[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5235-S5248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAMILY FRIENDLY WORKPLACE ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see that I have another 15 minutes to
speak about this legislation before being able to focus my attention on
my major priority here today, which is the need to get disaster relief
to the people in Minnesota and the Dakotas and other States, who
deserve our help.
Mr. President, let me read a letter that I think is extremely
important as we go through and debate this piece of legislation.
Dear Senator Lott and Senator Daschle: The undersigned
national organizations represent many of the working women of
today. We believe passage of S. 4, the Family Friendly
Workplace Act, fails to offer real flexibility to the working
women it purports to help while offering a substantial
windfall to employers. We urge you to delay consideration
until a real solution can be found which truly meets the
needs of working women and families. Nearly half of the work
force is women and the number of women working multiple jobs
has increased more than four fold in the last 20 years. S. 4
would affect hourly workers, and most hourly workers are
women. The majority of minimum wage workers are women. Many
of these women depend on overtime pay. Many of them want more
control of their schedules, not less. Without strong
protections for workers, the comptime bill will cut women's
options and women's pay. For example--
And I will just read slowly.
Someone pressured into taking comp time when she really
wants or needs overtime pay is taking an involuntary pay cut;
Let me repeat that. That's an argument I have been making. These
organizations which I will list in a moment are right on the mark:
Someone pressured to taking comp time when she really wants
or needs overtime pay is taking an involuntary pay cut[.]
So, again I would say, when it comes to the enforcement machinery,
you have to deal with this whole issue.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield in just one moment. I will
finish reading the letter and I will be pleased to yield:
. . . supporters argue that S. 4 is voluntary and employees
have a ``choice,'' yet working women who have for decades
faced subtle (and not-so-subtle) forms of discrimination are
all too familiar with the potential consequences of not going
along with the employers' wishes: isolation, intimidation and
retaliation; and
. . . because employees do not control when or if they can
use their comp time, they are essentially being asked to
gamble on the chance that they will be able to take time when
it is as valuable to them as overtime pay.
This is pretty important because my understanding, with Federal
employees get to make that choice. That is a big difference here:
. . . because employees do not control when or if they can
use their comptime they are essentially being asked to gamble
on the chance that they will be able to take time when it is
as valuable to them as overtime pay.
This is my point again. We had an amendment which would improve this
bill. We could pass this bill which says: Look, you bank that time.
It's your time. It's your earned compensation. If you have compelling
reasons that you need that time off, sickness of child, sickness of
parent--you know, what's in the Family and Medical Leave Act--you
should be able to take the time off. You should not have to ask the
employer. It's your time:
S. 4 must be defeated. Women want flexibility in the
workplace, but not at the risk of jeopardizing their overtime
pay or the well-established 40 hour work week.
Sincerely, 9 to 5, National Association of Working Women,
American Nurses Association, Business and Professional Women,
National Council of Jewish Women, National Women's Law
Center, Women's Legal Defense Fund.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
I might also add there is a coalition of 180 national civil rights,
religious and working women's organizations which oppose this
legislation: League of Women Voters, National Women's Political Caucus,
National Women's Law Center, American Association of University Women,
National Organization for Women, Women's Legal Defense Fund, National
Counsel of Senior Citizens, NAACP, National Urban League, National
Council of La Raza, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Union
of American Hebrew Congregations, Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, National Council of Churches.
Mr. President, in addition, and then I will yield for a question, a
couple of other organizations: Mechanical Contractors Association of
America, Incorporated, National Electrical Contractors Association,
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association,
AFL-CIO, American Nurses Association, National Education Association,
American Federation of Teachers, Union of Needle Industry and Textile
Employees, Service Employees International Union, Communications
Workers of America, United Steelworkers of America, Communications
Workers of America, United Auto Workers, the International Association
of Machinists, Laborers' International Union of North America, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Mr. President, you know, it has become fashionable to do all this
bashing of unions, but I have to say this. As a matter of fact, above
and beyond all these women's organizations, unions really in the last
half of the century-plus have been the only institutions which have
consistently represented the bottom half of the population, those
people who do not own all the capital and do not own the big
corporations and depend on the wages and depend on being able to get
overtime when they work overtime, and depend upon being able to bring
in the resources to support families. It would seem to me, if this was
such a great deal for working families and for working women, the very
organizations which represent women and so many working people in this
country would be all for it. Yet, you have major opposition.
So, I will be pleased to yield for a question, if the Senator has a
question. But otherwise I will continue to make the case that this
legislation, in its present form, is going nowhere. I am sorry for
that, because my colleague has worked hard on it. But this legislation,
it really violates some very cherished principles that have to do with
[[Page S5236]]
fairness in the workplace: Decent wages, overtime wages for overtime
work, and giving employees--employees--employees the flexibility. This
legislation does not do that, Mr. President.
Now, Mr. President, since I have not been asked to yield for a
question----
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he would yield for
a question? He had indicated earlier he would. If he still is of a mind
to yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry, I am being careful about keeping the
floor. I will be pleased to yield for a question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask if the Senator from Minnesota is aware that the
law would be enforced as it is written and not as it its characterized
in that letter? I do not have any doubt that people could oppose the
law as it is represented in that letter that was written by all the
labor unions. The letter says that a person who takes comptime forever
loses their right to the money. That is just simply wrong.
The law provides, not only do you have a choice about whether you
want comptime, whether you want to be paid time and a half--and that is
a clear choice and it is a choice that is to be made without any
coercion, indirect or direct, or intimidation indirect or direct, or
threatening--but, even after you have made that decision the law
provides, not the letter but the law provides you can change your mind
and decide to cash out your benefits. So, if you want the money you
have the ability to say I am just going to take the money.
So, my view is I wondered if the Senator were aware of those kinds of
things?
Second, if I could ask a second question, I wonder if the Senator is
aware that there have been a group of people come to the floor over the
last several hours who have come to me with amendments, some of which
are specifically directed toward points of concern raised by the
Senator, but that the Senator is unable to consider them as long as the
Senator from Minnesota continues to monopolize the floor and to say
that no one else will have a chance to work constructively on the bill?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me respond to my colleague's second
question first.
I am very well aware of the fact that Senators may want to come to
the floor with amendments and I have said a number of times, and my
colleague has been here during this long afternoon, I apologize for the
inconvenience, but, quite frankly, right now my focus is not on whether
or not some Senators can bring some amendments to this bill.
My focus is on men, women, and children back in Minnesota, in
communities, many of whom have been flooded out of their homes, have
been devastated, many of whom have supported one another, have loved
one another. And right now they have been waiting and waiting and
waiting, and waiting, and the House of Representatives went into recess
and did not pass a disaster relief bill.
A disaster is a disaster. And an emergency supplemental is an
emergency supplemental. So I am going to continue to be on the floor
and I am going to continue to speak. If that means that the Senate
cannot conduct business as usual, then I say to my colleague, that is
the way it should be. Because, quite frankly, at this moment, at this
point in time, my one priority is to fight like heck for people back in
the State.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I actually will not yield for a
question right now because I want to respond to the first question
first.
Mr. President, I will just say to my colleague--and I put him at a
disadvantage because I have the floor right now--that based upon my
knowledge of him, and I do not know his as well as I would like to, I
think he would be doing the same thing.
There comes a point in time when you do not have any other choice.
You have to use your language. You have to be out there fighting for
people in your State.
We tried to appeal, I say to my colleague, in answering this
question, we tried to appeal to common sense. That did not work. We
tried to appeal to the goodness of people. That did not work. We tried
to appeal on the basis of ``we have supported you when your States have
been hit with these disasters and please support us.'' That did not
work.
The leadership in the House, if you can call it leadership, did
something which is unconscionable. They just went into recess. It was
insensitive. And now I come back and people are still waiting. We do
not even know whether they are going to do it this week.
So I say to my colleague, yes, if it means I am inconveniencing
colleagues, Republicans or Democrats, I am sorry, but this is what I am
going to do. And, you know, I will be here for a while and I will stay
at this all week and next week if I have to, as well. I am going to
fight for people in Minnesota. No apologies.
By the way, it does not matter to me whether or not the people who
were flooded out of the homes were Republicans or Democrats or
Independents or none of the above. They are entitled to some
assistance, and they are entitled to it now. This Senate is not going
to be conducting business as usual until we get our priorities
straight.
In response to the first question, I guess this is an honest
disagreement. I mean, this letter says that someone could be pressured
into taking comptime when she really wants or needs overtime pay. That
is what I have been talking about. I believe they are right.
Mr. ASHCROFT. There is a second choice.
Mr. WELLSTONE. But, Mr. President, the fact of the matter is that it
is only in theory. My colleague has constructed this theory, and it is
a theory that employees have a choice. I have organized with people at
workplaces. I have worked with people who are working under conditions
that I sometimes say to them, ``Look, you are going to lose your
hearing. Or, you're breathing in substances that are going to take
years of your life.'' They said, ``We have no choice. This is the only
job we can find.'' People do not always have the choice. It is not an
equal power relationship; that is not the world of the workplace.
And even if my colleague was right--and I wish he was and this theory
would turn out to be true and it would be the reality--why not, if you
want a piece of legislation, why not err on the side of caution? Why
not have a clear provision as in the alternative by Senators Baucus and
Kerrey and Landrieu? Why not have clear protection against that
discrimination?
The second thing is, you can say that employees are protected from
coercion, but it is not clear that that protects them from the
discrimination.
Mr. President, the third point is whether or not people will be able
to take their accumulated comptime and use it when they need to. And we
do not have any guarantee of that in this legislation.
So, Mr. President, I think that the women's organizations and labor
organizations that have written their letters and said, look, this is
not going to help working people, are right on the mark.
Mr. President, I also want to cover for a moment the differences
between the Federal workers program and S. 4. Let me just go over some
things. Federal employees--I will read for a moment--have job
protections that private sector workers do not. Federal workers are
covered by civil service rules requiring good cause for discharge or
discipline. Private employees typically are at-will employees, who an
employer can fire or discipline for any reason or no reason. As long as
we are talking about parity, maybe we ought to turn this around.
Mr. President, I would be pleased to go back to this debate later on.
But now I want to focus on what I think is the most important priority
for this Congress, and that is to get disaster relief to people in my
State and to other States where people have been affected by the
floods.
I would like one more time to say, I am sorry. I mean, I apologize to
my colleague from Missouri, and I apologize to other colleagues for the
inconvenience. But I have promised myself that I would do everything I
could do. And I think maybe by speaking on the floor and holding the
floor, I can get attention to this unfinished business, that I can put
some pressure on people here--I am just being very honest about it--and
I can just fight. This is the way you fight.
