[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 33 (Monday, March 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2402-S2415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATURAL DISASTERS AND OVERSEAS 
               PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2063

 (Purpose: To eliminate unrelated, wasteful, and unnecessary spending 
                          items from the bill)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 2063 to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Feingold, and Mr. Grams, proposes amendment numbered 2063.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 16, strike beginning with line 6 through page 18, 
     line 5.
       On page 19, strike beginning with line 2 through line 12.
       On page 19, strike beginning with line 24 through page 20, 
     line 2.
       On page 26, strike beginning with line 7 through line 11.
       On page 35, strike beginning with line 10 through page 38, 
     line 18.
       On page 40, strike beginning with line 1 through line 25.
       On page 43, strike beginning with line 8 through line 13.
       On page 4, strike beginning with line 13 through 10 page 5, 
     line 3.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to begin by expressing my 
appreciation to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my dear 
friend and a person who is responsible for the timely and important 
provision of this bill to the Senate. It is in the nature of the 
defense and disaster supplemental appropriations bill.
  There are some very vital needs that have to be met in this bill for 
the good of the American people and for our defense. And, as always, I 
am very appreciative of the outstanding leadership exercised by the 
chairman of the committee.
  As I have done for many years, Mr. President, however, I would like 
to point out that there are provisions of this bill which I find 
wasteful and unnecessary and should not be included in any 
appropriations bill, much less one which is a defense and disaster 
supplemental appropriations.
  This amendment that I have at the desk would eliminate $78 million 
for unrelated wasteful and unnecessary spending that was added in 
committee.
  I want to clarify that the amendment would not strike the $50 million 
added for disaster relief for Georgia. These funds were added to the 
bill well before the disastrous tornadoes struck last Friday in Georgia 
and North Carolina and Tennessee. And I believe that in light of the 
clear need for relief of those hit by the devastating tornadoes last 
week, these funds should remain in the bill. I trust that the conferees 
will ensure that these added funds are shared among those who suffered 
losses of family, friends, and property in all three affected States.
  Now, let us turn to the items that would be eliminated by this 
amendment:
  $4.48 million in unrequested emergency funds for maple producers, to 
replace taps and tubing damaged by ice storms in the Northeast;
  $33 million in emergency funds for unrequested levee and waterway 
repairs in Alabama and Mississippi;
  $4 million in unrequested funds for development and demonstration of 
dielectric wall accelerator technology for remote explosive detonation, 
radiography, and fusion applications.
  I want to repeat that one, Mr. President.
  $4 million in unrequested funds for development and demonstration of 
dielectric wall accelerator technology for remote explosive detonation, 
radiography, and fusion applications;
  Language providing a special exemption from the law to allow the 
Secretary of Energy to pay $80,000 in retraining costs for workers at 
the Pinellas Plant site;
  $2 million and language that requires payments to counties to replace 
funds counties expected to receive from timber road construction 
projects which will be canceled due to the proposed moratorium on such 
projects;
  $7.5 million as the first increment of a $26.5 million project to 
repair and rehabilitate the Capitol Dome, and $20 million for security 
upgrades around the Capitol complex;
  $6.9 million for transportation planning and research and an 
investment analysis in the area of transit planning and research.
  None of these items, Mr. President, is related to military operations 
in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf. None of these items were requested as 
emergency disaster relief requirements, and most bear no relation to 
disaster relief at all. The bottom line is that none of them belongs in 
this emergency appropriations bill.

  Let me briefly just talk about a few of the add-ons in greater 
detail.

[[Page S2403]]

