Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, today I introduced legislation, along with Senator Phil Gramm, called the Military Voting Rights Act of 1997. The bill that was introduced today makes absolutely clear in the law what is already law, because there is nothing against it in the law, and that is that our military personnel have the right to vote at their home base in Federal, State, and local elections. The law does not say anything against that, but because it does not, there has been a challenge in my home State of Texas to 800 military votes that were, of course, in State and local elections, which are allowed by Texas law. It is very clear that a person who serves in our military should have the right to vote and the right to citizenship in the State and the localities that he or she chooses to have as their home base. Yet, that right is being challenged. Some 800 military absentee ballots, 150 of which were from overseas, were challenged saying that these people who are serving our country and who are putting their lives on the line to protect our right to vote nevertheless should not have the full voting rights. In fact, the plaintiff sent questionnaires that were in the form of depositions to all of these 800 people who voted, and one woman in Bosnia got a questionnaire to be filled out to determine if she has the right to vote in the State and local elections. We are trying to put a stop to that. We are trying to say very clearly in the Military Voting Rights Act of 1997 that no person will ever be able to be challenged for their full citizenship rights because they have chosen to serve our country, which job, by its very nature, requires moving around the country and outside of the country wherever they are required to go to fulfill the job. I want to commend our State representative in Texas, Jerry Madden, who is just as incensed as all of us are, for taking the initiative. He is working on a bill now to make it easier for the military personnel in our State to vote because he, like I, appreciates the fact that these people who have been at a base in Texas have chosen to call Texas home, and he wants to make sure that they can vote in the very easiest way. Perhaps, in fact, we might learn from some of the things that he is doing. He wants to be able to let them have access to Internet voting. He wants to give them some extra leeway in time to vote so that their ballots will have time to get to the State of their residence from a place like Bosnia, or perhaps in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else in the world where they might be deployed. I think that it is very important that the sense of the Senate be known here. In fact, 58 Members of the Senate signed a letter to the Attorney General, Janet Reno, asking her to intervene in this case to make sure that our military rights are being protected. All of us who signed that letter are very concerned about the ramifications of this bill. We are concerned that if these people are able to prevail in this case, to say that the military does not have the right to have full citizenship in a State to be able to vote in a State or local election, that perhaps other rights might be challenged. If a person can't have the full rights of the State in which he or she resides and calls home base, then what other laws might not apply? Marriage laws? Could you not get a divorce if you were in the military and you don't have the right to belong in a State? How far are you going to take this? The fact is there is no question on the merits that the people who are choosing to serve our country and whose job, by its nature, requires that they move every 2 years, or even more frequently, that they should be able to join the home State of their choosing. Frankly, I am proud when the military personnel who serve on Texas bases love our State enough to want to call it home, and we want them to return because we know that the people who lay their lives on the line to make sure that the United States is free are the kind of citizens we want in our State. We want them to know they are welcome. We want them to know they are welcome anywhere else they choose to call home because we appreciate what they do for our country. So I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill. I know that we will have a number of cosponsors, and I think we will pass this bill quite easily, because, as I said, 58 Members are incensed enough to ask the Attorney General to intervene. In fact, I hope the Attorney General will do her duty to represent the Federal employees that are needing help right now so that their rights will be protected--not only the 800 who are being challenged, but all of those that might be affected if this case is allowed to prevail. We cannot sit back and let one of our military personnel be robbed of their right of citizenship, especially as they are the ones who are standing there to make sure that every American who is registered to vote has that right to do it free and clear. I stood here on the first day of our session and talked about the wonderful people of Serbia who were standing in the streets for days on end so that their vote would be counted. And because those people peacefully demonstrated, they eventually prevailed. Those elections that were held, for which their vote had not been counted, have been declared effective, and the local elections are being declared victorious for those who stood in the streets for their right to make their vote counted. How could we as a country, who stood with those wonderful people silently protesting so that their vote would be counted, as the greatest nation on Earth, the democracy that is the beacon for the world, say that our military personnel are going to be second class citizens because, yes, they can vote in Federal elections but, no, they can't have the full rights in the State they choose to call home? This is a major Federal issue. I hope that it is one that we can dispatch very promptly and say clearly in the law there is no question, and there isn't a question because there is no law against this anyway but we want to set it in the positive. Our military personnel will have the full right to vote in the State in which they choose to call home when they are based there, and forevermore. And I hope they will choose to call Texas home, and I hope they will return to Texas because those are just the kinds of citizens that we want. So I appreciate very much that we have this bill, that we have so many sponsors for it, and that we have so many that are interested in this issue. We will not let this issue die. We will protect the rights of our military, and we will make sure that they know how much they are appreciated. