Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New Mexico for his efforts on this piece of legislation which is so important to our country. I also congratulate the Senator from North Dakota for his fine efforts in presenting the other side of the case in this matter. I wish to talk about a number of issues that have been raised today. Specifically, however, I want to get into the issue of spending in this bill and the potential for driving a large hole in the concept of controlling spending at the Federal level. The Senator from North Dakota cited a recent op-ed piece written by the cochairmen of the Concord Coalition which has been a force for fiscal discipline in the Congress for many years. I think if the cochairmen of the Concord Coalition had followed the debate over the last few days, and specifically the debate on the agricultural amendments, the debate on the IDEA amendments, the drug proposals as a mandatory exercise, they would have serious concerns and may not have written the op-ed pieces they wrote. They would see that the contingency fund, or the fund for the preservation of Social Security as it is defined, or the reserve for Social Security as defined by the Senator from North Carolina, as defined by the President in his budget, is under serious stress and duress because the dollars are being spent rather aggressively in this Congress as we add more and more mandatory programs to the agenda of the Congress. Mandatory programs have an insidious way of spending Federal dollars without the Congress having to be responsible in voting for those Federal dollars once the initial vote has occurred. Regrettably, in this exercise, we are on all sorts of levels adding new mandatory programs to the Federal accounts. In the end, that is going to drive up Federal spending dramatically and, as a result, put pressure on the Social Security trust funds, put pressure on the ability to return to taxpayers in the form of a tax cut the moneys which they rightly deserve, moneys which they are sending us which we do not need to spend, and generally limit fiscal discipline. Mandatory programs essentially are not subject to fiscal discipline. I want to speak specifically to the mandatory programs now being proposed in the area of agriculture. Regrettably, over the last few years, the agricultural accounts have been the least disciplined accounts within the Federal agenda. In fact, if we go back--and this chart reflects my point--if we go back over the last couple of years, we see the green lines are the Federal caps. This is what we were supposed to spend as a Federal Government. Beginning in 1998, we went way beyond those Federal caps and exploded Federal spending. That explosion of Federal spending, above what we said we were going to do as a Congress, was driven in large part by emergency events. Those emergency events in large part were agricultural spending. In fact, agricultural spending over the last few years, as a result of increases driven by the Congress, have gone from $9 billion in 1996 up to $38 billion in 2000. The majority of this increase--which is a staggering percentage increase by the way, almost a 400-percent increase--the majority of this increase has been done under the guise of emergency spending. Last year there was $31.5 billion in emergency spending in the agricultural accounts. That is why this chart has such a dramatic and regrettable line to it--the actual spending in relation to what we were supposed to spend as a government because emergency spending in the agricultural accounts has been so out of control, for all intents and purposes. This year there is a new approach. The approach is: Let's not deal with these emergencies anymore; let's just make all this mandatory, and then we will not have to do emergencies. We will just simply spend the money and never have to account for it under any scenario. That is not fiscal discipline. We need to look at what is happening in the agricultural community to understand the extent of the spending, the largess that is occurring. In the year 1999, the Government payments as a percentage of farm income in the United States were essentially half. In other words, if you take net farm income, half of the net farm income in this country came from the Federal Government in tax payments raised from Americans and then paid out to farmers. That is a staggering change because, in the year 1990, only 20 percent of the payments that went to farmers were Federal payments, Federal tax dollars going to farmers. The top 1 percent of farmers received, on average, $660,000 each from the Government. The top 10 percent received $308,000. The average farm income exceeds the average American household income by $1,000. These numbers are staggering. In some States, net farm income--in other words, what farmers make in profit, what they actually hold in their accounts to operate their day-to-day lives after their expenses-- net farm income was exceeded by Government payments by over 100 percent. In the State of North Dakota, direct Government payments exceeded net farm income by 210 percent. In the State of Indiana, direct Government payments exceeded net farm income by 192 percent. There are eight States in this country where direct Government payments exceed net farm income. What does that mean? That means we pay more in tax dollars to the farmers in those States than the farmers take home in pay after expenses. That is an incredible figure. It essentially means that, for example, in the State of Indiana, we could say to every farmer in that State: Stop farming, and we are going to pay you twice what you make now in taxes because that is what we are doing today. Yet that is not enough. Today we have amendments facing us which are calling for an increase--an increase--over this staggering amount which we have already seen in the last 5 years rise to $38 billion. This amendment is calling for an increase over that number. The Johnson-Conrad amendment is calling for an additional $97 billion over the next 10 years. That is going to jump this number up radically and, over the next 10 years, obviously have a huge impact on the budget. It is going to be a mandatory program. Once we pass it, because of the machinations and procedures of this place, that is going to be the end of the game. It is over. A lot of times on these budget debates we are fighting with rubber bullets. We shoot at each other, but it does not hurt that much. These are not rubber bullets. These are real bullets. When we pass this one, it becomes a mandatory program. When the authorization committee acts, which we absolutely know is going to happen because the authorization committee strongly supports increasing funding, it is over. We will have a mandatory program on the books which is going to cost the American taxpayers a huge amount of money over the years. It makes no sense from the standpoint that we are already paying two times the cost of the net income in States such as Indiana and North Dakota. It also makes no sense because the price of farm products is going up, as this last chart shows. We have a significant increase in farm prices occurring in many commodities--rice, soybeans, wheat, and corn. One has to wonder, if the prices are going up--and they are projected by CBO to go up. For example, corn prices are projected to go up 30 percent over 10 years; soybeans, 43 percent; wheat, 40 percent; rice, 40 percent--if they are going to go up, why do we have to put the subsidies up? I do not know. I know every time we have a farm bill, the American taxpayers end up paying a huge amount of money. The Senator from North Dakota is a strong supporter of this. This is his amendment. For those of us in the rest of the country, we have to ask ourselves: Why would we want to put on the books a mandatory program that is going to cost us these types of dollars? Let us at least have the ability to come back every year and check this number and see whether we really need it. Mr. President, I suspect my time is up. Therefore, I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Georgia such time as he may consume.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I introduce with Senator Kohl the New Economy Tax Fairness Act, or NET FAIR. As we all know, the Internet and electronic commerce have reshaped our society over the last decade. Much of the success that our Nation's economy has enjoyed has been a result of innovative companies making use of Internet technology to conduct commerce online. E-commerce has created new jobs, increased productivity, lowered business costs, generated a higher level of convenience for consumers, and sparked overall growth in the U.S. economy. With this in mind, there remain those that would like to tax interstate commerce over the Internet even while this budding technology has yet to meet its full potential. The NET FAIR Act addresses the issue of taxing remote sellers that conduct interstate commerce electronically. In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota that States cannot force out-of-State retail firms to collect sales taxes. The Court held that Congress alone has the authority to impose such requirements under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. NET FAIR builds upon the Quill decision by extending the same approach that currently governs catalogue sales to the Internet. This legislation would allow States to require a company to collect sales and use tax, or to pay business activity taxes, only if their goods or services are sold to individuals living in states where the company has a substantial physical presence, or ``nexus.'' Today, there are over 7,600 taxing jurisdictions nationwide. NET FAIR provides clear rules of the road for all parties involved, establishing sound nexus standards for the 21st Century. This legislation allows the Internet to continue as an engine of economic growth while respecting the sovereign right of States to determine their own tax policy for commerce conducted within their borders. A failure to address this issue will subject small and large businesses alike to thousands of different tax standards and rules, making it difficult to ensure compliance. In fact, it will be the small and medium sized businesses-- using the Internet to remain competitive in the new economy--that will be hit the hardest, as they lack the resources to comply with the thousands of jurisdictional tax standards that exist across the country. At my urging, the bipartisan Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce was established in 1998. The Commission was established to examine all aspects of the Internet taxation issue. In April 2000, the Commission issued its report to Congress. With