  First, I do recognize that the ice storms in the Northeast have had a 
devastating effect on the maple syrup and sugar industry. But I 
question whether the urgency of ensuring the future of maple sugar 
production warrants an earmark of almost $4.5 million as an emergency 
expenditure. It would seem maple producers would have access to the 
same types of financial assistance made available to other businesses 
and individuals as a result of the disastrous storms in Vermont.
  For example, why should workers at the Department of Energy's 
Pinellas Plant in Florida be retrained at the Government's expense? 
What about all those other Government employees who are displaced 
because of downsizing? And are not there already enough worker 
retraining programs at both the Federal and State levels that these 
employees could utilize?
  I find it somewhat disturbing that we are providing $2 million in 
additional funding for the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a 
study of the Amtrak system. Mr. President, at the end of the last 
session we went through a rather long and involved debate and 
discussion about restructuring Amtrak. We bailed them out to the tune 
of over $3 billion, if I remember correctly. And we have appointed a 
new board to try to restructure and save Amtrak. And now, as an 
emergency, we are pumping in $2 million extra. I don't get it.
  The Secretary of Transportation also gets $3 million to study transit 
system requirements in Hawaii. The Secretary of Transportation gets $3 
million to study transit system requirements in Hawaii. Mr. President, 
I don't go to Hawaii a lot, but I have to admit, I have heard no 
reports here on the mainland of some emergency that requires $3 million 
to study the transit system. The people were getting back and forth to 
Waikiki easily the last time I checked.
  Of course, the Olympics have to get their share of the pork. This 
bill contains another $1.9 million for transportation requirements for 
the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah. I have lost track of just how much 
money we have thrown at the Olympics over the years, and I have asked 
my friend, the junior Senator from Utah, to tell me just how much he 
thinks his State will need to host these games. I have yet to receive 
an answer from him.
  You know, Mr. President, the latest scam that goes on in America is 
the following: A city wants to have the Olympics, so they get together 
all their civic boosters and supporters and commitments for financial 
support, and they go and they bid, and they receive the Olympics, and 
everybody is happy. And they are so proud because they did it 
themselves. And then, guess what. The first place they turn--and they 
perfected this to a fine art in Atlanta--is where? The Congress, to get 
tens, hundreds, of millions of dollars to take care of, guess what? 
Their Olympic requirements.
  And, by the way, I do not blame them. I do not blame them for trying 
it. I blame them somewhat for getting away with it. So we have already 
spent numbers of millions of dollars.
  Remember, this is 2002. We still have some time to go. We have 
already spent many millions of dollars already for the Olympics in 
Utah. And I can guarantee you one thing: There will be tens of millions 
of dollars or more before the torch is lit. I guarantee you that.

  Finally, I would like to ask the managers of the bill if they could 
explain one of the add-ons in this bill. What is dielectric wall 
accelerator technology for remote explosive detonation, radiography, 
and fusion applications? And why is it essential that $4 million be 
included in this bill for this program?
  Mr. President, this amendment targets only those items that will cost 
taxpayers dollars, but there are several other provisions that do not 
appear to have a direct cost to the taxpayer, at least not yet.
  For example, the bill contains a section that requires the Federal 
Government to construct the Trappers Loop connector road in support of, 
guess what. The 2002 Winter Olympics. The funding has already been 
provided for this project, but apparently it has run into some 
difficulties.
  The report language acknowledges the potential for cost growth in the 
project, an ominous sign that more taxpayer dollars will be required to 
complete this nondiscretionary road project. Remember this one, Mr. 
President: Trappers Loop connector road. You will hear again about 
that. And we will pay several more millions of dollars so that the 
Trappers Loop connector road in support of the 2002 Winter Olympics 
will be paid for.
  The bill contains a provision that directs the Secretary of the 
Interior to enter into negotiations with the City of Albuquerque, NM, 
for storm water runoff and drainage management in the Petroglyph 
National Monument. What concerns me is the potential of future costs to 
the road project that is facilitated by the directed boundary 
adjustment in the bill, the usual report language exhortations to 
various agencies to address myriad problems, but for which the solution 
is not, surprisingly, spending taxpayer dollars. Like another $250,000 
to complete damage repair in North Dakota, which was funded at $600,000 
as an add-on in the 1997 emergency disaster supplemental appropriations 
bill; adequate funds to repair and restock the Beckley, WV, Military 
Entrance Processing Station that was damaged.
  Mr. President, I hope that we can pass this amendment. And I hope we 
will appreciate that when it comes time to take care of emergency 
supplemental appropriations bills, we will take care of true 
emergencies.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain, in offering this amendment to strike a number of 
extraneous provisions from the emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  These provisions are only the most recent example of the abuse of our 
emergency appropriations process.
  In general, the rules require that new spending, whether through 
direct spending, tax expenditures, or discretionary programs, be offset 
with spending cuts or revenue increases.
  However, the rules provide for exceptions in the event of true 
emergencies.
  The deliberate review through the federal budget process, weighing 
one priority against another, may not permit a timely response to an 
international crisis, a natural disaster, or some other emergency.
  We do not ask that earthquake victims find a funding source before we 
send them aid, though that should not, even in dire circumstances, be 
read to imply we must not find ways to pay for emergencies, rather than 
simply add their costs to the deficit.
  But, Mr. President, the emergency exception to our budget rules, 
designed to expedite a response to an urgent need, has become a 
loophole, abused by those trying to circumvent the scrutiny of the 
budget process, in particular, by adding non-emergency matters to 
emergency legislation that is receiving special, accelerated 
consideration.
  One former Member of the other body, who was especially skilled at 
advancing spending items, was quoted as saying, ``I never saw a 
disaster that wasn't an opportunity.''
  That, in a nutshell, is still the unfortunate attitude of a few.
  Mr. President, there is a long history of adding non-emergency 
special interest items to emergency supplemental measures.
  Just last year, a number of items were included in the disaster 
relief bill that had absolutely nothing to do with the need for 
emergency relief: an additional $35 million available for new grants 
under the Advanced Technology Program; a $5 million earmark for study 
of water allocation issues in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia; $15 
million for research on environmental factors affecting breast cancer; 
$650,000 for the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education; 
$16 million for continued development of Automated Targeting System for 
the Customs Service; a $12.3 million set-aside for construction of a 
parking garage at a VA medical center in Cleveland; and, a $500,000 
earmark for a parking garage in Ashland, Kentucky.