[[Page S5237]]
I hope, I say to my colleagues, that this disaster relief bill is put
on the fast track and that people will get the work done. I want to be
real clear that this has been, up until the last couple days before the
Memorial Day recess, the opposite of sour. It was bipartisan. Thank
you. I mean, thank you, Republicans; thank you, Democrats. We worked
together. We put together a really good package. Senator Stevens was
very sensitive and very committed to what we were saying and went out
of his way to help. The majority leader, Senator Lott, was helping us.
I do not believe that the House of Representatives being unwilling to
deal with this, instead going home, was what the majority leader
wanted. But this is the deck of cards that we have been dealt.
At this point in time, it is really a moral outrage. I am going to
stay at this until the Congress does the right thing for the people in
Minnesota, the people in the Dakotas.
This is an article written by Nick Coleman, Tim Nelson, and Brian
Bonner, who are staff writers for the Pioneer Press. This will give
colleagues a feel for why I am out here. This was written on Saturday,
April 19, 1997:
The river won.
The Red River of the North overwhelmed months of massive
efforts to keep it at bay Friday, bursting over, around and
through the dikes of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, Minn.,
surging down evacuated streets and rapidly drowning hundreds
of homes.
Air raid sirens on both sides of the bloated river wailed
ominously all day and night as first one dike, then another
succumbed to the river, which in a few short hours made a
mockery of the effort to contain it.
Late last night, Grand Forks Mayor Pat Owens interrupted
local TV programming to urge the entire city of 50,000 people
to voluntarily evacuate their homes and businesses and
prepare for possible forced evacuation.
With the Red on the rise last night to a predicted crest of
54 feet--a full 25 feet above flood stage--the overmatched
dike sagged like the sides of a child's sandcastle at the
beach.
By the end of the day, several abandoned neighborhoods were
swamped in roof-high water. After darkness fell, the
situation appeared critical: Water had begun to seep up
through downtown sewers, and the city's emergency operation
center was forced to move from downtown to the outlying
University of North Dakota.
On the Minnesota side, most of East Grand Forks was under
order to evacuate and 400 additional National Guardsmen were
on the way to aid the city of 8,000.
And I say to my colleagues, I was there the day that people from East
Grand Forks evacuated. And the people, they were like refugees. People
were dazed.
Normally divided by the Red River, the two cities found
themselves joined in misery by a spreading river that knows
no borders. At nightfall, the last bridge linking them was
nearly submerged.
A should have said earlier also that one of the amazing things was
the way in which--and this would be the same thing in Missouri or
Kansas--people from the adjoining towns took people into their homes.
It was amazing. People showed up. Even towns with all the rivalry where
the high schools were always in big football games against one another,
and people hardly had a good thing to say about one another, partly out
of rivalry, people just welcomed their neighbors. That was the goodness
of people.
That is what is so frustrating. People have done it right. They have
done exactly what they are supposed to do. They have showed a real
sense of community. This Congress has showed no sense of community.
People back in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks and Warren and Ada, you
name it, and other communities, they have shown a real sense of
goodness. We have not.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would yield for a question in just a moment.
Mr. President, I want to continue to read this article first.
On the Minnesota side, most of East Grand Forks was under
order to evacuate--
Mr. President, I will yield for a question, but just for a question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. A point of clarification: Is the Senator aware that the
U.S. Senate passed a supplemental appropriations measure that would
carry the relief? I think the Senator is aware of that. And when the
Senator says this Congress has been irresponsible, I wonder if he means
what the Senate did was irresponsible when it passed that kind of
relief or----
Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, Mr. President, I made it crystal clear
today that the House----
Mr. ASHCROFT. Well----
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will say to my colleague, I have the floor. I made
it clear, Mr. President, that I cannot believe that the House of
Representatives went into recess. But it is also true--and I have
thanked colleagues in the Senate for their work--but I am telling you,
somebody has got to make it clear, and our colleagues from the Dakotas
feel just as strongly, and they have made it clear, that business as
usual is not going to go on. We will use our leverage as Senators.
It is also true, however, that even on the Senate side, on the
majority side, I am sorry to say, there is the idea that you should
attach extraneous measures to the disaster bill. That is not
acceptable. That was in the Senate bill.
All this discussion about a CR, good people back in our States do not
understand what in the world people are doing playing games. That is
why I talk about this Congress.
Now, Mr. President, Let me go on.
Normally divided by the Red River, the two cities found
themselves joined in misery by a spreading river that knows
no borders. At nightfall, the last bridge linking them was
nearly submerged.
Soon after that, the National Weather Service issued an
ominous assessment, raising the crest forecast by a foot.
``This situation is unlike any flooding conditions ever
experienced in eastern North Dakota and northwest
Minnesota.'' Confounded by the effects of overland flooding
and a rapid melt, it was the fifth time in five days that the
Weather Service had revised the crest forecast.
It didn't take an official bulletin to inform Grand Forks
residents they were in deep trouble.
What was so sad about this, I had visited several times earlier and
people did everything they could. There were high school kids out there
sandbagging. It was a great community effort. People were working day
and night. They started very early on. We knew we had a lot of snow.
People were worried about this. They did everything they could to get
ready for this.
It didn't take an official bulletin to inform Grand Fork
residents they were in deep trouble.
The scene in the deserted Lincoln Park area of Grand Forks
Friday afternoon was one of almost eerie splendor, with the
sound of rushing streams of water drowning out all other
noises except the whumping of Coast Guard helicopters
overhead and the sirens. If it weren't for the fact that
hundreds of homes were being devastated while their helpless
owners waited out the flood in safety, you would think you
were on the banks of an untamed northern river.
And you'd be right.
Millions of sandbags, millions of dollars, hundreds of
thousands of hours and months of planning were not enough.
Bolstered by a rise in the Red Lake River, which flows into
the Red at East Grand Forks, as well as by unprecedented
overland flooding to the south--upstream on the north-flowing
river, the Red surpassed all expectations and its dikes with
an ease that was awe-inspiring to witness.
Water spilling over the dike several blocks to the south
was rushing knee-high along Lanark Avenue, then cascading
down a block-long stretch of pavement that has been
transformed into a foaming spillway.
A few blocks away, the surging river poured over a 12-foot-
high dike on Lincoln Drive, roaring like a waterfall and
threatening to burst, unleashing the massive amount of flood
water that had been held back by the dikes until yesterday.
Fireplace logs, plastic snowmen, sofa cushions, and chunks
of ice drifted past in the rapid current, sweeping past
stacks of sandbags, shovels and piles of sand. ``We're sad
about our city and what's happening,'' Grand Forks Mayor Pat
Owens said tearfully. ``It is very devastating to all of us.
If I were to say one thing to the people of Grand Forks it
would be keep the faith and we will make it through.''
Under a bright spring sky, with lovely cumulus clouds on
the horizon and birds singing nesting songs, Grand Forks was
receiving the pent-up wrath of a winter of record cold and
snow. Temperatures soared into the low 60's for the first
time in April and residents of Grand Forks dressed in short
sleeves as they turned out by the thousands in one last-ditch
effort to hold some of the dikes.
All nonessential businesses were asked to close and to
steer their employees towards the front lines. Cars, pickups
and National Guard trucks raced up and down the muddy streets
of Grand Forks, giving the city the look of a wartime
capital.
The scene in a packed McDonald's restaurant on South
Washington Street seemed right out of a disaster movie. A
woman, her sweatshirt caked with mud, sobbed as she embraced
a friend and told him that her house in the Riverside Park
area of the town was inundated.
Other muddy-booted patrons stood in line for a hot meal
while, in the background, a
[[Page S5238]]
TV emergency channel blared the latest warnings.
``Riverside, Central Park, Lincoln Park areas, please leave
at once,'' the message said. ``Critical areas at this time
are the Olson Drive and Elmwood Drive areas. Take with you
medication, pillow, blankets, immediate clothing needs.''
Evacuation at dawn.
Evacuations along the Red River started before dawn: at
5:45 a.m., the City of Grand Forks sounded emergency sirens--
even though almost 1,000 people in the lowest area of the
city had left their homes hours before.
Authorities did, however, have to clear out a nursing home,
relocating 106 elderly residents to the library of an
elementary school a few blocks away.
All told, 2,000 residents of nearly 800 homes along the
river in Grand Forks had been ordered to leave after the
river starting pouring over the dike south of downtown.
By 10 a.m. the water was running knee deep in the streets,
and by evening, it was lapping against the windowsills of a
handful of the lowest homes.
Officials estimated that more than 4,000 people--nearly 10
percent of this city's 50,000 residents--would have to find
shelter elsewhere Friday night, and even more were moving
away from an expected break in the city's Riverside dike. At
9 p.m., officials ordered the southern end of downtown Grand
Forks to evacuate. A few hours later, the mayor made an
appeal for everyone in the city to leave.
The Minnesota side.
On the other side of the river, East Grand Forks authority
sent police cars through streets before dawn, exhorting the
city's 9,000 residents to wake up and go immediately to the
city's sandbagging facility to start filling bags.
The levees on the Minnesota side of the Red River started
giving way Friday morning, prompting frantic sandbagging in
the city's Point neighborhood. It had been cut off after the
Red Lake River--a tributary that is one half of the area's
famed forks--turned out of its channel and started running
overland.
Gary Sanders, a consulting engineer who works for East
Grand Forks, Minn., estimated that as many as a third of that
city's homes might have to be evacuated. He and other
officials spent much of the day struggling to stem the
breaches in the city's dikes, hoping that massive pumps might
be able to drain the area of the city along the river.
A sandbagging operation in East Grand Forks turned into a
crisis at midafternoon Friday, when part of a dike holding
back the Red Lake River gave way. It sent water gushing
through a neighborhood just south of the Louis A. Murray
Bridge.
Dozens of emergency crews with heavy machinery rushed first
to repair the breach and then to evacuate dozens of residents
from their homes. Polk County Sheriff Douglas Qualley
eyeballed Murray Bridge and expressed concern about whether
it would hold.
There was reason for concern.
``We had just got done shoring up on the west side of the
bridge,'' said [a volunteer]. ``We went to take a break, and
all of a sudden it just started coming in.''
Mr. President, that was another impressive thing. Not only the high
school students, but the ways in which all of the students--university,
college, vo-tech, community college students--were out there
volunteering. It is just incredible the way in which the worst of times
can bring out the best in people. Sometimes I wish it would not take
the worst in times. I wish we would all be like that all the time. But
the students were great, really a great help.
Within 20 minutes, the southern section of the bridge was
submerged and water--sometimes settling to depths of five
feet--rushed south down Third Avenue Southeast.
Jim Maughton, an Army National Guardsman working on the
bridge, said water gushed at ``10,000 gallons a minute'' at
its peak.