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Snowe and Senator Mikulski. All of the women in the Senate are cosponsoring this resolution. I will never forget 2 years ago when Senator Mikulski called a hearing of all of the women in the Senate on the first time we saw there was a question by the National Institutes of Health about whether women should have screening before the age of 50. All of us, resoundingly, came together and said, ``Of course they should.'' Now we have new Members in the Senate--Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, Senator Landrieu, who have joined us in a unanimous verdict, which is that the women of this country deserve better. The women of this country deserve to know the facts. The facts are that the studies have come in. In 1995, a study showed a 24-percent lower death rate among women who received mammograms in their forties. That was an American study. In 1996, Swedish researchers, in two studies, found a 44-percent and a 36-percent lower death rate among women who received mammograms in their forties. So why are we getting a mixed message? Why aren't all of the experts coming together on an issue that is killing more women in their forties than any other disease? The women of America have no guidelines. They have no guidelines because we can't get our doctors to do what they do for every other medicine and every other disease that I can think of, and that is to say we can have a 24-percent lower death rate of the women in this country in the 40-to-49 age bracket if we will have mammograms. But there is a slight chance, perhaps less than 1 percent, that having a mammogram might induce cancer. Now, I think we are intelligent enough to receive the full facts and not have a mixed message. That is not a mixed message. When we can save thousands of lives by having mammograms between the ages 40 and 49, and there is a, perhaps, less than 1 percent chance that it might be a danger, let's give women the facts without a muddled message. That is what this resolution does today. It says to the women of our country, very clearly, that their chances of surviving breast cancer are infinitely better, and all the studies show it, if they will have a mammogram, starting at the age of 35 or 40, every 2 years, and then when you are 50, every year. It is very simple. The women of this country deserve to know that their chances are a heck of a lot better if they will have this procedure done. Now, something that you all have not mentioned yet, which I worry about very much, is that now that we have this mixed, garbled message, are insurance companies going to step forward and say, now, wait a minute, maybe we should not cover mammograms? Is this going to open the door to questions as to whether this very basic preventive procedure will be available to the women of this country? We must speak with a certain voice today in saying to all of our health institutes: Come forward and give us leadership. You are the experts. I think we can take the facts, and I think we can save the lives of thousands of women if we will say exactly what all of the statistics show, which is to take care of yourself. Have a mammogram, starting at the age of 35 or 40, every 2 years, and then, at 50, every year. Let's not even introduce the option of insurance perhaps not covering this kind of preventive procedure that is killing more women between the ages of 40 and 49 than any other disease in this country. So I commend all of my women colleagues and friends for coming together, along with all of the men cosponsoring this amendment and ask for a unanimous vote today at 5 o'clock supporting this, urging experts to help the women of our country protect themselves.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of Senate Resolution 49 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of concurrent and Senate resolutions.'')

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have a resolution that I am submitting on behalf of myself and Senator Gramm. I have sent it to the desk and I ask that it be held and that it be cleared by the close of business today. Mr. President, the resolution is commending and is in honor of a fallen comrade. He was a Member of the House, a member of the Texas delegation, Frank Tejeda. Frank Tejeda was a hero, a patriot. He served his country in every possible way. Frank Tejeda dropped out of high school at the age of 17 to join the Marine Corps. He liked to tell the story that he thought he would have a couple of months to sit around and dream about being in the Marine Corps. And they said to this young 17-year-old, ``We would love to have you. Here are your tickets to California, you leave this afternoon.'' So he was off on his life adventure in the Marine Corps. Frank Tejeda went to Vietnam. He was a hero in Vietnam. Frank Tejeda won not only the Purple Heart but the Silver Star for his heroic performance in going onto a battlefield that was riddled with bullets flying all around him to save a comrade. He was always there when his country called. After he came back, the high school dropout went to college and graduated. He graduated not only from St. Mary's University, but also went to law school at the University of California at Berkley and received his law degree. Then, he got graduate degrees from both Harvard and Yale. He served in the Texas Senate--I knew him there--and then he came to Congress, and we were able to serve together here. Frank was, in every sense, the truest Texan. I was privileged to be at his funeral yesterday in south San Antonio, at St. Leo's Catholic Church. You could see the essence of what Frank was. You could see it in the people that he had gone to church with all his life. You could see it in the people who eulogized him, that had grown up with him, and who now are also leading citizens of San Antonio. You could see it in the people who were holding signs along the road between the church and Fort Sam Houston, where he was to be buried with full military honors. No one will be able to fill the shoes of a great Texan like Frank Tejeda. He will have a successor. We will have someone that will represent San Antonio and Texas in the U.S. Congress. But you don't fill the shoes of a person who never forgot from where he came, who was always there for the people that he grew up with and that he represented in the U.S. Congress, to make sure that they were part of the great American dream. He was there for our military, he was there for our veterans. I