  Mr. President, we even used the emergency relief bill to give the 
Secretary of the Senate $5 million for the development of a Legislative 
Information System.

[[Page S2404]]

  In the 103rd Congress, when the appropriations bill to provide relief 
for the Los Angeles earthquake was introduced, it initially did four 
things: provided $7.8 billion for the Los Angeles quake, $1.2 billion 
for the Department of Defense peacekeeping operations; $436 million for 
Midwest flood relief, and $315 million more for the 1989 California 
earthquake.
  But, Mr. President, by the time the Los Angeles earthquake bill 
became law, it also provided: $1.4 million to fight potato fungus; $2.3 
million for FDA pay raises; $14.4 million for the National Park 
Service; $12.4 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs; $10 million 
for a new Amtrak station in New York; $40 million for the space 
shuttle; $20 million for a fingerprint lab; $500,000 for United States 
Trade Representative travel office; and $5.2 million for the Bureau of 
Public Debt.
  Mr. President, we now come to this year's model, and not much has 
changed.
  The Senator from Arizona's amendment seeks to eliminate a number of 
extraneous provisions in the current emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill, including: $7.5 million to begin repair and 
rehabilitation of the Capitol Dome; $4 million for development and 
demonstration of dielectric wall accelerator technology for remote 
explosive detonation, radiography, and fusion applications; and, $2 
million for payments to counties to replace funds expected from timber 
road construction projects.
  Mr. President, some of these projects may well be worthy.
  In fact, the last provision I mentioned, providing $2 million in 
payments to counties to replace funds expected from timber road 
construction projects, is something I believe may have great merit.
  But, Mr. President, just because a provision may be worthwhile does 
not justify using an emergency appropriations bill to skirt normal 
budget scrutiny.
  Mr. President, though non-emergency matters attached to emergency 
bills are still subject to the spending caps established in the 
concurrent budget resolution, as long as total spending remains under 
those caps, these unrelated spending matters are not required to be 
offset with spending cuts.
  Some might suggest that new spending is less a problem on emergency 
supplemental appropriations when it is offset with spending cuts.
  But, Mr. President, in such instances, we miss an opportunity to use 
those rescissions to reduce the deficit, having instead to use them 
just to stay even.
  Moreover, by using emergency appropriations bills as a vehicle, these 
extraneous proposals avoid the normal scrutiny through which 
legislative proposals must go to justify Federal spending.
  Mr. President, those who add unrelated provisions to disaster relief 
measures are engaging in a game of chicken--daring the body to oppose 
the emergency relief that may be desperately needed.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this reckless approach, and support 
the McCain amendment to strip out the unrequested provisions added to 
this emergency supplemental appropriations measure.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Arizona 
for raising these issues, and I think it is good to have a dialog on 
what we are doing. I am trying to get the answer to the question the 
Senator asks.
  On page 14 of the report, we report that we have recommended $4 
million for the development of the electric wall accelerator 
technology, in the atomic energy division of the Department of Energy. 
It is fully offset by a reduction in Federal funds for defense. It is 
not an emergency; it is not an add-on. It really is a reprogramming 
through this bill. I understand it is at the request of the Department. 
It was presented by a Senator to the full Appropriations Committee. I 
might add, I am a member of the committee and I am trying to get 
further information about the wall accelerator technology. It is 
related to the smaller accelerators, I am told, not the large types. It 
is a $4 million item using money that has already been allocated to 
another form of defense activity and moved over to this, and the other 
account has been reduced accordingly.