Vince and Sue Taylor, carrying a couple of plastic bags,
trudged along with their two children.
Mr. President, that gives you a feel for some of what was happening.
This is Sunday, April 20, 1997.
A city was sinking in the night.
Occasional bursts of eerie blue light in the black sky
signaled the demise of electrical transformers.
Water boiled up from the sewers, spurting in fountains that
were quickly submerged in rising water as the river sought to
equalize itself on both sides of failing dikes.
Downtown Grand Forks was going under. Dikes were giving way
along both sides of the Red River of the North.
Like some proud ocean liner fatally damaged by an iceberg,
Grant Forks was dead in the water, filling up fast. And there
was not a thing anyone could do but leave.
Everywhere, between the warble of the sirens, emergency
vehicles splashed through the streets, blaring warnings over
loudspeakers. ``All residents are ordered to evacuate this
area. Get out now!''
Signs in dorm windows at the University of North Dakota
said, ``Build the ark.'' But arks weren't necessary in the
darkness separating Friday from Saturday, struggle from
catastrophe, hope from despair.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I only yield for a question, I do not
yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield only for a question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator for yielding for a question with
the understanding he retains the floor after the question is asked.
Both the House and Senate passed the emergency supplemental
appropriations bills. Conferees have been appointed by both of the
Houses, but the conferees must report out a conference report which
must go to the House of Representatives first for passage before
ultimately the Senate gets a chance to act on it.
Now the Senator, by expressing his concern in such a lengthy way--
over concern, obviously, for individuals for whom we have great
sympathy--the Senator blocks the Senate from doing its business even
though the Senate cannot act on the emergency supplemental
appropriations bill at this point in time.
Is the Senator aware of the fact that we are being kept from doing
our business which is appropriate for us to do and that it is now
impossible for us to act on a matter of greatest concern to him?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague that actually the conference
committee is meeting to do their work right now and that goes on right
now. Believe me you, when the conference committee finishes its work
and we get this piece of legislation, then we will move on it right
away and I will not be on the floor then. I think my colleague confuses
matters a little bit in the terms of the sequence of all of this.
I remind my colleague one more time that the only reason--we should
not be ahistoric. We only have to go to the question, why am I on the
floor now? The only reason I am on the floor is because after all the
work that we did in a bipartisan way to get help to people who really
needed some certainty that they would receive some assistance, the
House of Representatives' leadership decided not to do the work. They
did not agree to let through what we do not disagree on. They did not
do their work, and they went on vacation.
Now we are back here and I am on the floor of the Senate today, you
bet, to signal to colleagues in the House and my colleagues here, let's
get it done and get this bill out and stop playing games.
As to the inconvenience, toward my colleagues on other legislation
which is important, I am really sorry, but in all due respect I do not
think there is anybody here that is as inconvenienced by my holding the
floor for a little bit of time today as are the people of Minnesota and
the Dakotas. They are in the ones inconvenienced. They were
inconvenienced by the House leadership refusing to do the work and just
going on vacation. They have been inconvenienced by the games that
people have played with this, attaching amendments dealing with a
continuing resolution. People do not know a thing about continuing
resolutions in Grand Forks or East Grant Forks nor should they have to.
They have been inconvenienced by other amendments that have been put
on this bill.
I refer back to the St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial, in which the
argument was made that it was important to stop playing games.
Mr. President, people are not stupid. People are intelligent. They
know full well when they see Representatives or Senators using their
pain as leverage. They know what is going on.
So, Mr. President, I again read an editorial. Believe me, there are
plenty of editorials like this in papers in our States.
Congress can't resist political gamesmanship.
Congress has breezed out of town, leaving Washington for a
long holiday recess. Despite evidence to the contrary,
congressional bigwigs figured satisfying their political egos
was more important than expediting flood relief legislation
that would aid, among other backwaters, Minnesota and the
Dakotas.
So, Mr. President, let me just be crystal clear about what is going
on here. I come to the floor today to focus on priorities. And the
priority should be simple. The priority for the House of
[[Page S5239]]
Representatives and the Senate, for the conference committee, for our
Congress this week, should be to pass a disaster relief bill. And I am
going to make it very difficult for people to conduct business as usual
until we do that. I think the Chair would do the same thing if it was
Kansas. I really do. I am sorry to speak for the Chair. I know he can't
speak. But I really think that it doesn't have a heck of a lot to do
with party. It just has a lot to do with you just do what you can do to
fight the people, and this is the way for me to do it.
Mr. President, since I have spoken a lot about what has not happened
so far and what needs to happen, let me talk a little bit about
Breckenridge. I have not spoken much about Breckenridge, MN.
In the dark, water lapped up the streets, moving as
inexorably as the hands on a clock.
This is a piece, again, in the Pioneer Press by Nick Coleman.
Breckenridge was going under; the flood had outflanked the
city's dikes.
In the worst flooding so far this season, hundreds of homes
and businesses on the south side of Breckenridge were caught
by a rapidly rising second flood crest that took the city
off-guard and quickly became more devastating than the first
wave of flooding that hit 10 days ago.
Bleary-eyed city officials, assisted by bone-tired troops
from the Minnesota Army National Guard, evacuated 400
residents Monday night and Tuesday, trying desperately to
keep the city of 3,700 from going completely under.
Mr. President, I would really like to thank the National Guard. I
have not done that today. They have done a great job. It is incredible.
So many people back in Minnesota and the Dakotas have done a great
job, and we have done such a miserable job here. I am not delaying
disaster relief. My colleagues are delaying disaster relief. And as
soon as the supplemental bill is ready to bring before the Senate,
bring it before the Senate. Believe me, I will not stand in its way.
This is entirely in the hands of my colleagues. It is entirely in the
hands of my colleagues what happens. And I intend to be on this floor
for some period of time to make it crystal clear that I am not going to
be silent until we do the right thing here. It is that simple.
I ought to add that tomorrow evening the flood Senators will come to
the floor and speak from 6 p.m. until 6 a.m. on the need for disaster
assistance. I will get a chance to speak at 6 p.m. until 9 p.m. Do you
know that 3 hours isn't enough time? I mean, there isn't enough time to
try and make the case to my colleagues to do the right thing and please
get the help to people.
By Tuesday evening, parts of south Breckenridge were under
5 or more feet of water and the floodwaters continued to
swell. The water was so deep that when a 5-ton Army truck
veered off the curb, a National Guardsman was shoulder deep
in the driver's seat, craning his neck to keep his chin above
water and reaching down to the submerged gears to drive it
out. An exhaust stack kept if from stalling.
Residents dumped loads of dirt near a railroad line that
cuts across town, hoping to stop the flood halfway through
the city.
But officials worried the flood would encircle them from
the north. Efforts to sandbag around a nursing home failed
after a night of effort.
Dorothy Pierce, 77, came out of her house on the strong
back of a 19-year-old National Guard trooper named Conrad
Anderson, a specialist with the Duluth-based Co. C of the
434th Main Supply Battalion. Anderson ferried Pierce from her
house on Second Street through the darkness in hip-high water
to the safety of a Guard truck.
``I just moved here from Nebraska in November,'' Pierce
said while sitting uncomfortably on a canvas tarp in the back
of the truck as it made its bumpy way back to high ground.
``We don't do stuff like this in Nebraska. I got here just in
time for the biggest blizzard I ever saw and the only flood I
ever saw.''
Evacuated with Pierce was her son, Lonnie, his wife,
Debbie, and the couple's three young children, Jena, 8,
Donald, 6, and Dillon, 2. The children, sitting on the floor
and clutching their mom, could be heard crying in the pitch-
black covered troop carrier as it drove through the flood.
Mama, I'm scared and I'm cold and it's dark,'' Jena said to
Debbie Pierce. ``There's nothing to be scared of,'' Debbie
Pierce reassured her children, hugging them tight. ``We're
all safe.''
But under a hazy half moon and in a biting chill,
Breckenridge was on red alert.
Crews of sandbaggers labored through the night Monday in a
vain attempt to stave off the wandering Bois de Sioux River,
which jumped its banks and went overland, creeping into the
city from the unprotected southeastern side.
Everywhere, diesel engines throbbed as dump trucks carrying
sand, flatbed trucks carrying as many as 50 volunteer
sandbaggers and National Guard trucks on midnight mercy
missions roared up and down the streets and slogged into the
rising tide.
But the situation was critical, the weather nasty and the
outcome in doubt.
``We face a real possibility of the whole town going
under,'' police Chief Dennis Milbrandt told the National
Guard's Col. Gary Sigfrinius Tuesday morning as crews
prepared to construct a makeshift dirt dike along the
railroad tracks that separate the city's north and south
sides.
Nearby, three 5-ton Army trucks slowly splashed through
cab-high waters on Fifth Street, carrying 41 elderly
residents of a senior citizens apartment building that was
being evacuated as water poured into the first floor.
Reaching the still-dry railroad tracks, the gray-haired
evacuees, clutching suitcases and wearing blankets to ward
off the 30-degree temperatures and 7-degree wind chill, were
helped off by teen-age Guard troops.
``I never thought I'd have to be fed by the Red Cross,''
said 79-year-old Margaret Olson as she was lifted in her
wheelchair from the back of an Army truck. ``I've had three
strokes and colon cancer but this is something very different
and I'm happy to be on dry ground again.''
Lonnie Pierce, Breckenridge's utility director, said the
rapid rise of the floodwaters had inundated both his family's
home and his mother's home. After hours of battling with sump
pumps and sandbags to try to save their homes, the Pierces
had been forced to make a choice: Save the family or save the
house.
``It came in awful quick here, awful high,'' said Pierce,
36. ``Christ Almighty, we'll lose a lot of houses,'' he said,
peering out the back of the truck as it chugged slowly past
the silent, flooded homes of his neighbors, pushing a gentle
wake through the black waters that lapped against the houses.
``There's just no end to this. We haven't gotten one break.
All this water was out there and we couldn't do anything
about it. It was bound to come.''
Located where two swollen rivers--the Bois de Sioux and the
Otter Tail--join to form the Red River of the North,
Breckenridge picked a poor campsite.
Forecasters thought the Red River's record crest of 19.18
feet at Breckenridge last week was as high as if was going to
get. But the river was at 19.10 and rising at midday Tuesday,
with officials fearing it could pass 20 feet.
The first round of flooding damaged the city's north side,
as the Otter Tail River overflowed. This time, it is the Bois
de Sioux cascading into ``South Breck,'' as residents here
call the south side of the city.
I am going to go on, Mr. President, and read just for the Chair. I
have been speaking this afternoon about a couple of different issues.