majority support, the ACEC recommended that the Internet tax moratorium be extended, which I support, and that Congress clarify nexus rules for e-commerce and establish clear guidelines for when state and local governments could levy taxes on vendors of interstate commerce. Our legislation goes to the very heart of this issue, and establishes clear nexus rules for e- commerce. Since the ACEC issued its report, it has become apparent that reform in this area is necessary; however, Congress should not allow a ``tax first, reform later'' approach to prevail. Rather, Congress should address the nexus issued head on. NET FAIR provides legal certainty for companies and consumers that engage in interstate commerce via the Internet, telephone, or mail order. This bill adheres to our Founding Fathers' tenet of ``no taxation without representation'' by codifying fair taxation principles. We cannot stand idly by and allow this new economic avenue to be hampered with new taxes. This legislation does not preempt a State's right to tax commerce; however, it does protect businesses and consumers from unfair taxation on interstate commerce and from what could be a crippling effect on the growth of the new 21st Century economy. Senator Kohl and I firmly believe that the New Economy Tax Fairness Act accomplishes this task. It is vital that Congress address Internet taxation and clarify nexus standards so that interstate commerce, especially online, electronic commerce, can continue to thrive and positively impact our Nation's overall economic success. I would ask that our Senate colleagues join us in this effort. I ask that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that, if enacted, could have a monumental impact on the lives of thousands of working men, women and families in America. Today, with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, I am pleased to introduce the Workplace Flexibility Act. The Workplace Flexibility Act has as its primary purpose, giving families and employers greater flexibility in meeting and balancing the demands of work and family. The demand for family time is significant. In fact, families today are spending close to 40 percent less time with their families and children than in the 1960s. This is an important and even critical issue to many Americans. In fact, survey upon survey has found that the issue of workplace flexibility and family time is the number one issue women want addressed. The Workplace Flexibility Act is not a total solution, but it is an important part of the solution. It gives working families a choice. The Workplace Flexibility Act in a nutshell consists of two main provisions. The first allows employees the option of taking time off in lieu of overtime pay. The second gives employees the option of ``flexing'' their schedules over a two week period. In other words, employees would have 10 ``flexible'' hours that they could work in one week in order to take 10 hours off in the next week. Flexible work arrangements have been available to Federal government workers since 1978. In the 1970's, 80's, and 90's federal government workers have had this special privilege. The Federal program was so successful in fact, that the President in 1993 issues an Executive Order extending it to parts of the Federal Government that had not yet had the benefits of the program. Yet members of the private sector do not have this option. The Workplace Flexibility Act corrects this and extends this option to all businesses covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. So, who are these workers who are currently covered by the FLSA but do not have the ability to exercise workplace flexibility? They are some of the hardest working Americans. Sixty percent of these workers have only a high school education. Eighty percent of them make less than $28,000. A great percentage of them are single mothers with children. They are working hard to meet their family's economic needs as well as their emotional needs. And while government can't mandate love and nurture, it can get out of the way and eliminate barriers to opportunities for love and nurture. That is what the Workplace Flexibility Act does. In the subsequent weeks and months we will undoubtedly hear from some that what working families really need is more money. They need their overtime pay. That may well be true for some families, and this bill does not affect them in any way. But for other families, for families who want to choose to take time off with pay to attend a child's school play or PTA meeting, the issue is time, not money. The point is this-- the family should have the right to choose. Washington should not decide for them which priority is important for their family. I am one who believes in the working men and women of America and in their ability to know what is best for their families. It is time for Congress to give families what they want, and not what Congress thinks they need. It's time to give working families what every Federal employee has already, workplace flexibility. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that, if enacted, could have a monumental impact on the lives of thousands of working men, women and families in America. Today, with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, I am pleased to introduce the Workplace Flexibility Act. The Workplace Flexibility Act has as its primary purpose, giving families and employers greater flexibility in meeting and balancing the demands of work and family. The demand for family time is significant. In fact, families today are spending close to 40 percent less time with their families and children than in the 1960s. This is an important and even critical issue to many Americans. In fact, survey upon survey has found that the issue of workplace flexibility and family time is the number one issue women want addressed. The Workplace Flexibility Act is not a total solution, but it is an important part of the solution. It gives working families a choice. The Workplace Flexibility Act in a nutshell consists of two main provisions. The first allows employees the option of taking time off in lieu of overtime pay. The second gives employees the option of ``flexing'' their schedules over a two week period. In other words, employees would have 10 ``flexible'' hours that they could work in one week in order to take 10 hours off in the next week. Flexible work arrangements have been available to Federal government workers since 1978. In the 1970's, 80's, and 90's federal government workers have had this special privilege. The Federal program was so successful in fact, that the President in 1993 issues an Executive Order extending it to parts of the Federal Government that had not yet had the benefits of the program. Yet members of the private sector do not have this option. The Workplace Flexibility Act corrects this and extends this option to all businesses covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. So, who are these workers who are currently covered by the FLSA but do not have the ability to exercise workplace flexibility? They are some of the hardest working Americans. Sixty percent of these workers have only a high school education. Eighty percent of them make less than $28,000. A great percentage of them are single mothers with children. They are working hard to meet their family's economic needs as well as their emotional needs. And while government can't mandate love and nurture, it can get out of the way and eliminate barriers to opportunities for love and nurture. That is what the Workplace Flexibility Act does. In the subsequent weeks and months we will undoubtedly hear from some that what working families really need is more money. They need their overtime pay. That may well be true for some families, and this bill does not affect them in any way. But for other families, for families who want to choose to take time off with pay to attend a child's school play or PTA meeting, the issue is time, not money. The point is this-- the family should have the right to choose. Washington should not decide for them which priority is important for their family. I am one who believes in the working men and women of America and in their ability to know what is best for their families. It is time for Congress to give families what they want, and not what Congress thinks they need. It's time to give working families what every Federal employee has already, workplace flexibility. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment to strike Section 304 of this bill, which pretends to codify the Beck decision. It does not. This section must be stricken for the following reasons. First, it eliminates the ability of nonunion workers to pursue their claims in court. Under Section 304 of this bill, the courthouse doors will be closed for nonunion members seeking relief from confiscation of their dues for purposes unrelated to collective bargaining, contract negotiation, and grievance adjustment. In order to seek recourse through the National Labor Relations Board, nonmembers would be required to navigate a tedious, complex, and often hostile process that takes years. Second, it will legislatively overrule almost 40 years of decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court by diminishing the scope of the refund the Supreme Court directed for objecting nonmembers required to pay agency fees. Section 304 limits nonmembers to a reduction in their agency fees equal only to the activities that a union decides are unrelated to collective bargaining. In this case, a union could decide that all of its activities dealing with legislation at the State and Federal level, as well as executive and judicial appointments or State ballot initiatives, are related to collective bargaining. Under Section 304, unions could use nonmember dues for these purposes, which is forbidden under current law. Finally, Section 304 would provide nonmembers with far less protection and information than under procedural safeguards that unions have been required to adopt by the Federal courts. In this case, Section 304 requires unions to provide financial information about its expenditures only to employees who file an objection. The courts have held that all nonmembers, not just objectors, must be provided adequate disclosure of the basis for the agency fee that they are required to pay before they object--not after as under this bill. The courts have also held that adequate disclosure includes verification by an independent auditor, a requirement that S. 27 omits. This section may have been drafted with the best of intentions. Nevertheless, I believe it would do more harm than good. Striking it and keeping the status quo would be more beneficial to American workers than this section as written. Section 304 is not a true codification of the Beck decision, and this amendment should be adopted overwhelmingly.