remember when I was working to make sure that the veterans' pay came when Government was shut down. Frank Tejeda was right there trying to help me make sure that that happened. When the people at Kelly Air Force Base learned that their base was going to be shut down, with privatization as an option that was given by BRAC, Frank Tejeda and I rolled up our sleeves to go to work for privatization, because we wanted the good people at Kelly Air Force Base to be able to keep those jobs, and because we knew it was in the best interest of our country that they keep those jobs because they are the trained work force. I think the most important thing I could say about anyone with whom I served in Congress is, if we are in a fight, he was someone I would want in the trenches with me. That describes Frank Tejeda. He proved himself on the real battlefield in Vietnam. He proved that he was someone you would want in the trenches with you when you are fighting for your life, for your country, and he proved it in so many ways in his service in the U.S. Congress. I will miss Frank Tejeda as a friend. America will miss him as a patriot and a hero. I would like for this resolution to be passed today when we close the Senate, and I would like to close the Senate in honor of former Congressman Frank Tejeda, who was buried yesterday at Fort Sam Houston with full military honors.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this bill closes a loophole in the homemaker IRA bill that we passed in the last Congress. We made the homemakers of our country equal to wage earners in their ability to save for their retirement futures through individual retirement accounts. Presently, every person who is working at home or working outside the home can set aside $2,000 a year that earns tax-free interest for their retirement security. However, what families are not able to do under existing law and what this bill will enable them to do, up to $40,000 in income, is to save under a homemaker IRA even if the homemaker's spouse has a pension plan. This revision is critical to encourage average-income families to save for their retirement. Mr. President, if our young people will avail themselves of this wonderful new opportunity which Congress has given them to allow homemakers as well as those who work outside the home to contribute $2,000 a year to an IRA, by the time they retire at age 65, they will be able to build a nest egg of a remarkable $1 million, if they both start contributing the maximum allowable amount from age 25--$1 million for this working, one-income family. If they even wait until they are 35, they would be able to build up $500,000 for retirement. This is an opportunity that I hope every young couple will look at and take advantage of to provide for their retirement security. Last year we in Congress did the right thing by extending the IRA to homemakers. Now we simply need to ensure that this opportunity is available to all families of up to $40,000 of income. This bill will do just that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this bill closes a loophole in the homemaker IRA bill that we passed in the last Congress. We made the homemakers of our country equal to wage earners in their ability to save for their retirement futures through individual retirement accounts. Presently, every person who is working at home or working outside the home can set aside $2,000 a year that earns tax-free interest for their retirement security. However, what families are not able to do under existing law and what this bill will enable them to do, up to $40,000 in income, is to save under a homemaker IRA even if the homemaker's spouse has a pension plan. This revision is critical to encourage average-income families to save for their retirement. Mr. President, if our young people will avail themselves of this wonderful new opportunity which Congress has given them to allow homemakers as well as those who work outside the home to contribute $2,000 a year to an IRA, by the time they retire at age 65, they will be able to build a nest egg of a remarkable $1 million, if they both start contributing the maximum allowable amount from age 25--$1 million for this working, one-income family. If they even wait until they are 35, they would be able to build up $500,000 for retirement. This is an opportunity that I hope every young couple will look at and take advantage of to provide for their retirement security. Last year we in Congress did the right thing by extending the IRA to homemakers. Now we simply need to ensure that this opportunity is available to all families of up to $40,000 of income. This bill will do just that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the bill that I introduce is the Campaign Finance Reform and Disclosure Act of 1997. This important legislation will correct several of the abuses that we have seen take place under the present system and will demonstrate to the American people that we in Congress intend to do everything possible to bring campaign-related activities into the light of day. Moreover, this bill will not force the American taxpayer to further subsidize Federal campaigns, nor will it impose an elaborate new system of costly and burdensome campaign regulations. First, the act will require that at least 60 percent of a Senate candidate's campaign funds come from individuals within that Senator's home State. It will terminate the mass mail franking privilege for Senators during the year in which he or she is seeking election, and thereby end one of the more substantial advantages of incumbents over challengers. The bill will also make the contribution limits for political action committees equal to those in place for individuals, and will index that uniform limit to the rate of inflation. I believe PAC's serve a beneficial and necessary purpose in our system by allowing groups of individuals, whether at their place of employment, through an issue advocacy group, or elsewhere, to participate in a more direct way in the grassroots political process that is at the heart of our electoral system. But I want those PACs to have the same allowances and the same limitations as individuals, so that one does not have a disproportionate advantage over the other. The bill accomplishes this in a simple and responsible way by leveling the playing field between people who contribute to candidates directly and those who choose to leverage their contribution through PAC's. Individuals who wish to contribute money should continue to have that choice. However, I do not believe that candidates should have the right to buy and then resell their office. Therefore, this bill will also place a limitation of $250,000 on the amount that a congressional candidate may repay himself from campaign funds for personal loans he or she makes to the campaign. Again, this will help level the playing field for all candidates. In addition, the Campaign Finance Reform and Disclosure Act will ban once and for all campaign contributions by noncitizens. The use of campaign funds for personal use will also be totally banned. And political parties will be prohibited from accepting contributions earmarked for specific candidates, thereby bypassing the limitations that are in our laws today. Mr. President, these are the main provisions of my legislation to reform our campaign finance laws. As the Senate continues to address this most important issue, I encourage my colleagues to review these simple and workable proposals and to answer the American people's call for reform in this area.