But most of the time I have been focusing on the need to get disaster
relief to my home. I again apologize to my colleagues who have not been
able to bring amendments to the floor and to those who came and maybe
didn't want to hear one speaker speak all day. But this is just an
impossible situation.
I mean we have had people that have been flooded out of their homes.
Almost everybody in East Grand Forks had to leave. We have schools and
hospitals destroyed in towns like Ada, and people have done everything
right. They have supported one another. And we are supposed to get some
relief to them. Instead, people have been playing political games in
the House of Representatives. Rather than getting the work done, they
went on vacation. They went on recess. They didn't even have the
decency to provide the assistance to people.
Now we are back in conference committee, and people are playing
games.
So I am using my leverage as a Senator to be out here and to say we
are not going to have business as usual for a while, and I am going to
fight for people in my State. That is why I am out here reading about
this flooding.
This flooding is much more severe than the first and the
potential is worse yet: Breckenridge is looking down a three-
barreled gun, with the possibility that the Red, the Bois de
Sioux and the Otter Tail may meet in the middle of town.
``This whole year has just sucked,'' said Beth Meyer, a 35-
year-old hairstylist who rode a National Guard truck into her
flooded Seventh Street home after midnight to help evaluate
her 10-year-old daughter, Samantha, and the family poodle,
Whitney Houston.
Meyer's husband, Mark, and 13-year-old son, Kyle, remained
behind, sandbagging and pumping to try to save the house.
In January, the roof caved in on the salon where Meyer
works in Wahpeton, ND, across the Red River from
Breckenridge. For the past three weeks, the Meyers and other
South Breck residents have gone without phone service and
been forced to go to an emergency phone bank outside the
Wilkin County Courthouse, which itself was closed by
floodwaters Tuesday.
The National Guard has taken over the school where the
Meyer children already
[[Page S5240]]
have missed four weeks due to blizzards and flooding. And
since the first flood crest hit the city 10 days ago, the
family has not been able to flush its toilets. If they needed
to relieve themselves, cans were required.
Wearing a heavy Army jacket lent to her by a trooper, Beth
Meyer maintained an exasperated sense of humor about the
never-ending battle.
``We call this the Year from Hell,'' Meyer said as she
gathered up her daughter in the dark.
``We're the South Breck Islanders. We're already talking
about the party we're going to have this summer, if it ever
dries out. We're all going to get together for an island
party and we're going to have a little rubber pool in the
middle of the street. With a sump pump in it.''
``This is very scary stuff,'' said Scott Wermerskirchen, a
35-year-old science teacher who was helping out at a
barricade Monday night. ``I don't want to think about what
will happen if we get an inch of rain. We might as well write
a big check and shut the town down.''
Although Breckenridge was continuing the fight, there was a
palpable edge of discouragement in the chilly air Monday
night and Tuesday morning, with the mood of the residents
deflating with each increase in the water level.
``We got up this morning thinking we didn't have anything
to worry about,'' said Kirk Peterson as he navigated in a
fishing boat through the 5 feet of water in his back yard at
2 a.m. Tuesday.
The floodwater was almost up to the top of his garage door
and was running through the first floor of the house where he
and his wife, Jackie, live on Second Street.
``So much for finished oak floors,'' Peterson said acidly,
using a flashlight to peer through the window in to his
darkened home.
Peterson, a salesman, and his wife are ``River Rats,''
meaning they belong to a Department of Natural Resources
program designed to preserve and clean up state rivers. With
his flashlight, Peterson illuminated a sign in his flooded
window: ``Please Keep the River Clean,'' it said.
Peterson and a friend, Errow Hensch, maneuvered their boat
to a clothes pole in the back yard. Monday morning, when he
first measured the rising waters, 11 inches of the pole were
under water. By 8 p.m., 51 inches were under. And at 2 a.m.
Tuesday, as his boat bumped against passing ice chunks and
the strangely orange moon glittered off the water, the tide
had risen to an even 5 feet.
``I hate to say it, but I wonder whether this whole city
won't really go under,'' Peterson said as he steered the boat
to help rescue a neighbor, Dave Shockley. ``If we were smart,
we would all have moved out in February.''
Mr. President, as it turns out, Breckenridge was hit hard with
flooding but not totally flooded out, and people are rebuilding and
people are celebrating. Yes, they are celebrating the help that they
gave one another. And I say to the Chair, because I know of his own
small business background and his commitment to small business, it was
in Breckenridge that I really first got a feel for what the small
business people were thinking about. They took me to their businesses
which had just been destroyed by the flooding, and they said to me,
look, Paul, or Senator, we are hearing about the Federal Emergency
Management assistance, and we know they can do some repair for the
infrastructure in the town, and then we are hearing about the Small
Business Administration loans, but we can't cash-flow loans. It will
not do us any good at all.
So all of us in a bipartisan effort got together, and we put together
a good disaster relief bill with about $500 million in CDBG money for
all the States affected. But this CDBG money was going to give the
States, Mr. President, the flexibility to get some direct grant money
to some of the businesses, and homeowners who needed it who could not
cash-flow any more loans.
And that is what people are still waiting on. People do not know
whether or not they are part of a buyout if they are living in a
floodplain. People wonder, do we leave or do we stay? If we leave, are
we going to have assistance? Is that coming? The State cannot make
plans to do that. The cities cannot make plans to do that. The small
businesses are still waiting. People are getting discouraged, and
people are getting pretty angry. Frankly, they are probably angry at
all of us. They are probably angry at all of us except for some of my
colleagues from North Dakota, who have just been out here over and over
again, and South Dakota and some of the other States; they have been
speaking out.
But people just cannot understand the code here. They cannot figure
it out. I think what people are thinking is, look, it is simple--in
fact, it is a little embarrassing to me because after we passed that
disaster relief bill, I was so excited I did what I think the Senator
from Wyoming would do. I got on the phone and had a conference call
with lots of the small papers in smaller communities--big communities
and big papers in heart--and I said we have passed this; it really
looks good. And then, all of a sudden, all of a sudden now we have the
games being played and people are thinking, well, we have leverage on
this. We want to have leverage later on on the budget and on the
appropriations bills so we have to have a continuing resolution.
You can do that separately. Do it on something else. Just do not play
around with the lives of people who are really in a lot of pain.
Now, as I said earlier, if I cannot persuade people to just please
back off of that for now, then get the work done right now and pass
this bill and get it to the President. The President is going to veto
it. He already said he was because of the continuing resolution. So the
President will veto it. He has to do that. And then you can show that
the President vetoed it and maybe you have embarrassed him, if that is
what you are trying to do, and then let us pass it clean. Let us get
all the provisions off this bill that do not have anything to do with
making sure that people can rebuild their lives in Minnesota and the
Dakotas.
That is all people are asking. So if you want to play your game, play
it. I do not think you should, but if you want to play your game, play
it, but why don't you play it in the next couple days. Because I will
tell you something, if not, at least on the Senate side, whenever I
have an opportunity to be out here and hold the floor, I am going to do
it and we are not going to do a lot; we are not going to do much else.
I put the people from East Grant Forks right now ahead of my colleagues
in the Senate. I just think that Mayor Stauss and Mayor Owens and other
mayors have waited too long. So whatever we need to do, whatever I need
to do as a Senator, I am going to do.
Mr. President, this is another piece. And there has been some really
good writing because the journalists that were covering this, they saw
the pain. They knew what it was in personal terms. They saw the courage
of people. They saw the devastation, but they saw just that incredible
determination.
But for some reason here in Washington, DC, starting with that
``leadership'' in the House--I say leadership in quotes; we never
translate it into personal terms--the leadership in the House decided
to go on vacation. It is not what the majority leader of the Senate
wanted them to do. It is not what my colleagues here wanted them to do,
but that is what they did.
That is why I am in the Chamber. And now I am reading that we may not
pass this this week. That is just outrageous. So, Mr. President, just
so my colleagues know, I probably will maybe stay in the Chamber for
about another 50 minutes or so, up to about 7 o'clock, and then I think
I will have had time to talk about this today, and I will come back
tomorrow and figure out a way of getting in the Chamber again, if I
can.
By the way, Mr. President, I really should also mention that--I
mentioned FEMA, James Lee Witt. I also wish to thank SBA, the Small
Business Administration. What I said about some of the businesses that
are worrying about cash-flowing more loans is true. But SBA, they have
been on the ground. They have tried to help. The State people have been
marvelous. The State office, Jim Franklin at emergency management
assistance, that office has been great. Legislators have cared. The
Governor has cared. Really, in our States, we are just forgetting the
party part, trying to help people. And I want to just make it clear
that a lot of people deserve a lot of thanks.
So, Mr. President, I will continue to talk about this. I want to make
note of the fact that Senator Dorgan had come down to the floor
earlier, and he is right now tied up in a meeting on the disaster
conference report. They are in conference, meeting on it, getting ready
for it, and that is going to be key. We are going to need Senator
Dorgan's help. But I would just say to members of the committee, thank
you for your commitment. The good news is we worked together in a
bipartisan way and we had something good going and people really
appreciated it and we
[[Page S5241]]
did exactly what we are supposed to do: provide people with some
relief.
The bad news is then people started playing games, and then people
decided not to even finish their work and had the insensitivity and the
gall to just go home, go home. It is amazing to me how some people can
be so generous with the suffering of others. Can you imagine a group of
legislators--and now, I say to my colleague from Missouri, I am
speaking specifically about leadership in the House--saying, oh, well,
you know, we got these disagreements and we can't get our work done. We
can't resolve this. So they go home. That is being very generous with
the suffering of a whole lot of people in the country, including people
in Minnesota.
Well, Mr. President, we can have all of these arguments about what is
in the pipeline, what is not in the pipeline. We heard from Mr. Raines
today from the Office of Management and Budget that a lot of this, a
lot of this money is not going to get out there to the communities.
I talked earlier about buyouts in construction. I told you Minnesota
is a cold-weather State. We have to get the work done now because come
mid-October or the end of October, we are not going to have time to do
this at all. So one more time I would say to my colleagues, some of
whom have been inconvenienced today, I apologize, but, in all due
respect, the problem of time is a bigger problem for the people in
Minnesota and North Dakota because time is certainly not on their side.
Think about this. There was a piece that I read earlier about the
little girl who just sort of had a vacant look in her eyes and was
really looking down and not playing like you hope and pray a child
would play. We know what has happened. Just imagine, I say to people,
what it would be like to be completely wiped out with a flood and no
longer have your home and be homeless and then people in other towns
take you in. That is Minnesota. But I bet you it is every State. I love
to brag about Minnesota, but I bet it is in every State. The goodness
of people comes out and people take families in and all the rest. But
it is hard for families because you go back, now the water has receded,
now you have to go back to your homes and now you have to look at this
devastation and there it is before you. And you do not know what is
going to happen next.