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Family and Medical Leave Act was intended to be used by families for critical periods such as after the birth or adoption of a child and leave to care for a child, spouse, or one's own ``serious medical condition.'' Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act has had a significant impact on employers' leave practices and policies. According to the Commission on Family and Medical Leave two-thirds of covered work sites have changed some aspect of their policies in order to comply with the Act. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's implementation of certain provisions of the Act has resulted in significant unintended administrative burden and costs on employers; resentment by co-workers when the act is misapplied; invasions of privacy by requiring employers to ask deeply personal questions about employees and family members planning to take FMLA leave; disruptions to the workplace due to increased unscheduled and unplanned absences; unnecessary record keeping; unworkable notice requirements; and conflicts with existing policies. Despite these problems, which have been well documented in five separate congressional hearings, including one I chaired and a House hearing where I testified, the previous administration choose to ignore those problems and instead pushed for a back door expansion of the Act through a rule known as Baby U.I., the Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation Rule. The Baby U.I. rule allows states to raid their unemployment compensation trust funds for an unrelated program, paid family leave. As a former Governor, I am very concerned about the impact of the rule on state unemployment trust funds, which should be preserved for tough economic times. The Department of Labor's vague and confusing implementing regulations and interpretations have resulted in the FMLA being misapplied, misunderstood and mistakenly ignored. Employers aren't sure if situations like pink eye, ingrown toenails and even the common cold will be considered by the regulators and the courts to be serious health conditions. Because of these concerns and well-documented problems with the Act, I am today introducing the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act to make reasonable and much needed technical corrections to the Family and Medical Leave Act and restore it to its original congressional intent. The need for FMLA technical corrections has been confirmed and strengthened by five congressional hearings and by the recent release of key surveys. Conclusive evidence of the need for corrections has now been established. The Congressional hearings demonstrated that the FMLA's definition of serious health condition is vague and overly broad due to DOL's interpretations. Additionally, the hearings documented that the intermittent leave provisions, notification and certification problems are causing many serious workplace problems. In addition, some companies testified that Congress should consider allowing employers to permit employees to take either a paid leave package under an existing collective bargaining agreement or the 12 weeks of FMLA protected leave, whichever is greater. I am concerned that a recent decrease in paid leave for employees has been attributed to the Administration's problematic FMLA interpretations. Some research shows a decline in voluntarily provided paid sick leave and vacation leave by the private sector. The 2000 SHRMR, Society for Human Resource Management, Benefits Survey found that paid vacation was provided by 87 percent of companies in the year 2000 while the year before it was 94 percent. Paid sick leave was at 85 percent last year and 74 percent this year. A recent survey conducted by former President Clinton's Department of Labor confirmed FMLA implementation problems. The Labor Department report found that the share of covered establishments reporting that it was somewhat or very easy to comply with the FMLA has declined 21.5 percent from 1995 to 2000. The recent release of the SHRMR, Society for Human Resource Management, 2000 FMLA Survey strongly reinforces the need for FMLA technical corrections. Respondents to the SHRM survey stated that, on average, 60 percent of employees who take FMLA leave do not schedule the leave in advance. Consequently, managers often do not have the ability to plan for work disruptions. Respondents also reported that, in most cases, the burden of the workload from the employee on leave falls to employees who are not on leave. When asked whether they have had to grant FMLA requests they felt were not legitimate, more than half, 52 percent, said they had. Additionally, more than one-third, 34 percent, of respondents said they were aware of employee complaints over the past year regarding a co-worker's questionable use of FMLA leave. The issue of intermittent leave also continues to be extremely difficult. Three-quarters, 76 percent, of respondents said they would find compliance easier if the Department of Labor allowed FMLA leave to be offered and tracked in half-day increments rather than by minutes. I am very concerned that both the SHRM and the Labor Department surveys show that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not easier seven years after it has been in place. I am hopeful that the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act will advance in the 107th Congress on a bipartisan basis to address this problem. The FMLA Clarification Act has the strong support of the Society for Human Resource Management, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Society of Healthcare Human Resources Professionals and close to 300 other leading companies and associations who make up the Family and Medical Leave Act Technical Corrections Coalition. I have received a letter of support from the Coalition and ask that it be printed in the Record. This broad based coalition, shares my belief that both employers and employees would benefit from making certain technical corrections to the FMLA, corrections that are needed to restore congressional intent and to reduce administrative and compliance problems experienced by employers who are making a good faith effort to comply with the act. The bill I am introducing today does several important things: First, it repeals the Department of Labor's current regulations for ``serious health condition'' and includes language from the Democrats' own original Committee Report on what types of medical conditions, such as heart attacks, strokes, spinal injuries, etc., were intended to be covered. In passing the FMLA, Congress stated that the term ``serious health condition'' is not intended to cover short-term conditions, for which treatment and recovery are very brief, recognizing that ``it is expected that such condition will fall within the most modest sick leave policies.'' The Department of Labor's current regulations are extremely confusing and expansive, defining the term ``serious health condition'' as including, among other things, any absence of more than 3 days in which the employee sees any health care provider and receives any type of continuing treatment, including a second doctor's visit, or a prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist, such a broad definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an employee sees a health care provider once, receives a prescription drug, and is instructed to call the health care provider back if the symptoms do not improve; the regulations also define as a ``serious health condition'' any absence for a chronic health problem, such as arthritis, asthma, diabetes, etc., even if the employee does not see a doctor for that absence and is absent for less than three days. Second, the bill amends the Act's provisions relating to intermittent leave to allow employers to require that intermittent leave be taken in minimum blocks of 4 hours. This would minimize the misuse of FMLA by employees who use FMLA as an excuse for regular tardiness and routine justification for early departures. Third, the bill shifts to the employee the responsibility to request leave be designated as FMLA leave, and requires the employee to provide written application within 5 working days of providing notice to the employer for foreseeable leave. With respect to unforeseeable leave, the bill requires the employee to provide, at a minimum, oral notification of the need for the leave not later than the date the leave commences unless the employee is physically or mentally incapable of providing notice or submitting the application. Under that circumstance the employee is provided such additional time as necessary to provide notice. Shifting the burden to the employee to request leave be designated as FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to question the employee and pry into the employee's and the employee's family's private matters, as required under current law, and helps eliminate personal liability for employer supervisors who should not be expected to be experts in the vague and complex regulations which even attorneys have a difficult time understanding. Under current law, it is the employer's responsibility in all circumstances to designate leave, paid or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying. Failure to do so in a timely manner or to inform an employee that a specific event does not qualify as FMLA leave may result in that unqualified leave becoming qualified leave under FMLA. This scenario has actually been upheld in Court and has placed an enormous burden on employers to respond within 48 hours of an employee's leave request. In addition, the courts have held that there is personal liability for employers under the FMLA and that an individual manager may be sued and held individually liable for acts taken based upon or relating to the FMLA. See Freemon v. Foley, 911 F. Supp. 326, N.D. Ill. 1995, in case of first impression in 7th Circuit, court stated, ``We believe the FMLA extends to all those who controlled `in whole or in part' [plaintiff's] ability to take leave of absence and return to her position''). Fourth, with respect to leave because of the employee's own serious health condition, the bill permits an employer to require the employee to choose between taking unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid absence under an employer's collective bargaining agreement or other sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the employer. This change provides incentive for employers to continue their generous sick leave policies while providing a disincentive to employers considering getting rid of such employee-friendly plans, including those negotiated by the employer and the employee's union representative. Paid leave would be subject to the employer's normal work rules and procedures for taking such leave, including work rules and procedures dealing with attendance requirements. The FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable response to the concerns that have been raised about the Act. It leaves in place the fundamental protections of the law while attempting to make changes necessary to restore FMLA to its original intent and to respond to the very legitimate concerns that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to restore the FMLA to its original Congressional intent. I ask that the test of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Family and Medical Leave Act was intended to be used by families for critical periods such as after the birth or adoption of a child and leave to care for a child, spouse, or one's own ``serious medical condition.'' Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act has had a significant impact on employers' leave practices and policies. According to the Commission on Family and Medical Leave two-thirds of covered work sites have changed some aspect of their policies in order to comply with the Act. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's implementation of certain provisions of the Act has resulted in significant unintended administrative burden and costs on employers; resentment by co-workers when the act is misapplied; invasions of privacy by requiring employers to ask deeply personal questions about employees and family members planning to take FMLA leave; disruptions to the workplace due to increased unscheduled and unplanned absences; unnecessary record keeping; unworkable notice requirements; and conflicts with existing policies. Despite these problems, which have been well documented in five separate congressional hearings, including one I chaired and a House hearing where I testified, the previous administration choose to ignore those problems and instead pushed for a back door expansion of the Act through a rule known as Baby U.I., the Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation Rule. The Baby U.I. rule allows states to raid their unemployment compensation trust funds for an unrelated program, paid family leave. As a former Governor, I am very concerned about the impact of the rule on state unemployment trust funds, which should be preserved for tough economic times. The Department of Labor's vague and confusing implementing regulations and interpretations have resulted in the FMLA being misapplied, misunderstood and mistakenly ignored. Employers aren't sure if situations like pink eye, ingrown toenails and even the common cold will be considered by the regulators and the courts to be serious health conditions. Because of these concerns and well-documented problems with the Act, I am today introducing the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act to make reasonable and much needed technical corrections to the Family and Medical Leave Act and restore it to its original congressional intent. The need for FMLA technical corrections has been confirmed and strengthened by five congressional hearings and by the recent release of key surveys. Conclusive evidence of the need for corrections has now been established. The Congressional hearings demonstrated that the FMLA's definition of serious health condition is vague and overly broad due to DOL's interpretations. Additionally, the hearings documented that the intermittent leave provisions, notification and certification problems are causing many serious workplace problems. In addition, some companies testified that Congress should consider allowing employers to permit employees to take either a paid leave package under an existing collective bargaining agreement or the 12 weeks of FMLA protected leave, whichever is greater. I am concerned that a recent decrease in paid leave for employees has been attributed to the Administration's problematic FMLA interpretations. Some research shows a decline in voluntarily provided paid sick leave and vacation leave by the private sector. The 2000 SHRMR, Society for Human Resource Management, Benefits Survey found that paid vacation was provided by 87 percent of companies in the year 2000 while the year before it was 94 percent. Paid sick leave was at 85 percent last year and 74 percent this year. A recent survey conducted by former President Clinton's Department of Labor confirmed FMLA implementation problems. The Labor Department report found that the share of covered establishments reporting that it was somewhat or very easy to comply with the FMLA has declined 21.5 percent from 1995 to 2000. The recent release of the SHRMR, Society for Human Resource Management, 2000 FMLA Survey strongly reinforces the need for FMLA technical corrections. Respondents to the SHRM survey stated that, on average, 60 percent of employees who take FMLA leave do not schedule the leave in advance. Consequently, managers often do not have the ability to plan for work disruptions. Respondents also reported that, in most cases, the burden of the workload from the employee on leave falls to employees who are not on leave. When asked whether they have had to grant FMLA requests they felt were not legitimate, more than half, 52 percent, said they had. Additionally, more than one-third, 34 percent, of respondents said they were aware of employee complaints over the past year regarding a co-worker's questionable use of FMLA leave. The issue of intermittent leave also continues to be extremely difficult. Three-quarters, 76 percent, of respondents said they would find compliance easier if the Department of Labor allowed FMLA leave to be offered and tracked in half-day increments rather than by minutes. I am very concerned that both the SHRM and the Labor Department surveys show that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not easier seven years after it has been in place. I am hopeful that the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act will advance in the 107th Congress on a bipartisan basis to address this problem. The FMLA Clarification Act has the strong support of the Society for Human Resource Management, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Society of Healthcare Human Resources Professionals and close to 300 other leading companies and associations who make up the Family and Medical Leave Act Technical Corrections Coalition. I have received a letter of support from the Coalition and ask that it be printed in the Record. This broad based coalition, shares my belief that both employers and employees would benefit from making certain technical corrections to the FMLA, corrections that are needed to restore congressional intent and to reduce administrative and compliance problems experienced by employers who are making a good faith effort to comply with the act. The bill I am introducing today does several important things: First, it repeals the Department of Labor's current regulations for ``serious health condition'' and includes language from the Democrats' own original Committee Report on what types of medical conditions, such as heart attacks, strokes, spinal injuries, etc., were intended to be covered. In passing the FMLA, Congress stated that the term ``serious health condition'' is not intended to cover short-term conditions, for which treatment and recovery are very brief, recognizing that ``it is expected that such condition will fall within the most modest sick leave policies.'' The Department of Labor's current regulations are extremely confusing and expansive, defining the term ``serious health condition'' as including, among other things, any absence of more than 3 days in which the employee sees any health care provider and receives any type of continuing treatment, including a second doctor's visit, or a prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist, such a broad definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an employee sees a health care provider once, receives a prescription drug, and is instructed to call the health care provider back if the symptoms do not improve; the regulations also define as a ``serious health condition'' any absence for a chronic health problem, such as arthritis, asthma, diabetes, etc., even if the employee does not see a doctor for that absence and is absent for less than three days. Second, the bill amends the Act's provisions relating to intermittent leave to allow employers to require that intermittent leave be taken in minimum blocks of 4 hours. This would minimize the misuse of FMLA by employees who use FMLA as an excuse for regular tardiness and routine justification for early departures. Third, the bill shifts to the employee the responsibility to request leave be designated as FMLA leave, and requires the employee to provide written application within 5 working days of providing notice to the employer for foreseeable leave. With respect to unforeseeable leave, the bill requires the employee to provide, at a minimum, oral notification of the need for the leave not later than the date the leave commences unless the employee is physically or mentally incapable of providing notice or submitting the application. Under that circumstance the employee is provided such additional time as necessary to provide notice. Shifting the burden to the employee to request leave be designated as FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to question the employee and pry into the employee's and the employee's family's private matters, as required under current law, and helps eliminate personal liability for employer supervisors who should not be expected to be experts in the vague and complex regulations which even attorneys have a difficult time understanding. Under current law, it is the employer's responsibility in all circumstances to designate leave, paid or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying. Failure to do so in a timely manner or to inform an employee that a specific event does not qualify as FMLA leave may result in that unqualified leave becoming qualified leave under FMLA. This scenario has actually been upheld in Court and has placed an enormous burden on employers to respond within 48 hours of an employee's leave request. In addition, the courts have held that there is personal liability for employers under the FMLA and that an individual manager may be sued and held individually liable for acts taken based upon or relating to the FMLA. See Freemon v. Foley, 911 F. Supp. 