  I might say, this is one of my problems about the bill, Mr. 
President, because when we reprogram this money, it is my understanding 
that the Congressional Budget Office still charges us with the original 
$4 million and the second $4 million. This is what has led us into this 
great debate with the Office of Management and Budget and the CBO about 
the scoring for the purpose of our Budget Act of transfers, 
reprogrammings, and recessions. I hope to talk about that at a later 
time.
  I note, also, the Senator has given us a list of the items. He is 
correct; there is no question about it that Olympics cost us money. 
There isn't a nation in the world that doesn't fight to have Olympics. 
I have just come back now from Australia where I looked at the venue 
for the Olympics to be held in the year 2000 by that country. I can 
tell the Senator that every National Government expends substantial 
funds. I saw the changes in the wharfs, I saw the changes in the site. 
As a matter of fact, they are making an addition to one of their 
national parks as their venue for their world Olympics. There is a 
considerable amount that will be spent there in the effort to assure 
that those games are carried on to meet their national needs. Many of 
these items really are moneys that are in advance of expenditures under 
other Federal programs.
  I also went up to look at the site of the 2002 Winter Olympics. I am 
sure the Senator remembers, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, my 
interest in the Olympic movement. I can report that he is absolutely 
correct. This is not the last time we will hear about the Winter 
Olympics in Salt Lake City. It does require a substantial change in 
traffic patterns there, both in terms of rail and road connections, to 
assure that we can handle in this country the tremendous number of 
foreign visitors who will come to our country when we once again host 
the 2002 Winter Olympics.
  Beyond that, Mr. President, as I said, as I look at these questions 
that the Senator has raised, there is no question that there are 
terrible ice storms in the Northeast. One of the substantial problems 
there is to make available funds for the damage that occurred there in 
the area where they produce, as one of the major economic activities, 
the maple syrup. That is a lot of money, but it is something that we 
looked at, and it is consistent with the precedence of the Senate in 
dealing with the disaster. We accepted the amendment in regard to that.
  I personally, as I told the Senate, went to Georgia, met with the 
people handling the transportation activities in Georgia, and at the 
time met others who were involved in dealing with some of the 
difficulties that were encountered there in the floods. I did not make 
a trip to Alabama and Mississippi, but I did get a briefing on levy and 
waterway repairs in both of those States, and I believe that money that 
the Senator from Arizona has questioned is within, again, the 
precedence of the Senate in dealing with emergency funding.
  As a matter of fact, I might say to my friend from Arizona, we expect 
either today or tomorrow another request from the administration for 
FEMA money, Federal Emergency Management money, because of the two very 
difficult storms that occurred the past weekend. That money must be 
added to this bill or wait until fall when we approve the regular bill. 
I do not expect we will have another supplemental between now and 
consideration of the regular appropriations bills for the fiscal year 
1999. That could change, but I do not expect it at this time.
  The road moratorium money is another item here that was questioned, 
section 405, that requires payments to counties to replace funds 
counties expected to receive from the timber road construction 
projects. This is another precedent established by the Congress. As a 
matter of fact, it was established in my State of Alaska when, by 
action of the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture, 
existing programs for road construction and for timber utilization were 
canceled and there was, in fact, passed by the Congress a substantial 
bill to replace those funds for a period of time because the schools in 
these counties where the timber activity takes place relied to a great 
extent on the revenue-sharing provisions of Federal law to maintain the 
schools.