If you have lived in the floodplain, are you now going to move? If
you haven't, are you going to have the money to rebuild your home? And
you are just there and you do not know where you stand. And you hear
that the Federal Government is going to help.
You better believe that over the years when my colleagues have come
to the floor from Missouri or from California or from Florida and they
have said we need help, there has not even been any question in my
mind.
Well, that is the situation right now. The only question is, where is
the soul of the Congress. I say to my colleague from Missouri, where is
the soul of the leadership of the House of Representatives, who do not
even get the work done and send back a bill to us. Well, this time,
this week there is going to be a conference committee and they are
going to do the work. I feel they will do the work. I believe my
colleagues will spearhead that. We are going to get this done. And as I
said before, the best of all worlds will be, please, just keep all the
extraneous political stuff off. Let's just pass a clean disaster relief
bill and get the money out there to people, get the help out there to
people.
Mr. President, let me just read about Chip Rankin. I started to talk
about him.
[He] looked tired in his National Guard fatigues, stood in
the pulpit of the Immanuel Lutheran Church on Sunday, reading
aloud from the Gospel of St. Luke, [this is from the Pioneer
Press of April 14] recounting how the apostles, frightened by
a storm on the Sea of Galilee, wake Jesus from a nap and beg
him to rebuke the raging waves.
An hour later, the 22-year-old wrestler--
Mr. President, did you hear that? Wrestler. Now we're really talking.
At the University of Minnesota-Duluth would find himself in
troubled waters.
By the way, Mr. President, while I am speaking about wrestling, the
University of Minnesota-Duluth had their wrestling program shut down.
It was a real shame. The title IX program is a great program. I mean,
as a father of a daughter who loves athletics and is a good athlete,
and having one granddaughter, the idea of full participation of girls
and women in athletics is right on the mark. But the shame of it is, in
a lot of these schools, in order to reach parity, what they do is go
after the minor men's sports, the sports that don't have the clout.
It's a political issue, I say to my colleagues. The University of
Minnesota lost their wrestling program. A real shame.
Mr. President, I am not without my biases, since I wrestled and love
wrestling. I do think it is a real shame. There has to be some way to
make sure this doesn't happen around the country. It is so unfair,
gymnastics, swimming, other minor sports--who gets to define what's a
minor sport? Baseball.
Rankin and a Guard sergeant were caught in a frightening
torrent of water that threatened to wash his 2\1/2\-ton troop
truck off a Norman County highway and into a forbidding sea
of ice and water. Rankin's truck lurched and sagged, plunging
into holes that were rapidly forming in the crumbling highway
while a Hovercraft and men with ropes stood by in case they
had to attempt a desperate rescue in the icy current.
God, and the National Guard, would come through. But it was
close.
To some, it might sound like just another day on the Red
River of the North, this spring of record flood. But it
wasn't just another day. It was the Lord's day. A day when
the weary people of Hendrum--those who haven't fled the
flood--paused in their struggle against the water that
surrounds them on three sides to worship in an extraordinary
ecumenical service.
This was written by Nick Coleman. ``Faith and the flood. It was a
time of prayer, reflection and drama as Sunday came to the Red River of
the North.''
You knew it was going to be a different kind of service
when you saw Rankin line up a dozen troops and march them,
single file, into the church, reminding them to doff their
camouflage caps. This wasn't a ho-hum Sunday go-to-meeting
with everyone freshly scrubbed and in their Sunday best. This
was a battlefield prayer meeting, with the enemy on the
horizon and coming on fast.
It was a ``come-as-you-are'' service where the pastor
sported a week's worth of grizzled whiskers and refused to
take an offering because, he said, the people in the pews had
been offering all week and giving all they could give. A
service in a church where people have been sleeping in the
basement and the congregants had mud on their boots and
exhaustion on their faces. Where men and women wept without
shame. Where some folks had to scoot out during the sermon to
check on the pumps keeping the waters at bay. Where
helicopters chattered overhead and where everyone looked at
each other when the lights flickered, it being only a couple
of days since the town got its power restored. Where the
mayor read from Genesis about ``the spirit of God hovering
above the waters,'' and the police chief's daughter sang,
``Yes, Jesus Loves Me.'' And where the psalm they chose for
the day, Psalm 46, praised ``a river whose streams make
glad the city of God.''
The Red River isn't in the Bible. But it has taken on
Biblical proportions. And, for generations, through flood and
drought, blizzard and blight, the response of the people
along the river, many of them the descendants of devout
Norwegian Lutherans, has been to roll up their sleeves and to
put their trust in their God. Praise the Lord and pass the
sandbags. Or, as they simply say in Hendrum, ``toss 'em.''
That was the tone at Immanuel Lutheran. . ..
Mr. President, I notice that my colleague from North Dakota is here.
I would be pleased to yield for some questions, if my colleague has
some questions. And then, if my colleague, who I know has been out here
over and over again and back in North Dakota, wants to speak, then I
would at that point in time--I would then ask consent to yield. But
right now let me just ask my colleague whether he has any questions and
respond to some questions. Then we will see what kind of unanimous-
consent agreement we can get.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator hasn't yielded the floor, he
has the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I have not yielded the floor.
Mr. President, I was getting ready to yield to my colleague. He
looked like he was raising his hand to ask a question. So, if he had a
question, I was going to yield for the question, that's all.
[[Page S5242]]
Mr. CONRAD. Yes. Understanding that I don't have the floor, I am
simply asking the Senator from Minnesota some questions--without his
yielding his right to the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor and
has the right to yield for a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Has the Senator from Minnesota yielded for a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I haven't yielded for the question yet.
I yield for the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed with his question.
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Minnesota has been here speaking about
what we confront in North Dakota and Minnesota and South Dakota and the
other disaster States. I would just ask him if he was aware of the
recent editorial that appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on May 27? The
bold headline in that editorial was, ``4 Days Since Congress Let Us
Down.'' And they posed the question, ``How Long Will It Be Before
Congress Gets to Work and Passes the Disaster Relief Bill?''
This is an editorial in the Grand Forks Herald. Grand Forks is the
town that has been devastated by this remarkable series of disasters--
first of all the most severe winter in our history, 10 feet of snow,
followed by an incredible ice and snowstorm in early April that knocked
down the electrical grid for 80,000 people, which was then followed by
the 500-year flood and, in the midst of that, a fire that burned down
nearly three city blocks in the city of Grand Forks that led, this
combination of events, to the evacuation of virtually the entire city
of 50,000 people. Mr. President, 50,000 people evacuated. We have not
had that happen in America. That has not happened in American history
where a town that large is virtually totally evacuated. And the
neighboring town of East Grand Forks, that is in Senator Wellstone's
home State, a city of 9,000, similarly evacuated--completely evacuated.
In this editorial, I am asking Senator Wellstone if he is aware of
this editorial, this gives ``11 Reasons To Pass Federal Disaster Bill
Now.''
We have heard a lot of talk from some, ``Well, it doesn't matter that
there has been this debate, it doesn't matter that they have had 12
days of delay; there is money in the pipeline.''
There is not money in the pipeline for the Housing Department for
buyouts and relocations. There is no money in that pipeline. There is
no money in the Agriculture Department pipeline to give some relief to
the ranchers across the State of North Dakota and across the State of
South Dakota that have lost over 200,000 head of cattle. There is no
money in that pipeline. And there is no money in the pipeline to allow
the school districts that have taken the kids from the disaster areas
to get reimbursed. There is no money in that pipeline. That is what is
happening out in the State of North Dakota and the State of Minnesota
and the State of South Dakota.
I ask the Senator from Minnesota if he is aware of the 11 reasons
that were given in the Grand Forks editorial for the passage of the
disaster bill now? The 11 points that they make in this editorial are:
No. 1, the need is great; 80 percent of the homes in that town of
50,000 people were damaged and several thousand are unlivable. We have
thousands of people who are homeless, don't have a place to stay. We
have hundreds and hundreds of people who are still on cots 6 weeks
after the disaster.
No. 2, they point out that the disaster is different from others
because it affected the entire community and there is no nearby
community that can provide housing and other support for flood victims.
The third point they make is that time is of the essence. Our
construction season is short. In fact, the outdoor work pretty much has
to be done by October 1 in our part of the country.
The fourth point they make is that hundreds of businesses need loans
and other forms of assistance to get reestablished, and that those
businesses underpin the economy in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks.
Fifth, they make the point that they need to make decisions about our
homes and businesses. In order to do that, they need certainty about
the resources available for disaster relief efforts.
The sixth point they make is the property, in the way of flood
control, will have to be bought out. The buyout money will make it
possible for people in the way of flood control works to rebuild their
lives elsewhere in the city.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I raise a point of order. It is my
understanding the Senator from Minnesota yielded for a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I still have the floor, and I intend to
answer the question of my colleague.
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from North Dakota is posing a question to the
Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is entitled to one
warning. It is to be a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I might just inquire, I intend to
answer the question. But the question embodies the eight reasons, and
the Senator from North Dakota is going over those, asking me if I am
aware of those reasons. I can't read that chart.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is understood, but the Chair will rule
that a statement is being made rather than a question asked.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Fine. Mr. President, if my colleague, then, in the
form of a question could summarize that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the duty of the Senator from Minnesota
to guard his right to the floor. That is one warning.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to make clear I was not aware of
the editorial and the Senator from North Dakota--well, I was aware of
the editorial. I can't lie. I was aware of the editorial. Nevertheless,
I need to answer, but I can't read it from here. I would like to
respond to the question of the Senator.
Mr. CONRAD. I would pose a question, a point of order to the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Minnesota yield for a
point of order?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask----
Mr. CONRAD. Perhaps I could ask that later and just continue my
question of the Senator from Minnesota.
Was the Senator aware of this editorial in the Grand Forks Herald and
the 11 reasons they gave?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was aware of the editorial, but I do
not remember all of the reasons. And as I go on and speak, it might
help me if the Senator would be able to pose each of those points as a
question, and then we could talk about it as I go forward.
I would be pleased to yield to the Senator for a question on each of
those points, if the Senator has a question, but only in the form of a
question.
Mr. CONRAD. Let me ask the Senator from Minnesota, very specifically,
it has been reported in the press that this does not matter, this
delay, that there is money in the pipeline. And in this editorial, they
point out that it is true that FEMA is adequately funded, but that
money is for immediate disaster relief, not for long-term rebuilding.