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Iowa for allowing me to introduce two more bills and also thank him for his leadership on the bill that he will talk about later to give some much needed and appropriate relief for the farm families of our country. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask that it be referred to the appropriate committee.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 179 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 180 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the bill that I introduce is the Campaign Finance Reform and Disclosure Act of 1997. This important legislation will correct several of the abuses that we have seen take place under the present system and will demonstrate to the American people that we in Congress intend to do everything possible to bring campaign-related activities into the light of day. Moreover, this bill will not force the American taxpayer to further subsidize Federal campaigns, nor will it impose an elaborate new system of costly and burdensome campaign regulations. First, the act will require that at least 60 percent of a Senate candidate's campaign funds come from individuals within that Senator's home State. It will terminate the mass mail franking privilege for Senators during the year in which he or she is seeking election, and thereby end one of the more substantial advantages of incumbents over challengers. The bill will also make the contribution limits for political action committees equal to those in place for individuals, and will index that uniform limit to the rate of inflation. I believe PAC's serve a beneficial and necessary purpose in our system by allowing groups of individuals, whether at their place of employment, through an issue advocacy group, or elsewhere, to participate in a more direct way in the grassroots political process that is at the heart of our electoral system. But I want those PACs to have the same allowances and the same limitations as individuals, so that one does not have a disproportionate advantage over the other. The bill accomplishes this in a simple and responsible way by leveling the playing field between people who contribute to candidates directly and those who choose to leverage their contribution through PAC's. Individuals who wish to contribute money should continue to have that choice. However, I do not believe that candidates should have the right to buy and then resell their office. Therefore, this bill will also place a limitation of $250,000 on the amount that a congressional candidate may repay himself from campaign funds for personal loans he or she makes to the campaign. Again, this will help level the playing field for all candidates. In addition, the Campaign Finance Reform and Disclosure Act will ban once and for all campaign contributions by noncitizens. The use of campaign funds for personal use will also be totally banned. And political parties will be prohibited from accepting contributions earmarked for specific candidates, thereby bypassing the limitations that are in our laws today. Mr. President, these are the main provisions of my legislation to reform our campaign finance laws. As the Senate continues to address this most important issue, I encourage my colleagues to review these simple and workable proposals and to answer the American people's call for reform in this area.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I support Senator Bill Cohen, now Secretary of Defense-designate Bill Cohen, because I believe he believes in a strong national defense, and he will fight to make sure that commitment remains true. He believes that the President should consult with Congress before deploying American troops into harm's way. He believes that mistakes have been made in Bosnia, and I think he will keep his word when he gives it to Congress and to the American people regarding our role and the clear mission that must be stated in Bosnia. He believes that we should move into the expansion of NATO very carefully, understanding that this is a mutual defense pact, and that we want to always keep our treaty obligations and therefore we must be very careful as we give them to make sure that we are covered. Bill Cohen believes in privatization so that we will be able to maximize the use of our defense dollars for the readiness of our forces, the greatest forces on the face of the Earth today. I am pleased to support the nomination of Bill Cohen, and I do wish to commend the President for making this kind of bold move because I think he has heard many of the things Senator Cohen has said over the past few years about the role of defense, about the role of our military in this great country, and I hope the President will listen as we move forward together in a bipartisan way to the good advice I know Bill Cohen will give him regarding the issues that are going to be before us. We cannot go separately when we are talking about the troops and the strength of our American Armed Forces. So I do support this nomination, and I have every confidence that Bill Cohen will lead us into a strong national defense and also for America to keep all of its treaty obligations and to make sure that we have the missile defense technology to protect us and our shores and our troops when they are in the field. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Missouri for providing leadership on this very important issue. He was out there fighting for this issue from the first day he came to the Senate, and he has certainly demonstrated his commitment to family flexibility throughout his Government career. I am reminded of the speech that I heard my friend, Congresswoman Susan Molinari, give this summer. Congresswoman Molinari is a working mom. She says what we need most as working moms in this country is more hours in the day. Senator Ashcroft and I would like to provide more hours in the day. That is not an option for us. But we are going to do something that we think will be second best to producing more hours in a day for a working mom or a working dad who wants to work or is forced to work to make ends meet, either way, but yet also wants more time with his or her children. This bill will primarily benefit the hourly employees in our country. Because salaried employees are presently exempt from many federal wage and hour laws, this is not as much an issue for them. They and their employers are able to work out flexible work arrangements. But in the hourly category, employers and employees do not have that option. They are not able to do what anybody would think in this country is common sense; and that is sit down and say, ``Could I work 2 extra hours on Friday in order to take off at 3 o'clock to go to the PTA meeting on Monday?'' That is what Senator Ashcroft and I would like to do with the Family Friendly Workplace Act that we have introduced today. It is a fact that in two-thirds of the households in this country, both the mother and the father are working. In fact, 75 percent of the mothers of young children are now in the workplace. So we must address the ever-increasing demands on working moms and working dads--to allow them to have more time to do what they need to do to bring their families together and to keep them close-knit. This requires going to the PTA meetings, going to the afternoon basketball game, or to the soccer game, or whatever it is that will allow that family to bond together and maintain its strength, thereby strengthening our country. We all know that the family unit is the core strength of our nation, and if we allow that to deteriorate, then nothing else is going to matter. In the history of civilization, no country has ultimately survived where the family unit has deteriorated. That is why we are looking for creative ways to help the working family--and in this case it is the hourly wage working families who are struggling the hardest to make ends meet--to be able to do what they need to do for their families while maintaining a good working relationship with their employers and preserving their family income. The bill that Senator Ashcroft and I are introducing today will relieve stress in the family by allowing the employer and the hourly employee to sit down and negotiate to, for example, take off two hours today and work an additional two hours the following week, or perhaps to work an extra hour every day and bank that time for use when a family need arises, or to work required overtime and have a choice about whether they take time-and-a-half compensation or time and a half hours because then they can bank that time and do even more with their families. In fact, there was a poll conducted by Penn & Shoen and Associates that revealed that 75 percent of all employees would like to have the ability to choose between getting time-and-a-half in either wages or time. Fifty-seven percent would take time off instead of being paid, if the option were available. So why not make these options available? The Family Friendly Workplace Act makes these options available, on a totally voluntary basis. There are strict requirements in this law that will keep employers from in any way requiring or coercing an employee to work and not take overtime pay. We want to make sure that does not happen. That is why the law is written very carefully to make sure that it could not happen, and that it will only give employees and employers the ability to voluntarily sit down and do what they think make sense for their schedules and needs. Let me also mention that where there are union agreements in effect, this law will not affect those agreements. This legislation does not encroach on the collective bargaining of unions in any way. Rather, it would apply to employees who are not in unions who now are restricted by a wage-and-hour law that says you cannot have the option of working a couple of hours on Friday in order to take off at 3 o'clock on Monday. That is exactly what Senator Ashcroft and I seek to enact with this legislation. I commend Senator Ashcroft for his leadership in this area. We are going to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Rotunda to enact this very important legislation. We must grant hourly wage employees who have families in this country and the same options that people on salaries and, indeed, that federal employees already have. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back to the Senator from Missouri. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Missouri for providing leadership on this very important issue. He was out there fighting for this issue from the first day he came to the Senate, and he has certainly demonstrated his commitment to family flexibility throughout his Government career. I am reminded of the speech that I heard my friend, Congresswoman Susan Molinari, give this summer. Congresswoman Molinari is a working mom. She says what we need most as working moms in this country is more hours in the day. Senator Ashcroft and I would like to provide more hours in the day. That is not an option for us. But we are going to do something that we think will be second best to producing more hours in a day for a working mom or a working dad who wants to work or is forced to work to make ends meet, either way, but yet also wants more time with his or her children. This bill will primarily benefit the hourly employees in our country. Because salaried employees are presently exempt from many federal wage and hour laws, this is not as much an issue for them. They and their employers are able to work out flexible work arrangements. But in the hourly category, employers and employees do not have that option. They are not able to do what anybody would think in this country is common sense; and that is sit down and say, ``Could I work 2 extra hours on Friday in order to take off at 3 o'clock to go to the PTA meeting on Monday?'' That is what Senator Ashcroft and I would like to do with the Family Friendly Workplace Act that we have introduced today. It is a fact that in two-thirds of the households in this country, both the mother and the father are working. In fact, 75 percent of the mothers of young children are now in the workplace. So we must address the ever-increasing demands on working moms and working dads--to