326, N.D. Ill. 1995, in case of first impression in 7th Circuit, court stated, ``We believe the FMLA extends to all those who controlled `in whole or in part' [plaintiff's] ability to take leave of absence and return to her position''). Fourth, with respect to leave because of the employee's own serious health condition, the bill permits an employer to require the employee to choose between taking unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid absence under an employer's collective bargaining agreement or other sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the employer. This change provides incentive for employers to continue their generous sick leave policies while providing a disincentive to employers considering getting rid of such employee-friendly plans, including those negotiated by the employer and the employee's union representative. Paid leave would be subject to the employer's normal work rules and procedures for taking such leave, including work rules and procedures dealing with attendance requirements. The FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable response to the concerns that have been raised about the Act. It leaves in place the fundamental protections of the law while attempting to make changes necessary to restore FMLA to its original intent and to respond to the very legitimate concerns that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to restore the FMLA to its original Congressional intent. I ask that the test of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Mitch McConnell, in introducing the Paul Coverdell Teacher Liability Protection Act of 2001. Senator Coverdell, recognizing the value of those individuals who sacrifice their time, money and energy to serve others, was a true leader in protecting both volunteers and teachers. In 1997, he successfully ushered the Volunteer Protection Act through Congress. Today, as a result of Senator Coverdell's efforts, volunteers can generously give their time and services without the threat of frivolous lawsuits. Last year I joined Senator Coverdell in offering a teacher amendment during floor consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA. That amendment contained several provisions impacting teachers, but the bulk of the amendment was the Teacher Liability Protection Act. I am pleased to say that this amendment was passed by the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0, and a nearly identical measure was passed by the House by a vote of 358 to 67. The overwhelming support that this amendment received during the 106th Congress clearly illustrates the bipartisan nature of this initiative. Although Congress did not complete work on ESEA before the end of the session, I am very optimistic that the new President will sign into law an education reform bill this year and that bill will include the Paul Coverdell Teacher Liability Protection Act. Our nation's public schools have become more violent, and teachers do not feel safe in their own classrooms. Today, more than half our nation's school teachers have been verbally abused, 16 percent have been threatened with injury and 7 percent have been physically attacked. Parents and students alike report that the behavior of some students completely interferes with the learning of others. As our schools have increasingly felt the effects of violence, drug use and a breakdown of discipline, it is necessary for teachers to use reasonable means to maintain order, discipline and a positive educational environment. However, teachers continuously find themselves the targets of frivolous lawsuits when they are forced to restore order in the classroom. Our nation's educators need to feel free to appropriately and swiftly discipline disruptive, unruly and unmanageable students to ensure the safety and education of all the children under their supervision. Currently, unless a teacher is fortunate enough to work in a state that has liability laws that protect teachers, many teachers are hesitant to take action or intervene for fear of a lawsuit. This legislation would help to correct this sad situation. The Paul Coverdell Teacher Liability Protection Act was modeled after the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 and several state liability laws. The purpose of this legislation is to protect teachers from frivolous law suits when attempting to remove a disruptive or belligerent student from a classroom. Specifically, it provides limited civil liability immunity for teachers and principals who engage in reasonable acts to maintain order and preserve a safe and educational environment in their classrooms and schools. The bill is narrowly crafted to focus on protecting reasonable acts that fall within the scope of a teacher's responsibilities in providing education services. The bill does not protect teachers who engage in wanton and willful acts of misconduct, criminal acts or violations of state and federal civil rights laws. The Teacher Liability Protection Act simply protects teachers and other education professionals from liability for harm caused to an individual by reasonable acts carried out in accordance with local, state and federal laws, as well as rules and regulations for controlling, disciplining, expelling or suspending a student from a classroom or school. Additionally, this legislation stipulates that punitive damages may not be awarded against a teacher unless the claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that harm was caused by an action that constituted willful or criminal misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the individual harmed. Furthermore, it is important to note that this legislation does not, in any way, supercede any state law that provides teachers with greater immunity from liability. Moreover, states can opt out of the provisions of this bill by passing state legislation exempting them from the Teacher Liability Protection Act. I conclude by saying that we have a unique opportunity this year to improve our nation's public schools, and we should start with protecting its teachers. As you know, teachers are our most precious resource in the classroom, and to continue to place them at risk in their jobs, and not give them the protection they so desperately need is a shame. It is high time that we recognize teachers and principals for who they are; professionals that go to great lengths to help our children learn. Creating a safe-zone in which they are not subject to being dragged through the courts for ensuring the safety and education of the students in their classrooms should be a priority as we undertake education reform in the 107th Congress. That is why I stand here today to join Senator McConnel in empowering our nation's teachers to take back control of our classrooms and create an environment where they can teach and their students can learn.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Mitch McConnell, in introducing the Paul Coverdell Teacher Liability Protection Act of 2001. Senator Coverdell, recognizing the value of those individuals who sacrifice their time, money and energy to serve others, was a true leader in protecting both volunteers and teachers. In 1997, he successfully ushered the Volunteer Protection Act through Congress. Today, as a result of Senator Coverdell's efforts, volunteers can generously give their time and services without the threat of frivolous lawsuits. Last year I joined Senator Coverdell in offering a teacher amendment during floor consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA. That amendment contained several provisions impacting teachers, but the bulk of the amendment was the Teacher Liability Protection Act. I am pleased to say that this amendment was passed by the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0, and a nearly identical measure was passed by the House by a vote of 358 to 67. The overwhelming support that this amendment received during the 106th Congress clearly illustrates the bipartisan nature of this initiative. Although Congress did not complete work on ESEA before the end of the session, I am very optimistic that the new President will sign into law an education reform bill this year and that bill will include the Paul Coverdell Teacher Liability Protection Act. Our nation's public schools have become more violent, and teachers do not feel safe in their own classrooms. Today, more than half our nation's school teachers have been verbally abused, 16 percent have been threatened with injury and 7 percent have been physically attacked. Parents and students alike report that the behavior of some students completely interferes with the learning of others. As our schools have increasingly felt the effects of violence, drug use and a breakdown of discipline, it is necessary for teachers to use reasonable means to maintain order, discipline and a positive educational environment. However, teachers continuously find themselves the targets of frivolous lawsuits when they are forced to restore order in the classroom. Our nation's educators need to feel free to appropriately and swiftly discipline disruptive, unruly and unmanageable students to ensure the safety and education of all the children under their supervision. Currently, unless a teacher is fortunate enough to work in a state that has liability laws that protect teachers, many teachers are hesitant to take action or intervene for fear of a lawsuit. This legislation would help to correct this sad situation. The Paul Coverdell Teacher Liability Protection Act was modeled after the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 and several state liability laws. The purpose of this legislation is to protect teachers from frivolous law suits when attempting to remove a disruptive or belligerent student from a classroom. Specifically, it provides limited civil liability immunity for teachers and principals who engage in reasonable acts to maintain order and preserve a safe and educational environment in their classrooms and schools. The bill is narrowly crafted to focus on protecting reasonable acts that fall within the scope of a teacher's responsibilities in providing education services. The bill does not protect teachers who engage in wanton and willful acts of misconduct, criminal acts or violations of state and federal civil rights laws. The Teacher Liability Protection Act simply protects teachers and other education professionals from liability for harm caused to an individual by reasonable acts carried out in accordance with local, state and federal laws, as well as rules and regulations for controlling, disciplining, expelling or suspending a student from a classroom or school. Additionally, this legislation stipulates that punitive damages may not be awarded against a teacher unless the claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that harm was caused by an action that constituted willful or criminal misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the individual harmed. Furthermore, it is important to note that this legislation does not, in any way, supercede any state law that provides teachers with greater immunity from liability. Moreover, states can opt out of the provisions of this bill by passing state legislation exempting them from the Teacher Liability Protection Act. I conclude by saying that we have a unique opportunity this year to improve our nation's public schools, and we should start with protecting its teachers. As you know, teachers are our most precious resource in the classroom, and to continue to place them at risk in their jobs, and not give them the protection they so desperately need is a shame. It is high time that we recognize teachers and principals for who they are; professionals that go to great lengths to help our children learn. Creating a safe-zone in which they are not subject to being dragged through the courts for ensuring the safety and education of the students in their classrooms should be a priority as we undertake education reform in the 107th Congress. That is why I stand here today to join Senator McConnel in empowering our nation's teachers to take back control of our classrooms and create an environment where they can teach and their students can learn.