Was the Senator aware of that point that is in this editorial?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am. It is a very important point. I
say to my colleague from North Dakota that the key thing--and both
efforts are equally important--that people need the short-term relief,
but people need to think about how they rebuild their lives and whether
they have a future. And that is what is so unconscionable about this
delay and the House going on vacation before getting this work done.
I would say that to my colleague.
Mr. CONRAD. Is the Senator aware-- again, I am asking a question--is
the Senator aware that in this disaster supplemental is the money for
housing assistance through the CDBG program that would allow the funds
for the buyout and relocation of homes that are in the floodway?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I respond to my colleague that this is
also an important point. The buyout of the homes in the floodway is key
to the future for people. And the only way this can be done is through
the CDBG money that is being held up right now.
And I say to my colleague from North Dakota, who knows this so well,
that the awful thing is that so many people do not know where they
stand. They do not know whether to move, not to move, where they are
going to
[[Page S5243]]
have a home. They do not know where they are going to be, where their
children are going to be? People have been through enough, I would say
to my colleague.
Why do we want to heap more pain on the people who have already been
through so much pain? That is what is unforgivable about this delay.
That is what is unforgivable about political games. That is what is
unforgivable about our failure to just get the relief to people, to get
this emergency supplemental bill passed. It is an emergency. Just get
the disaster relief to the people.
Mr. CONRAD. In addition to the question of the housing not being
available, is the Senator aware of the fact----
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to call the Senate to
order.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for recognition. The Senator from
Minnesota yielded the floor without yielding for a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yielded for a question. I made it
crystal clear it was a question. The Senator from North Dakota asked me
whether I was aware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to yield for a
question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is what I have done. And I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the right to solicit
a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from North Dakota, if my
colleague has a question, we will put it in the form of a question.
Mr. President, I will, in any case, just to save my colleague from
Missouri some frustration--I am going to yield the floor in just a
moment. I am going to finish up. I am going to respond to some
questions that my colleague from North Dakota has put to me. And I will
yield to questions from the Senator from North Dakota only for
questions, but I intend to finish in just a few moments, I say to my
colleague. I will be yielding the floor in about 5 minutes or so.
I will yield for a question.
Mr. CONRAD. I think it has been made abundantly clear the Senator is
yielding to me for a question, not yielding his right to the floor.
The question I would pose is----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinction here is whether the Senator
has the right to solicit questions or whether the Senator has to ask to
yield for a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I will keep speaking.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask the Senator from Minnesota to yield for the
purposes of my posing a question to him.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield for a question from the Senator
from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Is the Senator aware that not only does the Housing
Department not have funds that are in the pipeline, but then in
addition to that that the Agriculture Department does not have funds in
the pipeline, so livestock producers in our States, who have lost
hundreds of thousands of head of cattle, have been in a situation in
which they are delayed in receiving assistance that is in this disaster
supplemental?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senator from
North Dakota has posed that question to me because I have been remiss
in not focusing on livestock producers. The importance of funding that
is not in the pipeline has everything in the world to do with whether
our ranchers and producers are going to be able to get back on their
feet.
So I say to the Senator, yes, I am aware of it. That is yet another
example of families in our States--agricultural producers, who work so
hard and are waiting for some help.
And I say to the Senator from North Dakota, earlier I quoted him
because I heard the Senator say, the question is, how many more days do
people have to wait? How many more days do the homeowners have to wait?
How many more days do the small businesses have to wait? How many more
days do ranchers, livestock producers have to wait? So I am aware of
that.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question from the
Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Is the Senator also aware in the Grand Forks editorial,
the 11 reasons they give for passing the Federal disaster bill now,
they point out that not only the Housing Department does not have
funds, those funds are not in the pipeline, the Agriculture Department
does not have funds to address this disaster, those funds are not in
the pipeline, and in addition to that, the school districts that have
taken the children from the disaster areas, they do not have funds in
the pipeline, and so those school districts that have taken on
substantial additional costs are also being delayed in being
compensated even though they have taken children from the disaster
areas?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to respond to the questions
because this is exactly what is going on. The Senator is raising these
questions, and I am responding. And I thank my colleague from North
Dakota, Senator Conrad, because this is again another area that I
really did not speak about and I should have.
It has been wonderful to see different school districts, a
neighboring school district taking students and making sure they do not
have to drop out of school, making sure they can graduate. That has
been happening in Minnesota and North Dakota. That is the goodness in
people.
I do not see much goodness in this Congress right now. I do not see
much goodness in the House. I think we make a mistake when we go on
vacation and do not come through for people.
I am aware of the fact that these schools are now waiting for some
assistance for the extra costs that they have incurred in taking in
other students and making sure those students graduate. And so I say to
my colleague, I am aware of this, but I am glad he has emphasized this
in the question that he has put to me.
Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator further yield for a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield for a question.
Mr. CONRAD. Is the Senator aware that while some have said that it
just does not make a difference, these delays are inconsequential, they
really do not matter, that the people that I think we can turn to for
the best answer as to whether these delays matter are the people who
are affected most directly by the disaster, the people of Grand Forks,
the people of East Grand Forks, and that they are telling us, their
elected Representatives, that these delays do matter, that delay in the
face of disaster is a disaster in and of itself?
Is the Senator receiving those same kinds of messages from his
constituents as I am receiving from mine with respect to how
significant these delays are?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota
raises a very important question that I will respond to. And the
question that he raises has to do with the effect of the delay both in
a material sense in terms of economic resources but also in almost as
serious a way, the way in which it erodes people's--it is personal--
People need some certainty. People need to be able to plan for the
future. People need to get through this.
This is a very difficult time. And our failure to act does not give
people that confidence, does not give people that support. Moreover, I
say to all my colleagues, in responding to the question from the
Senator from North Dakota, the failure to act, the failure to get help
to people, the playing of political games, has done an awful lot of
harm. It has soured people and eroded people's confidence. That is a
terrible mistake.
Mr. President, I say to my colleague from North Dakota that I am
about ready to yield the floor in any case.
Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator yield for a final question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will yield for a final question.
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Minnesota perhaps is aware that tomorrow
a group will be coming from Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, a
delegation of community leaders and business leaders. I think, perhaps
the mayor of East Grand Forks is coming. I ask the Senator from
Minnesota if he is aware of that?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. The message, as I understand it, is that they want to
send a
[[Page S5244]]
clear and unmistakable signal to the Congress and to the country that
the time to act is now.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am aware of the fact, and I will
answer this question, I am painfully aware of the fact, as a Senator
from Minnesota, that the mayors from Grand Forks, ND, and East Grand
Forks, MN, and maybe some other mayors will be here tomorrow to say to
the Congress, the time to act is now. And that is what I have tried to
do today on the floor of the Senate, to say that as well.
That is what the Senator from North Dakota has said today and has
been saying for a good, long period of time.
Mr. President, I hope that by holding the floor for a while this
afternoon that in a small but hopefully significant way I have been
able to speak for and to fight for and to help people in my State.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President.
I appreciate the opportunity to return to Senate bill 4. Senate bill
4, as you well know, is the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It was to
have been the business of the Senate this afternoon. And I do
understand the frustration of the individuals from the flood-ravaged
States who have been victims of flooding and all. But I find it very
difficult to understand why, especially when a conference report is
being worked on, we have to insist that the Senate cease serving the
Nation while the conference committee serves the people of the flood-
ravaged areas. It seems to me that while we can do both, it would be in
our best interest so to do.
And so with all respect to my colleagues who have sought to galvanize
the public attention on the need to act here, I want to commend the
members of the conference committee who are working to do exactly what
they are being called upon to do to provide an opportunity for relief
in those areas.
The Family Friendly Workplace Act is a way that we can help all
Americans. We can help all Americans to balance the tension that exists
between the workplace and the home place. We can help Americans who
find that both parents are having to work in two-parent families. We
can make sure that they have the capacity to spend the necessary time
with their children that they need to spend.
So, Mr. President, I think it is important that we get on with the
business of trying to provide to hourly-paid workers in this country
the same kind of flexible working arrangements which have been
available to others for quite some extended period of time.
As a matter of fact, in 1978, we began according flextime benefits to
workers in the Federal Government system. It was done on a pilot
project basis so that we could make sure we did not offend the rights
of individuals and that we made sure that it was a workable system. For
years, we inspected the system, and it was extended to more and more
workers.
In 1985, in the Federal system we made it available to Departments
generally if they thought they could use those procedures wisely and if
that would be helpful to people in balancing the needs of their
families with the needs of the workplace.
The major components are these. When you work overtime, instead of
being paid for overtime, you might want to take time off with pay later
on so that you could make up some of the lost time you have with your
family.
Most Americans do not realize it is illegal now for an employer
outside of the Federal Government to offer an hourly paid worker time
off with pay instead of paying the normal overtime pay. Now, it is, I
think, an unjust situation where Government workers have a series of
benefits that the private workers do not have. Similarly, Government
workers, if they know they will be needing some time for their families
can request to work an hour extra one week and take that hour off the
next week so they can spend the necessary time with their families.
Now, there are ways that private workers have the capacity to spend
time with their families, and it is under a rubric known as the Family
and Medical Leave Act, and that is a Federal law, but it says that
under certain narrow conditions if you want to take time off you can
take time off but you have to take time off without pay, so if you want
your child to go to the doctor or you want to take your child to the
doctor you can give notice to your employer that you are going to do
that but you take a pay cut in order to do that.
Now, if you knew you had a doctors' appointment next Tuesday
afternoon and you wanted to tell your employer you would like to work
an extra 2 hours this week to take the 2 hours off next Tuesday, that
is the Federal system, available to Federal employees. You work the 2
hours extra this week, you get your work done, make the arrangements,
take the hours off next week and you do not end up with a pay cut but
keep your paycheck intact. That is very important.
I should hasten to add that nothing in this bill would in any way
erode, undermine or abolish any of the Family and Medical Leave
provisions which are to the benefit of employees across America, but in
conjunction with those benefits this would add a new array of
potentials. One of the potentials is that you could take time off to be
with your family when necessary, with pay, instead of having to go
under the Family and Medical Leave Act procedures which require that
you take the time off without pay.
Now, most of us are familiar with the fact that not only do Federal
Government workers have comptime and flextime proposals and State
government workers have been authorized a very substantial comptime
proposal and the boardroom folks have comptime proposals and the
supervisors and managers and all the salary people obviously have
flexible working arrangements, it is the hourly-paid workers of America
who are being treated as second-class citizens. Frankly, they are in a
minority. The majority of workers in this country have flexible working
arrangements. Hourly paid workers do not.