allow them to have more time to do what they need to do to bring their families together and to keep them close-knit. This requires going to the PTA meetings, going to the afternoon basketball game, or to the soccer game, or whatever it is that will allow that family to bond together and maintain its strength, thereby strengthening our country. We all know that the family unit is the core strength of our nation, and if we allow that to deteriorate, then nothing else is going to matter. In the history of civilization, no country has ultimately survived where the family unit has deteriorated. That is why we are looking for creative ways to help the working family--and in this case it is the hourly wage working families who are struggling the hardest to make ends meet--to be able to do what they need to do for their families while maintaining a good working relationship with their employers and preserving their family income. The bill that Senator Ashcroft and I are introducing today will relieve stress in the family by allowing the employer and the hourly employee to sit down and negotiate to, for example, take off two hours today and work an additional two hours the following week, or perhaps to work an extra hour every day and bank that time for use when a family need arises, or to work required overtime and have a choice about whether they take time-and-a-half compensation or time and a half hours because then they can bank that time and do even more with their families. In fact, there was a poll conducted by Penn & Shoen and Associates that revealed that 75 percent of all employees would like to have the ability to choose between getting time-and-a-half in either wages or time. Fifty-seven percent would take time off instead of being paid, if the option were available. So why not make these options available? The Family Friendly Workplace Act makes these options available, on a totally voluntary basis. There are strict requirements in this law that will keep employers from in any way requiring or coercing an employee to work and not take overtime pay. We want to make sure that does not happen. That is why the law is written very carefully to make sure that it could not happen, and that it will only give employees and employers the ability to voluntarily sit down and do what they think make sense for their schedules and needs. Let me also mention that where there are union agreements in effect, this law will not affect those agreements. This legislation does not encroach on the collective bargaining of unions in any way. Rather, it would apply to employees who are not in unions who now are restricted by a wage-and-hour law that says you cannot have the option of working a couple of hours on Friday in order to take off at 3 o'clock on Monday. That is exactly what Senator Ashcroft and I seek to enact with this legislation. I commend Senator Ashcroft for his leadership in this area. We are going to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Rotunda to enact this very important legislation. We must grant hourly wage employees who have families in this country and the same options that people on salaries and, indeed, that federal employees already have. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back to the Senator from Missouri. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think it is important today as we see a transference of power in Congress after duly-held elections that we pause to support the people who are standing, as we speak, in a frozen public square in Serbia, who are trying to have the same rights that we enjoy today in America. I think we must stand with the people of Serbia who have for 8 weeks been standing in the freezing cold to demand the results of their recent elections be implemented. Mr. President, the world watches in awe at the display of popular sovereignty in the former Yugoslavian Republic of Serbia. In 8 weeks it has built from a few thousand to over 400,000 people who have risen up in peaceful opposition to the regime of Slobodan Milosevic on whom the Clinton administration has pinned part of its hopes in the Balkans. We cannot help but admire the courage, the bravery, the commitment of the young people and the young at heart who are standing up for democracy. They are trying to bring about change through moral suasion and the strength of their convictions. As they do that, they remind the world that all governments everywhere borrow power from the people they serve, and the people can take that power back when they determine that they must. We have had many debates on this floor regarding the future in that most unfortunate part of the world. Today, we have tens of thousands of Americans on the ground in and around Bosnia to try to keep a tenuous peace, to keep the military factions apart that only recently were at war. We are in Bosnia at great cost. Our Balkans policy is confused. We have spent $5 billion and the meter is still running. Our troops will be on the ground for at least another year. At the same time, in neighboring Serbia, we are seeing the best example of peaceful self- determination. The people of Serbia are united on the principle of fair and democratic elections. The Milosevic regime is hanging on to an Old World order that will not remain. It will not remain because of the strength of the people. The United States should not stand idly by. The administration needed President Milosevic to reach the peace agreement in Dayton. So there has been a tendency to turn a blind eye to his faults, his protection of war criminals, his antidemocratic actions. But it is clear the people of Serbia are rising up and they are saying, ``No more.'' Because the administration helped create this situation in the Balkans, I think we have a special responsibility to exercise our influence on President Milosevic to honor the will of the Serbian people. Last month, representatives from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were invited to Serbia to investigate the election crisis. They attempted in vain to persuade President Milosevic to accept the municipal election results in 14 of 19 of Serbia's largest cities. The people are protesting to send a clear message that their votes matter and that no regime has the right to nullify the will of the people, from whom all governments borrow power. Mr. President, we pray that President Milosevic will accept the will of his people. We pray that this crisis will be resolved peacefully, and we pray that democracy will triumph in Serbia. Mr. President, I am urging President Clinton today to speak out with a clear, strong voice