[[Page S2405]]

 We have taken action in the past to replace funds under similar 
circumstances, and this section of this bill is to continue that 
precedent, also.
  I am pleased to try and answer any other question the Senator has. To 
deal with a bill of this type, you have to come back to the concept of 
the eye of the beholder. I honor and respect the Senator from Arizona 
as chairman of the authorizing committee that looks very carefully at 
all of the funds that are authorized in the normal process. This type 
of bill--a supplemental appropriations bill, disaster appropriations 
bill, and a defense emergency appropriations bill--relies to a great 
extent on items that have not been authorized. They are authorized by 
virtue of the very nature of the occurrence as disaster or emergency or 
defense matters, and, as such, these matters that the Senator from 
Arizona has raised have not been reviewed by the legislative committees 
and they should be fully examined by all Members of the Senate. I 
invite all Members of the Senate to examine these matters. We tried to 
go into these in depth in the Appropriations Committee and, because of 
the time circumstance, we may not have gone into each one to the extent 
we should, but I was convinced as chairman, and I know that other 
members of the committee were convinced through their own listening of 
the presentations, that these items do merit the approval of the Senate 
as legitimate disaster expenses or as legitimate funds to replace funds 
already spent by the Department of Defense.
  This defense money is to replace the money that has been spent and is 
necessary to be spent in terms of the deployment to Southwest Asia and 
in Bosnia, and they are declared emergencies. I believe they should be 
so classified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. If the Senator would yield, I will speak in opposition 
to the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to yield briefly. May I inquire how much 
time the Senator desires?
  Ms. COLLINS. If I could have 3 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 3 minutes. I do not wish to look constrained, 
but we tried and notified Members we will vote at 5:30.
  Mr. GRAMS. If I could speak for 5 minutes in support of the amendment 
following the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will yield each Senator 5 minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent the vote on this measure take place at 5:35. 
That is a vote on or in relation to this. I shall make a motion to 
table this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee for his courtesy.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain. I cannot speak to the value of 
some of the projects which he has singled out in this amendment, but I 
can speak to the necessity of providing assistance to the maple sugar 
producers in northern New England.
  Maine and other northern New England States recently endured the ice 
storm of the century. Part of the result of that ice storm was 
extensive damage to the forests in Maine. Our maple sugar producers 
have been severely hurt by the ice storm. Their trees may well take a 
very long time to recover. These maple sugar producers in northern New 
England have fallen through the cracks of our traditional disaster 
assistance programs. They need our assistance. This bill would provide 
a modest amount of money, $4.48 million in funds, that are desperately 
needed for these small maple sugar producers to recover from the impact 
of this devastating storm.
  The amendment of the Senator from Arizona also raises important 
public policy issues. We have more than one branch of government in 
this country. The idea that the President and the President alone 
should solely dictate what is in an urgent supplemental bill should 
give us all cause for alarm. It is inconsistent with the traditions of 
this noble body and it is contrary to the public interests.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote to table the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona today to offer this amendment striking some add-
on, non-emergency items from the supplemental appropriations.
  This amendment represents sound and responsible fiscal policy.
  I want to take this opportunity to commend Senator McCain for his 
consistent leadership and persistent efforts to ensure Congress 
exercises fiscal responsibility.
  Supplemental appropriations legislation has routinely become a 
Christmas tree. Every year it is loaded with all kinds of unauthorized, 
non-emergency projects, stuck here and there, until it reaches the 
point where it has grown out of control.
  Supplemental appropriations, by definition, are supposed to be 
enacted when the need for additional funds is too urgent to be 
postponed until the next regular appropriation is considered.
  Today, this legislation has become a major vehicle for lawmakers to 
bring home the bacon. In fact, not one of the items listed in this 
amendment is too urgent to wait for consideration under the proper 
procedures.
  Many of us come down to the floor each year demanding this 
irresponsible practice come to an end. Unfortunately, it has been a 
fight to persuade Congress that this is the only sensible course 
lately.
  Taxpayer dollars are too often considered ``free money'' here in 
Washington, and the thought of more ``free money'' is creating a 
feeding frenzy on Capitol Hill, particularly when there might be 
``budget surplus'' in sight.
  As I've said before in this Chamber, the rush to spend reminds me of 
the free-for-all that results when you toss a piece of raw meat to a 
pack of hungry dogs.
  Washington will pounce on a stack of tax dollars and spend, spend, 
spend until it's all gone--until the bones have been stripped of every 
last morsel of meat.
  This is nothing new, of course. But just because it has become habit 
on Capital Hill doesn't mean it's right.
  The greatest concern I have about these add-on, non-emergency items 
and the supplemental appropriations bill is that this spending will 
consume a possible budget surplus that should rightfully be returned to 
the taxpayers in the form of tax relief, national debt reduction, or 
Social Security reform.
  The President is maintaining that not one penny of a potential 
surplus would be used for spending increases or tax cuts, and every 
penny should go to save Social Security. But in his fiscal year 1999 
budget, he has already proposed to spend some $43 billion of the 
surplus.
  Now the President has proposed a supplemental appropriation that will 
spend another $2.5 billion of this surplus.
  I believe strongly that Congress owes it to the taxpayers not to 
spend any surplus for government programs.
  After all, the Government has no claim on any surplus, because the 
Government didn't generate it--the sweat and hard work of the American 
people created it, and it therefore should be returned to the people 
first.
  Washington should not be first in line for this surplus. If we are 
serious about saving Social Security, we should first stop looting the 
Social Security surplus by cutting government spending, returning the 
borrowed surplus to the trust funds, and beginning real reform now.
  Congress has done very little to shrink the size of the Government by 
eliminating wasteful and unnecessary Federal programs. It instead 
continues to increase the size of the Government.
  As I've said before, it this is a race to prove who can be the most 
``compassionate'' with taxpayers' dollars, it's a race nobody will win, 
and one the taxpayers most certainly will lose. The truth is simple: 
You can't buy compassion.
  A big, expensive Federal Government is a bad deal for Americans. If 
Congress could roll back government domestic spending back to 1969 
levels, a family of four would keep $9,000 a year more of its earnings 
than it does today. Millions of families would pay no income tax at 
all.