I think it is time that the hourly paid workers have that kind of
opportunity. That is what Senate bill 4 is all about. I do agree that
it is important for us to act with expedition on the supplemental
appropriations bill but, in my judgment, it is also important for us
when we have the opportunity like we should have had today, especially
while this appropriations matter is still in the conference committee,
to make progress on meeting the needs of Americans, especially when we
are talking about benefits that Government workers have been enjoying
in the 1970's, 1980's, and all through the 1990's now. It is time we
give the same kind of opportunity to workers in the private sector. It
is with that in mind that I say that I look forward to the opportunity
of welcoming amendments and proposed improvements to Senate bill 4.
Now, several hours were spent today in criticism of our proposal, but
the fact of the matter is none of the amendments that have been filed
have been filed by those who have been criticizing the bill. If,
indeed, they want to do something constructively to help workers, I
invite Members of the opposition to bring their amendments to the floor
and to make their amendments available so they can be filed, so we can
vote on those amendments, so we can take action on them, so we can make
the improvements. We will upgrade what we really need to do to help the
citizens of America who do not have this privilege.
It is my understanding that the occupant of the Chair might be
interested in making some remarks on Senate bill 4. I ask unanimous
consent after a quorum call which I will put in place that the occupant
of the Chair be recognized to make the remarks, and the conclusion of
those remarks be followed by another quorum call, at which time I be
recognized again to finish my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to again voice my strong
support for S.
[[Page S5245]]
4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I have listened to several of my
colleagues speak about this important and necessary legislation. I want
to especially commend Senator DeWine for his steady work in the Labor
Committee and for Senator Ashcroft for the many hours he has spent
working on this bill.
I comment that today we have heard several speeches dealing with S.
4. We have heard several speeches that did not deal with S. 4. The
other speeches dealt with a very important topic, too. They dealt with
the disaster funding, but that was actually a filibuster against this
bill. It was a request by certain people in this body that S. 4 not be
adopted. They do not want people to have that kind of flexibility. It
was a plea to do disaster relief, but it was directed to keep this bill
from ever coming to a vote.
Disaster is on the mind of everyone that is affected. One of the
things I have discovered in my years in the legislature and since I
have been here is that the disaster is in the mind of the one who is
affected as well. Everybody has different kinds of disasters. The
disaster that was talked about for a long time tonight is being handled
in the conference committee right now. There is another disaster in
America that is being kept from being debated in this body, that is
kept from being passed in this body, that a vast number of people in
this country need. It is a disaster that is happening to them. There
are people out there that need more flextime and comptime to be able to
spend time with their families. Some of those people are married to
Federal employees. That Federal employee is able to take that flextime
and the other spouse is saying, why can't I?
In fact, in the early days when this bill passed that allows the
Federal employee to do just exactly what we are talking about for the
private hourly employees, the discriminated-against group, the private
hourly employees, when we allowed Federal employees to do it we should
have included the private sector at that time. We should have given
them the same right that the Federal employees had.
I know that in Cheyenne, WY, at the Unicover Corp., some of the
people that worked in that corporation were hired by the Federal
Government. They got flextime and they got comptime. I want to
emphasize they got flextime and comptime, both of the advantages that
are being talked about in this bill. Not just one, like is being
implied, both of those advantages were given to the Federal employee.
Their spouses said this is really a great idea. We should take it to
our boss and get it implemented, and they took it to the Unicover
Corp., they took it to the management and the management said, you
know, that really is a great idea. We should do it, and they did it.
Then they found out that they were in violation of the law. The Federal
employees could do it, the private hourly employees could not.
For 19 years the Unicover Corp. has asked Congress to pass a bill
that would give them the same right as the Federal employees--not a
different right, the same right. The same right for flextime, the same
right for comptime. They are not asking for a special break that nobody
else gets. They are just asking for an even break. Well, they found out
they were in violation of the law and they had to end it. They have
been working on it for a number of years to try and get it changed. I
heard about it when I was campaigning and I said I do not know why we
do not have that, and now I have a better idea why we do not have that.
Today, the Small Business Advocate Award luncheon was held here in
Washington, DC, over in the Dirksen Building. I had the opportunity to
attend, and I got to meet the Wyoming Small Business Person of the
Year, and there were small business people from all over the United
States there, being recognized for the leadership that they have taken
in their company, in their State, to make a difference.
Marjorie Mathieson of Jackson is the Wyoming Small Business Person of
the year, and I am very proud of her. That is one of the few
manufacturing businesses in Jackson and it has been there a long time.
They have gone through a number of different phases to keep current
products that will sell to keep that small business in business.
She talked to me a little bit about the Family Medical Leave Act.
Some people have suggested that is an answer for all of the problems of
meeting flexibility. Well, it is not. And it should not be expanded to
be the answer to all of those either, because it is a paperwork
nightmare, particularly for smaller businesses. Now, that is limited to
businesses over 50 employees. There has been a request to bring that
down to a smaller number. What we need is this Family Friendly
Workplace Act that will provide the same kinds of benefits that we are
talking about, bringing in the more complicated system, and bringing it
down to a smaller level where they cannot handle the paperwork.
A part of that business that the Wyoming Small Business Person of the
Year runs is welding. They have five welders. Those welders make $40 an
hour. Not bad. Five welders, $40 an hour. They want flextime and
comptime. The business needs them to take flextime or comptime or both,
and the reason they need them to take that is because they have work
that has to be done. They have five welders. If one of the welders is
to leave without doing some kind of a flex in the schedule, they lose
20 percent of their welding income. That is a significant portion of
their business. That person loses $40 an hour. They do not want to lose
$40 an hour. For overtime, they lose $60 an hour. They do not want to
lose that. But the business can make arrangements for them to get
flextime and comptime so that they can still have the time off, the
revenue still comes into the business.
More importantly, the paycheck comes to the individual. They want
flextime. They talked to her about flextime. Marjorie wanted them to
have flextime. She allowed flextime, and then found out that she
couldn't have flextime, that she couldn't have comptime, that she could
not offer this benefit to the people that worked for her. Jackson has
some Federal employees. Those Federal employees get this. But these
guys that weld can't have it not because the business doesn't want to
give it to them, but because we have a law against it. And that is not
fair.
I have listened to the debate as we have gone through this topic. I
am a certified professional in human resources. The Society of Human
Resource Management, a national society, does education and testing in
all of the areas of human resource management. When you complete the
course and the testing, you can be certified as a professional in human
resources. I have been through that process. They do an outstanding job
of keeping track of the problems in the workplace. These are, for the
most part, employees. I am not talking about employers. They are
employees, employees who want benefits as well. And they see this as
being a critical issue for the hourly worker in the workplace, a way
for that worker to have more capability in their own scheduling.
Everybody recognizes that this bill has provisions in it that both
the employer and the employee have to agree to before it can be done.
It isn't the case of forcing the employee to do it. It isn't the case
of forcing the employer to do it. I am telling you, there are
businesses across this Nation that want this and want it badly. And it
is usually the employees that bring the idea to the employer and say,
``Why can't we do this?'' You know, they just do not believe that,
since they know that the Federal employees get to do it. They just do
not believe the employer when he says it is against the law.
One of the biggest things raised in the hearing that we had was,
``Well, you can be paid for your hours anyway. Then you can save that
money from being paid for your hours, and when somebody gets sick, if
there is a soccer match, if you want to go someplace, or if you want to
have an anniversary, or any of those great things that people would
like to have time off to do, then you can use this money that you
save.''
I ask you, how easy is it for you to save? It is pretty difficult. A
lot of the people out there in the work force that we are talking about
are women. They have gotten into the workplace because of some of the
things that we have done back here. They have gotten into the workplace
because of the way that taxes have gone up in the United States, the
way that inflation has gone up in the United States.
We have a situation now where in most families both people work. One
of
[[Page S5246]]
them works to pay the expenses, the other one works to pay the taxes.
So it is not an option on whether they work or not. We asked a lot of
women through the process in this thing why they didn't just bank the
money and then use that money when they needed time off. And every one
of them said to me, ``When it is time that I am banking, it is mine. I
can use it for my family. But if I accept that paycheck, if I take the
money, that is the family's money. It has to go for all of those family
expenses. And there are always family expenses.''
But another unique part about this bill is that you can bank the
hours and you can take the money. I don't know very many families in
this country that do not come up with emergencies once in a while. If
you have hours banked, there is a provision in this bill to be able to
cash it in. So when the refrigerator breaks down and you don't have any
alternative but to buy another refrigerator, even though it means
putting off that vacation that you had planned, you can take some of
the hours you have banked and cash it in.
So they see this as a way to bank money for emergencies and to have
time for themselves, time for themselves that they invest in their
family. They really want to go to the soccer match. They really have to
go sometimes to take their kids to the dentist. They like to celebrate
those anniversaries. And this is a bill that allows it.
The biggest complaint that I have heard about this bill is that there
is a cap on the number of hours that they can have, a limit. And they
say, ``Why do you have a limit on that--240 hours? Maybe my boss wants
me to be able to bank more hours and maybe I have a bigger event than
240 hours.''
So that is a complaint on it. We are not even proposing that be
changed. But we are asking for some consideration of the bill.
The American workplace is dramatically different than it was 60 years
ago when Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. We have
all heard the stories about the dirty thirties from our parents. So I
don't have to repeat them here.
I will, however, illustrate how nice it was for Congress to pass that
Fair Labor Standards Act to specifically address the numerous problems
that existed back then. Cheap labor was abundant. Folks were awfully
hungry for work. And there were many employers who took advantage of a
bad economic situation. The 40-hour workweek did not exist. Overtime
did not exist. Child labor was being exploited. There were some
problems that stemmed from the trends of that era.
Under the circumstances, Congress acted, and acted appropriately, by
passing the Fair Labor Standards Act. We are never going back to that.
There is no suggestion of ever going back to that. But there is fine
tuning that needs to be done.
It is important to illustrate how times have changed since the 1930's
and why it is the responsibility of Congress to legislate for the
present with the future in mind. As a certified professional in human
resources, I have had the exhausting and daunting task of filling out
the federally mandated forms and paperwork. I have worked one-on-one
with my employees to try to meet their needs. Through it all, I have
always found my employees to be well schooled and extremely intuitive.
As a result, they inherently understand how the modern workplace
functions. And the smaller the business, the better they understand how
it works, the more connected they are to realizing that the success of
that business and the time they spend there means their job and the way
they work there means their job. They don't need someone to hold their
hand and show them the way things work. That might have been the case
60 years ago.
I certainly don't view employee knowledge as a problem, but rather
welcome it as an important addition to the mix. Employers have every
reason to reward employees who clearly understand how to use their time
in the workplace to its full advantages. America's working parents want
to decide for themselves whether or not they want overtime or paid time
off. This is a modern day reality that requires a modern day
legislative fix. This act does not eliminate overtime pay, nor does it
eliminate the 40-hour workweek. That kind of talk is simply nonsense.