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair and congratulate the Senator from North Carolina for his efforts in bringing a resolution to the U.N. arrearage issue. This is an issue in which I have had a fair amount of involvement, as I chair the appropriations subcommittee which is responsible for actually paying the bills. It was a pleasure to work with the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Grams, and Senator Hollings, my ranking member, as we worked with the prior administration, especially the Secretary of State, to try to bring a resolution to this very intricate and difficult issue--very touchy issue in many ways--which had hung over the U.N. and America's relationship with the U.N. for far too long. There were very significant issues, however, that had to be addressed and which, as a result of the efforts of Senator Helms and Senator Biden and the working group which I had a pleasure to work with, were addressed. Two of the ones that have gotten the most visibility, of course, are our contribution levels to the U.N. operation accounts, which were excessive, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Senate and the Congress, and also the contributions to the peacekeeping accounts, which were equally excessive. So the adjustments in the contribution levels, although not everything we desire, are a significant step in the right direction. But I think we need to remember as we proceed, especially in the area of peacekeeping, that basically the United States is, no matter what the assessment level, giving the U.N. what amounts to essentially a blank check. The tremendous expansion in peacekeeping activity which the U.N. has undertaken over the last few years--much of it, quite honestly, not consistent with American policy--for example, what is happening today in Sierra Leone, where the U.N. has one of its major peacekeeping initiatives--is not consistent with the present American policy on how to handle that situation. In fact, the British, who are physically on the ground there, and whose position we do agree with, are taking the brunt of the legitimate effort in that country; whereas the U.N. peacekeepers, regrettably, are not contributing to the process of resolving the Sierra Leone situation but are actually, well, at best, on site but not a positive force. Yet we are paying for that. American taxpayers are paying for that. It is inconsistent with the policy as laid out in a letter from the then-Ambassador to the U.N., Mr. Holbrooke, to the Congress relative to what the American policy was to be in Sierra Leone. That letter, which was very specific and quite appropriate and on point, unfortunately, is not the U.N. policy. So as we move down the road, this whole issue of peacekeeping is going to be a continuing concern to us, as the payers of the bills, because I am not much interested, quite honestly, in sending a large amount of tax dollars, in what amounts to an open check, to the U.N. on the matter of peacekeeping, if the policies of the U.N. are going to be--in those areas where we are actually paying for the peacekeeping-- 180 degrees at odds with American policy. I do not understand why we should be paying to underwrite policies which are inconsistent and, in some instances, actually at odds with what our policies are as a nation. So this issue of an open check for U.N. peacekeeping is one which will require more attention. But as to the question of arrearages, we have at least settled the matter of what the percentage should be in those instances where U.N. obligations are due relative to peacekeeping. For that reason, we are able to release the $582 million which was held up relative to that issue. There remains, however, one more payment, one more tranche here--$244 million--which needs to be made and which we have appropriated. By the way, all this money was always appropriated. We, in our committee, put it on the table, signed the check, but we did not send the check. It was a letter of credit. We said: When you meet the conditions of the letter of credit, which were basically the Helms-Biden proposal, then we will release the funds. But, again, the $244 million, which is available to the U.N., and which is the third payment, is still conditioned on what I would call structural reforms within the U.N. which are very important, structural reforms which go to the operation of the U.N., specifically, stronger Inspector General activities, stronger evaluation of the effectiveness and the relevance of U.N. programs, a termination of programs that are no longer needed, establishment of clearer budget priorities and, of course, an accounting office similar to the General Accounting Office we have here in the U.S. which can actually go in and audit what goes on in the U.N. One of the big problems we have had in the U.N. was that for many years, regrettably, it was essentially, for lack of a better word, a patronage stop for a lot of folks from other countries who found it was a place where they could basically place friends and relatives, and, as a result, end up with the United States paying the cost of the salaries of those friends and relatives. It had a huge inefficiency. It also had programmatic activity which simply was inconsistent with what you would call good fiscal policy. I understand it is not something you can change overnight because, to some degree, it is an institutional issue, but the U.N. is moving towards trying to address this. And that is positive. We look forward to these management systems being put in place which can show the American people that their tax dollars are not being wasted when they are sent to the U.N. The U.N. is a very important institution. It is important that the American people have confidence in it. This is an institution which can play a huge and positive role as we, as a nation, engage the world. Since we are paying a quarter of the costs of the institution, American taxpayers have to know that when they send the tax dollar up there, it is going to be used effectively and efficiently. It is not because they oppose, at least in my State--there is some opposition, but there is general support for the U.N. funding. It is not because they oppose funding per se for the U.N; it is because they oppose the concept that money isn't being used efficiently and effectively. In fact, for a number of years it was being used inefficiently and ineffectively and in some cases just plain in a poor way. So putting these systems in place--a strong Inspector General approach, general accounting rules along the lines of what we use in the U.S. General Accounting Office, financial data procedures which allow us to track the dollars, where they go, who is using them, and actual personnel tracking procedures which allow us to make sure the personnel that claims to be doing things is actually doing them, and that we are not ending up paying no-show employees--is very important in running a fiscal house effectively. They are the basic elements of good governance. If you are expecting taxpayers to support an undertaking, then you must expect that the taxpayers will demand that there be an accounting as to how their dollars are being used. That is all we have asked for here. We have not asked for anything outrageous or unreasonable, in my opinion. We have just asked for reasonable accounting procedures. The U.N., to their credit, especially the present Secretary General, has made an extra effort to try to address these concerns. I congratulate the Secretary General for doing that. I especially congratulate Ambassador Holbrooke because really he has been a fierce force for bringing responsibilities to the U.N. in the way they have dealt with American tax dollars over his tenure there. He has been a conscientious protector of the American tax dollar. I think he has done it because he understands that support for the U.N. is critical, and support is tied to American taxpayers having confidence in their dollars being used effectively. The agreement which has been reached--I again congratulate the Senator from North Carolina for his extraordinary effort, the Senator from Delaware, and all those who played a role in it--is a very positive step forward in putting in place the systems that are necessary to give American taxpayers confidence in the U.N. When we give that confidence to the American taxpayer, we will in turn give the U.N. strength. When we give the U.N. strength, in the end it will benefit us as a nation and obviously the world. It is a plus for us. It is a plus for the U.N. I am very happy to be here today to support this initiative and look forward, as chairman of the appropriating committee, to their completion of the additional issues that are to be addressed and the release of the additional $244 million as a result of successful completion of those initiatives. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her courtesy. I also wish to thank the Senator from Illinois for his courtesy in allowing us to go in front of him even though he has been waiting. I want to join in congratulations of the President for putting forward his education package and fulfilling a promise he made during the election, which was that education would be the President's first legislative initiative. As such, he has put together a package which has many very strong points which will significantly improve our educational system in this country. The package, as I would describe it, can be divided into four elements. First, it focuses on children. It sees children as the fundamental element of our educational system, which seems only logical but regrettably has not been true over the last few years. In fact, over the past 20 years we have spent over $127 billion on title I, but rather than spending it on children and having it be child focused, it has been institution focused or it has been bureaucracy focused. The President is shifting that title I money towards the child. Second, the President is proposing much more flexibility to local school districts, to the teachers, to the principals, and, most importantly, flexibility to the parents because they are the folks on the front line who are most concerned about the child's education and who understand how best to do that. The educational system changes from not only State to State, not only community to community but literally classroom to classroom. The needs within a classroom are different. The needs in one first grade classroom in the community are different from the needs in the first grade classroom in another town in New Hampshire. Flexibility is extremely important. That is a major element of their initiative. Third, the President has focused on academic achievement. What an important goal. But it is, unfortunately, a goal we have forgotten. In fact, we have forgotten it in such a way that today our low-income children aren't achieving at all. As I mentioned yesterday on the floor, the average fourth grader from a low-income family is reading at a second-grade level, below his peers, even though we have spent literally billions of dollars focused on that low-income child. Academic achievement is critical. He has pointed to the fact that the academic achievement of the child begins by having the child reach school ready to read. He has committed a huge amount of resources and a number of new programmatic initiatives to make sure that when our children get to school they are ready to read because, as he has pointed out, if you leave a child behind in the first grade, that child never catches up; they fall further behind. The fourth element is one of the core elements of his proposal. He has talked about accountability. We are no longer going to send funds out to the communities without expecting results. We are no longer going to tolerate a system which leaves children behind, which says to children: We are simply going to shuffle you through the system; we are going to use the money for whatever happens to be the need for the day; but if it doesn't improve the results, we are not going to be held accountable. We will teach new math, and if you don't learn any math, that doesn't matter. If we teach you any methods of reading, and if you don't learn, that doesn't matter; you will shuffle through the system. The President has said that from now on we are going to expect academic achievement and we are going to hold the systems accountable to results in academic achievement. Those four goals are the right goals: Focusing the effort on the child, giving flexibility to the people who know how to educate so they can educate well, expecting academic achievement, and holding the school systems and the administrators accountable for academic achievement. I congratulate all those initiatives. This is a huge conceptual package with a lot of different initiatives performed in a variety of different ways. I also hope we focus on moving down the educational road, the issue of special education, and the fact that we as a Republican Congress have committed our effort to try to fully fund special education. Certainly I hope that will be carried forward. I know this President is committed to that approach, also. Nothing will free up local dollars more effectively and make more dollars genuinely available for good education than if the Federal Government pays its fair share of special education so the local tax dollars can be used where the local community thinks they can most effective be used. This package is a call to arms for an improvement in our educational system. It lays out specific guideposts of how to get there. I congratulate the President for putting it forward.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, those of us who had the opportunity--and I think most of America did, I hope--to listen to President Bush's inaugural address were tremendously impressed by the tone of it and its purpose, which was to bring civility back to politics and governance in Washington and to call us to a higher purpose beyond partisanship, beyond pettiness and rather to move into trying to bring back the dreams, in essence, that have made this country great. Part of this initiative is to direct a significant amount of energy at our educational system in an attempt to make sure no child is left behind, and by doing that we give every American citizen the opportunity to obtain the American dream. We all recognize that education is the first and most important element of success in our society. It is not only important for the individual, but it is important for our Nation because we are a Nation which clearly thrives and expands and grows and prospers on the basis of a well-educated people, and our capacity to compete in the international community is tied directly to our capacity to have a well-educated people who can lead us on the cutting edge in areas of technology and other areas that are necessary for the productivity of our Nation. Thus, focusing on education is the appropriate thing to do as we move forward as a government, and it is truly appropriate that the President has chosen this to be his first and most significant initiative. I understand that either later today or tomorrow he is going to outline the principles upon which he intends to move on the issue of education policy here at the Federal level. Let me outline quickly some of the things we as a Republican Congress and as a Republican Senate have been focusing on, which I presume and expect to be part of the essence of what the President also wants. Last year, we passed out of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Health Committee a truly significant step in the area of trying to improve education, the ESEA bill, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, in a form which was different than it had been passed out in prior years. We took the basic act which is directed at low-achieving, low-income children and tried to rewrite it in a way that would assist those children and keep them from being left behind. We discovered that after 20 years of spending literally billions of dollars on elementary and secondary education for low-income children-- in fact, I think it is approximately $137 billion or $127 billion over that period--that those children were still being left behind; that low-income children in grade 4, for example, were reading at a level two grades behind their peers who were not from those backgrounds; that especially in a minority community children were simply not obtaining the academic levels to be competitive in society; that the children were not only coming to school not ready to read but once in school were not able to learn to read because the educational system was leaving them behind; that failed schools are being allowed to continue to be failed schools year in and year out; that children were being put through a system where failure had been identified but nothing was done to change the fact that failure was occurring. So we decided to change and adjust the approach. Rather than being a system that was based on institutions which funded the institution, the educational building or the educational bureaucracy, we decided to change to a procedure where we actually funded the child. We decided to take a child-centered approach to education. That is what one presumes is the logical approach under any scenario, but it has been in the last 20 years the approach of the use of Federal dollars. Instead, we have thrown them at the education bureaucracy. We have thrown them into school buildings, but we have not said let's have the dollars fund the child who is being left behind, especially the low-income children. So the first element of our bill was to have it be child centered. The second element of our bill was to give flexibility to local schools because they understand how to educate the child, to say to the local school districts, the local teachers and principals, local school boards, and especially to the parents of the children: You shall have the opportunity to use Federal dollars in a more flexible way. We will not categorize how you must use those dollars. We will not control the decisions at the front end. We will not say how many desks you must have and books you must have in a classroom, or how many hours you must teach a child. Rather, we will give you flexibility over the use of dollars, but in exchange for that flexibility, we also, as a third element, require accountability. We said the local schools are going to have to achieve, that they could no longer leave the low-income child behind; that that low-income child's academic ability was going to have to be maintained at the level at which his or her peers were being maintained; that the schools could no longer ignore a failing school. For example, they could no longer keep in their school system a failing school year after year and expect to continue to get funds for that failing school; that instead we were going to expect that children not be shuffled through the system but rather the children be allowed to excel and achieve within the system. Those were the elements of our bill: First, that it was child centered; second, there be flexibility for local communities to make the decisions as to how to educate the children; but, third, there would be an expectation of results. There would be academic accountability so low-income children would not be left behind. Three of the elements that made up this package were reasonably controversial, at least in the sense that the educational lobby here in Washington was opposed to them. The educational lobby here in Washington is strong, and it has an iron hold over this city, or has traditionally had an iron hold. They do not like change. They don't like to be held accountable. They do not like things that require them to produce results. Rather, they are more interested in teaching to a standard which, unfortunately, has been the least common denominator, and