that the United States stands behind the Serbian people and that the results of the free elections that were held should be implemented. It is time for the peaceful demonstrators in Belgrade, in their fight for a self-determined nation and freedom, to prevail. I urge the President to use his influence with President Milosevic to stand down and let the results of those elections go forward. Mr. President, we are beginning a new session of Congress. We had elections, and now we are implementing the will of the people. It has been thus for over 200 years in this country. Maybe some of us take that right for granted--the right to vote and the right to know that our vote will be counted fairly. Mr. President, it is the time for Americans to ask everyone in the world to salute the people who are standing today, this very minute, freezing in Republic Square in Belgrade, standing for the right to do what we have done in the last few hours in Congress, and that is have a peaceful transition of power after duly held elections. Mr. President, the people of Serbia have spoken. It is time that all the people in the world stand behind them so that their spoken word will prevail.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, if someone is watching this debate today, they might think we are arguing about a labor bill. Mr. President, we are not arguing about a labor bill. Whether Federal Express can have one union or six unions is not the purpose of this bill, nor should it be the focus of this debate, nor should it have held up this Senate for the last 4 days. Because the issue here is whether we are going to reauthorize the FAA and give them the tools they need to keep our airlines and our airports safe. That is the issue. That is the importance of sending this bill to the President. Because if we get bottled up in other extraneous issues and procedures, Mr. President, what we are going to lose is the ability for the FAA to immediately deploy certification of the detection equipment that is necessary to protect air traffic passengers, the protection against terrorist bombs. That is what we are talking about today. The detection equipment we have today was put in place when we had hijacking as a problem in this country. And since that equipment has been put in place, we have not had hijackings of airlines in America. But that is not the same type of equipment you need to detect the sophisticated bombs that have been able to be put in buildings and airplanes around the world, or subway systems. So what we are trying to do is protect the traveling public. We are seeing smokescreens here about minute labor issues, and we are seeing procedural measures taken against a very important big-picture bill that will give the FAA the tools it needs. It will allow the FBI and the FAA to collaborate in every high-risk airport city. We need the FBI to work with the FAA because they have unique capabilities that are not there in the FAA. So we need that to happen. It can start today. Baggage match, something that is done for foreign travel, will now be looked at to see if we can do it domestically, so that if a passenger gets on a plane, we will know that that passenger is matched to bags in the compartment beneath, and we will not have bags going on a plane without the passenger that checked that bag in. We need to be able to allow the passenger facility charges and the fees that go on the airline tickets to be used for antiterrorism and safety measures. That will be authorized in this bill. Mr. President, we are not looking at deciding in Congress and spending 4 days of Congress' time to determine whether FedEx is going to have one union or six. Our purpose here today is to pass a bill that protects every American and every visitor to our country who is traveling in airports and on airplanes with the safety they deserve. We can do it if we will keep our eye on the ball and do what is responsible for the U.S. Senate. It would be irresponsible for us to allow some minor disagreement on a labor matter that does not have to be decided by Congress to, in fact, hold up a bill that will provide safety for flying passengers in America. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is hard to imagine that we are really still here, talking about whether we are going to vote on an aviation security bill. We know that we must have this. We are trying to respond in a responsible way to the potential for terrorism in our airports. We are trying to make sure that the FAA has the tools that it needs for safety. Yet, we are being held up on a really technical point, not to mention taking people away from what they need to be doing right now with regard to the rest of this session. I do not understand it. What we are talking about today is the most bipartisan solution to a real problem that we have in this Government, and that is the reauthorization of the FAA, which thousands of the traveling public depend on for the safety of our airline passengers, as well as the safety of our visitors to this country. We have the reauthorization before us, and it is October 1 and we are not able to move forward. I would like to talk about a few of the things that are in this bill which we cannot do today because we are in the middle of some kind of filibuster, which really is meaningless because we are going to vote on this bill sometime before the end of this week. But here is what we are not able to do today because this bill has not been passed. We are trying to get explosive detection devices certified by the FAA. There is $400 million in the continuing resolution that we passed last night, and it is for the technologies which are now available that we are not using in this country but that they are using in foreign countries for the detection of explosive devices that might be taken on an airplane. These devices that could be certified, right now, today, if we could pass this bill, cannot be deployed without this provision. So we are losing valuable time in getting the best of the technology. You may ask, ``Gosh, we put our bags through screens right now at airports.'' That is true, we do. But those screens were made to stop hijackers. Those screens were made to detect guns and knives, but not explosive devices, and particularly not the high-level, sophisticated explosive devices that we know are now on the market. But detection devices are available for those devices. We can detect those explosives if we can deploy the equipment and get it certified by the FAA, which we cannot do right now because this bill is being debated on a technicality that was decided by Congresses