[[Page S2406]]

  Unfortunately, tax-and-spend--not tax relief and streamlining--is the 
policy Washington is now pursuing.
  Since the 1970's, Congress has passed a number of bills to make it 
difficult to use supplementals to bypass spending controls. But they 
don't appear to be working. In fact, Congress has provided $5 billion 
each year in emergency spending since the establishment of spending 
caps. All of the supplementals are offset.
  Breaching the spending caps would be fiscally irresponsible at a time 
in which domestic discretionary spending continues to grow and large 
numbers of wasteful programs are allowed to continue.
  Although our short-term fiscal condition has improved in recent 
years, we still have a long way to go to address our long-term fiscal 
imbalances which pose a serious threat to our future.
  We must exercise fiscal discipline to ensure the Federal budget will 
be balanced--and stay balanced--without new taxes and without new 
spending.
  In conclusion, there might be merits for some of these add-on, non-
emergency programs. But they should undergo the normal authorizing 
process. Non-emergency add-ons destroy the purpose of supplemental 
appropriations and weaken our fiscal discipline.
  Again, supplemental appropriations, by definition, are supposed to be 
enacted when the need for additional funds is too urgent to be 
postponed until the next regular appropriation is considered. Again, 
today, this legislation has become a major vehicle for lawmakers to 
bring home the bacon, and, in fact, not one of the items listed in this 
amendment is too urgent to wait for consideration under proper 
procedures. So they should be stricken out of this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, all time is expired now, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the amendment of the Senator from 
Arizona, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 2063. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.

  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. D'Amato), 
the Senator from Oklahoma, (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Missouri 
(Mr. Bond), are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. 
Landrieu), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator 
from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--31