not requiring that they be held accountable for the use of dollars which have been sent to them. But we felt those dollars should be accountable. So we said, first, there should be portability. In other words, if a child is in a school that has failed year in and year out, we said, rather than having the money to continue to go to that school, we will allow the parent of that child to get dollars and allow the parent of that child to take those dollars with the child either to another school or to a tutorial program so that the child has the opportunity to get out of the failing school. This idea of portability of funds, of attaching the dollars to the child, attaching the dollars to the school, has been controversial, but it is an idea which has worked and is working in places such as Arizona. We are not saying the school district has to pursue this activity, but rather we are saying a school district will have the option of pursuing this activity. We are not saying the school must undertake portability. We are saying if the school wishes to use Federal dollars in a portable way, they can. So we are making it, again, an option to the local school district as to whether or not they pursue this. This has been stamped a voucher program by the forces that do not wish to see it succeed or don't wish to try anything else. It is simply a statement to the local district that if they feel that attaching the dollars to the child so that the child and the child's parents can take advantage of dollars to improve the child's education, makes sense if the local public entity which manages that school district--be it a public school board or be it a public education authority that decides that you want to use portability, you can. So it is not a federally-mandated program. It is a Federal option given to the local school districts. We said to school districts what we need are teachers who can teach their subjects best. You--the local school districts--understood, and, fortunately, have been told that what you need are more teachers. The Federal program as it presently exists says you must hire teachers even if you do not need more teachers. Forty-two of the States already meet the teacher-student ratio which is required under federal law. But to get Federal dollars, you have to hire more teachers. We said that doesn't make much sense. We said let's let the local community decide whether they need more teachers or better trained teachers. So we passed something called the Teacher Empowerment Act which said to local school districts here are the Federal dollars for teaching. So we will put them in a bundle and give them to you. You can use them for any of a variety of things. You can use them to hire more teachers in your classroom. You don't have to use it for that but you can. You can use them to educate your teachers so they teach better, or you can use them to give technical support to your teachers so they have better tools with which to teach. It is the local school districts that have the flexibility to do that. But if you get that flexibility, you also have to have accountability and you have to show us the teaching of the students has improved over a 5-year period; that the students are actually learning more; that they are doing better. So, once again, we gave local flexibility to the community and we did it in the context of an accountability system. This, again, was opposed and is opposed aggressively by the Federal lobby here in Washington because it gives the local community the decision power over how to use the Federal dollars, and the community here in Washington doesn't like it. They want to be able to manage those dollars from Washington so it is a Washington-driven event versus a local event. This, in essence, is where the battle will once again join if there is a battle in this Congress as we move forward with educational reform. There are many people on the other side of the aisle who see the need for flexibility and for accountability proposals that came from the Senator from Colorado last year and the Senator from Indiana. Democratic Senators had ideas and initiatives in many ways similar to the initiatives we had on our side of the aisle that represent a positive step toward a bipartisan compromise in these areas. I am hopeful as we move further down the road on educational reform we can come together in this Congress and especially in this Senate on a whole series of initiatives which will accomplish this fundamental goal that we aren't leaving children behind or allowing failing schools to continue to function, that we are expecting that our educational system will deliver to our children the opportunity to participate in the American dream. There is great room for compromise, there is great room for bipartisan initiative. I congratulate the President on making this his first order of business. This is the essence of how we as a nation continue to remain strong and vibrant. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand that time is reserved for the Democratic side. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed in morning business for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maine as well and share her concerns about the impact of natural disasters on the lives of people and on the economy. In the past, government has worked effectively with the building industry to make homes and commercial buildings better and safer through building codes and standards, and by supporting improvements in building technology. The subcommittee is very interested in the contributions that the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory can make to improve the quality of building products. Fiberglass-reinforced wood composites can greatly increase the safety of homes subjected to natural disasters. I agree that the National Institute of Standards should pursue with the University of Maine the development and demonstration of fiberglass- reinforced wood composites for improved building materials. expansion of a successful executive mba program

Mr. GREGG. I agree with my distinguished colleague from Maine that we need to do what we can to mitigate the devastation caused each year by natural disasters. Exciting new building techniques and technologies hold promise in this regard.

Mr. GREGG. I agree with the views expressed by my ranking member, Senator Hollings, and the Senators from Washington and Montana on this matter. Antidumping duties

Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. GREGG. I agree with the Senator from Montana that Congress should be given the opportunity to exercise its oversight responsibility over this important issue.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Washington for the courtesy of recognition. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in praising and expressing our appreciation for the opportunity to work with and know as a colleague in this body Senator Slade Gorton from Washington. I expect to continue to work with and know Senator Slade Gorton for many years. But, unfortunately, he will be leaving this body, which is too bad because I consider him to be one of the truly extraordinary people I have had a chance to get to know. I would describe him as delightful and extraordinary--delightful as a person, extraordinary as a Senator. He brings to this Senate a uniqueness which is special. He has a freshness about him, a way of approaching the issues which is always creative and imaginative. He has true love for this institution. He especially understands its rules and the way it works. He is one of the few senior Members on our side of the aisle who will sit in the chair for hours and hours in order to officiate over the Senate. In fact, I think every year he has been here he has received what is known as the Golden Gavel for sitting in the Chair for 100 hours, something usually received by junior Members of the Senate, but because of his interest in and intensity and love for and commitment to this body, he has enjoyed the opportunity to preside. And he has presided extraordinarily well. He, however, as the Senator from New Mexico has mentioned, has been probably less visible than many Members of the Senate but has had much more impact than most of us. His actions and effectiveness are really in the famous back halls and meeting rooms of the Senate. Very few pieces of legislation have moved through this body that do not, in some part, have the fingerprints of Slade Gorton on them. He is truly an effective tactician, but more importantly, he is an effective spokesperson for a philosophy. And he knows how to move that philosophy forward within our institution. As a result, he has had a tremendous impact on the legislative activity of this body over the years. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at that though. The truly great Senators in this body--I suggest that maybe one of them is Daniel Webster--have come from a tradition from which Slade Gorton also comes. He went to school in New Hampshire. He went to school at Dartmouth, as did the great Daniel Webster. Maybe he learned at Dartmouth some of those characteristics which carried both Webster and him forward so well. Clearly, those characteristics are unique and special. We take pride in New Hampshire in claiming a little bit of Slade Gorton for our own. As I think of him, I think of a friend, somebody to whom I could always go talk to get ideas. We talked about his family that he so loved, Sally and his children, his grandchildren, his nieces, nephews. He used to go to hockey league for his niece all the time. She is a wonderful hockey player. He is totally committed to his family. It was a pleasure to have the chance to sit down and talk with him on any subject, but especially when it came to issues of family and what everybody was up to and what everybody was doing. That is the priority for Slade and Sally. At one point, they took a bike ride across the country, which must have been an amazing experience, the whole family riding across the country. He set an example for those of us who came here after him. As we look around this institution, we often refer to people: He reminds me of so- and-so, he reminds me of some Senator from here or some Senator here at some other date. I must say, I can't think of higher praise than if someone were to come up to me some day and say: You know, you remind me a lot of Slade Gorton and the way he worked as a Senator. That, to me, would be the highest praise I could receive because I consider him to be one of the finest, if not the finest, Senator I know. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. I would like to have about 5 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.