in the past and which has been decided by this Congress, and it is just a matter of time before we get to what will be an overwhelmingly positive vote that will show that this Congress has decided this issue. We would require background checks for baggage and passenger screeners. We believe it is prudent to have background checks on the contracted-out employees who are doing this screening. That is in this bill. The FAA would be able to audit the criminal records checks for tarmac-access employees. That is provided in this bill, if we can pass it. We are going to have a study that will determine if we can have baggage-match reports on domestic flights. One of the things that is done on overseas flights is matching baggage that is checked with the passengers. I believe this is going to be feasible on our domestic flights, because I think the technology is there that will keep us from having the delays that the airlines have been concerned about. So we want to be able to assess that, and that is provided for in this bill. But it is being held up now with this debate over a nonissue so that we are not going to be able to immediately go forward to implement tests on baggage match, which may be one of the most important ways to make our airlines and our airports more safe. We are also going to ask the FAA in this bill, when it is passed, to look at how we can improve security for mail, for cargo. It is important that the sense of the Senate in this bill which says we believe that cargo security can be enhanced be passed, because if we can enhance cargo security, that is one area that really is pervasive in our aviation system, and it is really the underbelly, to use a pun, of aviation security. We would require, in this bill, an aviation security/FBI liaison in cities with high-risk airports to coordinate with the FAA. This bill says that we think there needs to be a person in every FBI office where there is a high-risk airport--any airport that has international service--that in every FBI office, there should be a liaison with the FAA and with the airport to make sure that there is coordination, where information is exchanged, where the FBI can look at what the FAA is doing or what the airlines are doing for security, to give their opinion about whether it is sufficient or whether it could be improved. In fact, we would have a joint threat assessment by the FAA and the FBI, and they want that authorization. Both entities want to work together, and they want the authorization to do that. It makes sense. So why aren't they doing that? Because we are discussing a labor issue that was decided years ago. The people of America probably don't understand that, and many of us on this floor don't understand that either. We are talking about taking away the dual mandate of the FAA, which is promotion of the airlines and safety. That has always been a kind of a conflict that has had to be resolved from time to time, and we are taking promotion out, because the airlines do a good job of that. When the FAA was created back in the old days, airlines were just beginning, and people had to be convinced that airlines were going to be safe. But now we see the safety record of airlines, and it is terrific. You are safer on an airplane than driving to the airport, and that is a fact. So now we are going to make safety the mandate of the FAA, and that is proper, because passengers want to make sure that they are safe. I think of the families of the passengers on TWA Flight 800 who went to France this week. They are trying to put their lives back together. I think of what those families are thinking about, what their loved ones felt when they were thousands of feet above the ground and, through no fault of their own, their lives were taken from them, and they were helpless. We want to make it as safe as possible for every traveling American, and this bill will do it. Mr. President, there is no reason to be holding this bill up on matters that have been decided by this Congress. There is no reason to hold this bill up over a technical labor issue that has been decided by this Congress. We have so many important safety issues in this bill that are being addressed. We should be responsible and get this bill out today so that we do not delay for 1 more day the deployment of the explosive detection devices that are ready to go on line and into our airports to provide the level of safety that our passengers require, expect, and are entitled to. So, Mr. President, I hope that those who are holding up this bill, knowing that they will not succeed, but, nevertheless, imposing on their fellow colleagues to make some sort of point that is not being very well made and putting in jeopardy the safety of the flying public and people who go into airports by the hundreds of thousands in this country every day--we could be doing more, and we could be doing it right now. The FAA is waiting for this authorization. It is at hand. Why would we be delaying for the next 2 days when we could start the deployment today, this minute, of the explosive detection devices which are provided for in the continuing resolution that has already been signed by the President and all we need is the authorization to do it? It is not responsible, and I call on my colleagues who are holding this bill up and ask them to be responsible and help us address these issues for the safety of Americans and our families and our loved ones.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to ask the Senator from Arizona, besides the fact that we are going to have to come back and debate this for 2 more days, if there isn't another point; that is, what happens tomorrow? Tomorrow is October 1. I wonder how many States have airports with runways being built that might have to stop that construction. I wonder if there are air traffic control systems that are being improved that will not have the money tomorrow because we did not vote on this bill. I wonder if the Senator from Arizona knows there are some real issues that are going to be determined because there is not funding tomorrow for airport safety and terrorism and other very important airport issues that we have been talking about, as the Senator from Arizona knows, for months and months and months here trying to make sure that we fight terrorism, that we allow Americans to fly in safety and tomorrow, October 1, is the first day of the fiscal year. I just wondered if the Senator from Arizona would like to discuss what we are going to miss tomorrow and the next day while we play games on the Senate floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?