification and enforcement duties, we will be right there to set them straight.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate and am impressed with the thoroughness with which the two Senators from Missouri have covered this particular issue, but I do have a few additional comments I would like to add. I do rise in support of the Assisted Suicide Restriction Act of 1997, H.R. 1003. I am reminded of the story that I heard when I was very young, and it had an impression which has carried over the years. It is a story of a kid out playing, and he saw his father carrying this large basket. He went over and asked his dad what it was all about. He said, ``Well, you know, your grandfather had not been very well, not doing well at all, not able to contribute anymore. We sensed he really did not enjoy life anymore. So he is in the basket, and I am taking him down to the river.'' The little boy was not impacted much from that. The kid said, ``What are you going to do with the basket when you are done?" He said, ``Why are you so concerned about the basket?" He said, ``Because some day I am going to need it for you.'' It is important that we as a Congress reaffirm our commitment to the sanctity of human life in all its stages. This is one of the primary duties of the U.S. Senate and as members of a civilized society. The sanctity of human life was clearly articulated in our Nation's charter. The Declaration of Independence counts the right to life as one of the self-evident and unalienable rights with which we have all been endowed by our Creator. By safeguarding the right to life, our Government fulfills its most fundamental duty to the American people. By violating that right to life, we violate our sacred trust with our Nation's citizens and the families of our country and the legacy that we will leave to those not yet born. The legislation now before us takes an important step in restoring our Nation's commitment to the importance of the lives of all Americans, especially those who suffer from serious illnesses. This bill would prohibit the direct or indirect use of any Federal funds for the purpose of causing the death of a human being by assisted suicide. It would assure the American people that their hard-earned tax dollars would not be used to fund a principle that they do not believe in-- suicide. It would also help Federal dollars to be provided in the form of grants to public and private organizations to help people with chronic or serious illnesses who may be considering suicide. This legislation would not affect individual States' living will statutes regarding the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or medical care. It simply prohibits the Federal Government from directly, or indirectly, funding assisted suicides. We, as a society, must demonstrate our respect for the life of all Americans, especially those who are sick and needy. Mr. President, when I ran for office, I campaigned on the pledge that I would fight for all life. I was elected on that pledge and sent to Washington where I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Physicians also take on the rigors of a campaign to become doctors. Although they are not voted into office, they work just as hard to fulfill their commitments and receive their degrees. Upon graduation, all physicians are intimately familiar with the Hippocratic Oath and its basic premise: First, do no harm. If I might quote from that oath specifically, it says: I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but I will never use it to injure or wrong them. I will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a plan. Those powerful words reflect a great insight and wisdom into the human condition. Though they were written so many years ago, they still resonate today. I share them with my colleagues as I urge their support for this legislation. It is our future, too. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.