These things will stay just where they are, and the Family Friendly
Workplace Act guarantees that.
Before coming to the Senate I was the owner and operator of a small
business for 27 years. Folks in Washington, of course, have a
completely different sense of what constitutes the small in small
business. I have had several discussions back here about whether a
small business is 500 employees or 125 employees. I can tell you that
is not even close anywhere in America. A small businessman is one who
sweeps the sidewalk and cleans the toilets and waits on customers. He
does it all. He has to do it all.
We held a small business hearing in Casper, WY, early this year. I
was real pleased to have the honor of chairing that in Casper. We had
about 75 to 100 people show up for that, rotating out and others
rotating through. When it was over, one of the news media people said
to me, ``How come you didn't have a better turnout?'' I said, ``That
was a great turnout for a daytime hearing.'' Because we are talking
about small businessmen. Quite frankly, they are different than big
business because in small business, if they had one person that could
take off for that day to just listen to a hearing, they would probably
fire them because it would be one too many people. That is small
business.
So that illustration is radically different from that of a big
business that has the financial and the employer resources to institute
very sophisticated job training and flexibility problems that sidestep
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. And that is being done now. There
are ways, very complicated ways. But if you can afford the attorney
fees and have the specialists, you can provide this for some of your
employees--not all of them. But this bill will allow the small business
person to have the big business advantage, that extra flexibility.
Sadly enough, small businesses are further behind under the
flexibility of this 60-year-old antiquated law. That is a further
reason for passing the Family Friendly Workplace Act. Personal
computers, high-speed modems, cellular phones, pagers, and fax machines
have all become commonplace in small business. Moreover, these popular
commodities have paved the way for telecommunicating, telecommuting--a
work environment that could not have been envisioned 60 years ago.
While the number of working women in our country continues to rise,
so does the number of telecommuters and in-home businesses. A lot of
businesses are being started in the home. Then when they expand bigger
than the home can handle, they become an outside business. But there
are a lot of them working in the home that will be the future successes
in this country. It will be the future opportunity for people who want
the American dream. They will start a small business in their home. It
is happening because of the growing trend of spending more time at home
with our families. If they telecommute, they don't have to spend an
hour each way driving.
That is part of the flexibility. That is something that the modern
age has provided us. It is impossible to bottle up workplace
flexibility. But we have an antiquated law that is suggesting that we
can. That is why it is so important to modernize this archaic Federal
law that squelches any chance of giving American hourly workers more
time at home with their kids, a true investment in our Nation's future.
Congress must legislate with the times to provide the opportunities
for our Nation's parents to make that investment. It is often the case
with a lot of families that both parents work. They do this, and they
do it happily because they have to meet the bills. They also do it
because they cannot get extra hours off from the job the way they would
really prefer to do it unless they work for another business as well.
If they work two jobs, they don't get any overtime. But a lot of them
work two places. They don't get comptime. They don't get flextime. They
don't get overtime.
This unfortunate trend in the business world can be addressed by
providing this workplace flexibility with the choice of paid time off
for flextime.
Times have changed and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 does not
permit employees to choose between
[[Page S5247]]
paid time off or overtime pay. My experience is that there are a lot of
people out there who know that if they take the money, they will spend
the money. They want the time instead. I also found that fact to be
more prevalent among women in the work force. They feel the need for
the time to spend with their children, and they understand that money
belongs to the family. They have a much stronger family belief than
most of the men I have worked with. So they prefer to take flextime or
comptime and use that for themselves or their family.
One of the businesses I worked for often had additional assignments
that employees could take on, if they chose to do so. When we asked if
the employees wanted additional work, they said ``yes,'' if they could
have time off the following week with compensation, but if they could
only choose to be paid, they didn't need it. They would rather have the
time off this week than to take the money next week. We explained to
them that they had the capability of taking the overtime pay, not
working the following week, and spending that extra pay that week. But
somehow those paychecks don't get distributed at home quite the same
way they do on paper or here.
I am hoping that everyone will reflect a bit on the trends that our
modern work force is talking about and not the mandatory things that
seem to be implied by this legislation imposed upon us. The downsizing
problems today are leading to less flexibility as well as families
making less money than if they were doing the job they preferred to do,
not the second jobs they are having to do without getting overtime
because it is a second job. There has been a tremendous increase in
temporary positions in this country. This has taken flexibility away
from the families. It has taken money away from the families. This a
modern day problem that requires a modern day solution.
This matter cannot possibly be addressed by legislation that we have
crafted to address the problems of the 1930s. We have taken care of
those problems. We are not going back to that situation. But we need to
adjust for the future. Indeed, our society is constantly driven by
changing trends. I can comfortably argue that our society is one of the
most trendy in the world, a fact that has kept America on the leading
edge of technological innovation. We have been at the peak in
technology and at the tail in taking care of the hourly worker.
I hope that before people begin making up their minds on this bill,
they will take a close look at the language and what it really calls
for rather than relying on misstatements, and I see those misstatements
in the paper from time to time, misleading statistics, partisan
posturing. Read the bill. Ask for a copy of the bill. Read the bill. It
is amazing.
Our Nation's work force is calling for this much-needed change. I
again urge my colleagues to support the Family Friendly Workplace Act.
Bring this to a vote. Give the hourly working people of this country
the opportunity to choose how they want to work, the way that they want
to choose to help their families.
I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 265, As Modified and Amendment No. 256, as Modified
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Gorton
amendment, amendment No. 265, be modified with the changes that I now
send to the desk. And I further ask unanimous consent that the Grassley
amendment, amendment No. 256, be modified as well with the changes that
I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments, as modified, are as follows:
Amendment No. 265
Beginning on page 10, strike line 7 and all that follows
through page 10, line 16 and insert the following: ``time;
respectively, by subsection (o)(8).''.
(4) Application of the coercion and remedies provisions to
public safety employees of state agencies.--Section 7(o) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(o)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``(7) For'' and inserting
``(8) For''; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (6), the following:
``(7)(A) In a case in which an employee described in
paragraph (1) is engaged in work in a public safety activity,
the provisions under subsection (r)(6)(A) shall apply to the
employee and the public agency employer, as described in
paragraph (1), of the employee to the same extent the
provisions apply to an employee and employer described in
subsection (r)(2)(B).
``(B)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the remedies
under section 16(f) shall be made available to a public
safety employee described in subparagraph (A) to the same
extent the remedies are made available to an employee
described in subsection (r)(2)(B).
``(ii) In calculating the amount a public agency employer
described in subparagraph (A) would be liable for under
section 16(f) to a public safety employee described in such
subparagraph, the Secretary shall, in lieu of applying the
rate of compensation in the formula described in section
16(f), apply the rate of compensation described in paragraph
(3)(B).''.
(5) Notice to employees.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall
revise the materials the Secretary provides, under
regulations contained in section 516.4 of title 29, Code of
Federal Regulations, to employers for purposes of a notice
explaining the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to employees
so that the notice reflects the amendments made to the Act by
this subsection.
____
Amendment No. 256
At the end of the substitute amendment, add the following:
SEC 4. APPLICATION OF LAWS TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``Board'',
``covered employee'', and ``employing office'' have the
meanings given the terms in sections 101 and 203 of Public
Law 104-1.
(b) Biweekly Work Programs; Flexible Credit Hour Programs;
Exemptions.--
(1) In general.--The rights and protections established by
sections 13(m) and 13A of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, as added by section 3, shall apply to covered
employees.
(2) Remedy.--The remedy for a violation of paragraph (1)
shall be such remedy, including liquidated damages, as would
be appropriate if awarded under section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)), and (in the
case of a violation concerning section 13A(d) of such Act,
section 16(g)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 216(g)1)).
(3) Administration.--The Office of Compliance shall
exercise the same authorities and perform the same duties
with respect to the rights and protections described in
paragraph (1) as the Office exercises and performs under
title III of Public Law 104-1 with respect to the rights and
protections described in section 203 of such law.
(4) Procedures.--Title IV and section 225 of Public Law
104-1 shall apply with respect to violations of paragraph
(1).
(5) Regulations.--
(A) In general.--The Board shall, pursuant to section 304
of Public Law 104-1, issue regulations to implement this
subsection.
(B) Agency regulations.--The regulations issued under
subparagraph (A) shall be the same as substantive regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement the
statutory provisions referred to in paragraph (1) except
insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown and
stated together with the regulation, that a modification of
the regulations would be more effective for the
implementation of the rights and protections under this
subsection.
(c) Compensatory Time Off.--
(1) Regulations.--The Board shall, pursuant to paragraphs
(1) and (2) of section 203(c), and section 304, of Public Law
104-1, issue regulations to implement section 203 of such law
with respect to section 7(r) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(r)), as added by section 3(a).
(2) Remedy.--The remedy for a violation of section 203(a)
of Public Law 104-1 shall be such remedy, including
liquidated damages, as would be appropriate if awarded under
section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 216(b)), and (in the case of a violation concerning
section 7(r)(6)(A) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 207(r)(6)(A))),
section 16(f)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 216(f)(1)).
(3) Effective date.--Subsection (a)(3), and paragraphs (3)
and (4) of subsection (c), of section 203 of Public Law 104-1
cease to be effective on the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Rules of Application.--For purposes of the application
under this section of sections 7(r) and 13A of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 to covered employees of an employing
office, a reference in such sections--
(1) to a statement of an employee that is made, kept, and
preserved in accordance with section 11(c) of such Act shall
be considered to be a reference to a statement that is made,
kept in the records of the employing office, and preserved
until 1 year after the last day on which--
(A) the employing office has a policy offering compensatory
time off, a biweekly work
[[Page S5248]]
program, or a flexible credit hour program in effect under
section 7(r) or 13A of such Act, as appropriate; and
(B) the employee is subject to an agreement described in
section 7(r)(3) of such Act or subsection (b)(2)(A) or
(c)(2)(A) of section 13A of such Act, as appropriate; and
(2) to section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29
U.S.C. 159(a)) shall be considered to be a reference to
subchapter II of chapter 71 of title 5, United States code.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--This section shall take effect, with
respect to the application of section 7(r), 13(m), or 13A of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to covered employees, on
the earlier of--
(A) the effective date of regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of Labor to implement such section; and
(B) the effective date of regulations issued by the Board
as described in subsection (b)(5) or (c)(1) to implement such
section.
(2) Construction.--A regulation promulgated by the
Secretary of Labor to implement section 7(r), 13(m), or 13A
of such Act shall be considered to be the most relevant
substantive executive agency regulation promulgated to
implement such section, for purposes of carrying out section
411 of Public Law 104-1.
____________________