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Coats
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hutchinson
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lugar
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Biden
     Bond
     D'Amato
     Inhofe
     Kerrey
     Landrieu
     Mikulski
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2063) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senate can be in order, the 
distinguished President pro tempore wishes to make remarks about this 
bill at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please be in order.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina and ask 
unanimous consent I reclaim the floor when he is finished with his 
statement so I may deal with some amendments that we have agreed to on 
both sides. As has been noted, there will be no more votes tonight, but 
we will try our best to have a vote early in the morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to support this 
supplemental request, and urge my colleagues to speed its passage. I 
want to commend Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, and Senator Inouye, the ranking member, on this 
supplemental. It is needed, and the Senate should act on it quickly.
  The Chiefs of our Military Services have testified that without swift 
approval of this defense supplemental request, they are concerned there 
will be significant impacts to the readiness and quality of life of our 
armed forces. The Defense Department has already paid $9 billion for 
operations in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf over the past three years and 
is currently paying the bills for these unbudgeted operations this 
year, while attempting to maintain already constrained programs for 
readiness, modernization, and quality of life programs in this year's 
defense budget.
  I agree with Senator Stevens, chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee that the defense budget should not be offset to pay for these 
operations. I understand that the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Domenici also agrees that the defense budget should not be 
offset to pay for these unbudgeted operations. The defense budget has 
been steadily reduced over the last fifteen years and is at its lowest 
point since 1956, while at the same time our military forces are being 
called on to respond to an unprecedented number of deployments. 
Contingency and ongoing operations are draining needed resources for 
current readiness and the future modernization of our military forces. 
The cost of these operations in fiscal year 1998 alone is expected to 
reach more than $4.3 billion. We must not allow the costs of these 
unbudgeted operations to adversely affect the future modernization, 
current readiness, or quality of life of our military forces.
  Mr. President, I know that there are Senators who do not support the 
open-end commitment of our troops in Bosnia, which the President has 
requested. I have some concerns about that commitment myself. However, 
I suggest to those Senators who are absolutely opposed to our 
continuing commitment in Bosnia to consider legislation limiting or 
terminating our role there--and insist on a vote on such legislation. 
This approach, it seems to me is far more appropriate than proposing 
that we continue to pay for Bosnia--and the Persian Gulf operations as 
well--from already scarce resources in the defense budget--which 
further weakens the readiness of our forces and delays or terminates 
critically needed modernization and quality of life programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support the quick passage of this much needed 
defense supplemental request and not require offsets from the defense 
budget. Continuing the practice of requiring offsets will undermine the 
capability of our armed forces, many of whom are forward deployed now 
protecting our national security interests.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for those remarks. He is absolutely 
correct. We do need this bill. We need it for the men and women in the 
armed services who have already been deployed. I, too, have trouble 
with some of these deployments, but I never have any trouble voting and 
asking people to vote for money to keep and support

[[Page S2407]]

our men and women who have been sent in harm's way because of command 
decisions.


               Amendments Nos. 2069 through 2076, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have a series of amendments that have 
been agreed to on both sides. I would like to just review them and make 
sure the Democratic members of the committee and their staffs concur 
that these are the ones that have been cleared.
  Let me read them. Then I will send them all to the desk at one time.
  First, I propose an amendment to make technical corrections to 
section 405 to the bill that pertains to the Forest Service 
transportation system moratorium. That has been cleared on both sides. 
I offer it on behalf of Senator Craig. It has been also cleared by the 
chairman of the subcommittee involved.
  I have a second amendment. This is offered on behalf of the 
distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle. It deals with emergency 
river and shoreline repairs along the Missouri River. That has been 
cleared on both sides.
  I have another amendment on behalf of Senator Cochran, Senator 
Bumpers, Senator D'Amato and Senator Boxer. It deals with assistance to 
replace and rehabilitate trees and vineyards damaged by natural 
disasters.
  I have an amendment on behalf of Senator Boxer that deals with 
emergency levee repairs at Suisun Marsh in California. That has been 
cleared on both sides.
  Mr. President, I have another amendment on behalf of the Senator from 
Hawaii, Mr. Inouye. It deals with Apra Harbor in Guam. That is another 
emergency amendment and has been cleared.
  Another amendment on behalf of Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers, 
that deals with additional boll weevil eradication loans. It is for the 
amount of $222,000. This is to the natural disaster bill and emergency 
defense bill, but it is to correct a shortfall in the fiscal year 1998 
appropriation due to an interest rate subsidy miscalculation. So it is 
to correct an error in the previous law.

  I have another amendment that has been cleared on both sides. It is 
on behalf of Senator Boxer. It deals with not applying changes in a 
prior act of Congress to the projects that are resulting from fall and 
winter flooding.
  Mr. President, there is another amendment here that I offer on behalf 
of the majority leader and Senators Lieberman, Gregg, Hollings, Kyl, 
myself, McConnell, Helms, Shelby, Brownback and Kerrey. It deals with 
the availability of funds for the activities in connection with the 
Iraqi Democratic opposition; the second portion of this deals with the 
establishment of Radio Free Iraq. That has been cleared on both sides.
  To my knowledge, those are all the amendments that we have cleared. I 
now send these to the desk. I ask unanimous consent they be reported 
and the amendments be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2069 through 2076 en bloc.

  Mr. STEVENS. Due to the fact that I read the intent and purposes, I 
ask the amendments not be read any further and they be considered en 
bloc at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2069

    (Purpose: To make technical corrections to Sec. 405 of the bill 
      regarding a Forest Service transportation system moratorium)

       On page 36, strike lines 6 through 10 and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       (b)(1) For any previously scheduled projects that are 
     referred to in, but not authorized pursuant to, subsection 
     (a)(1), the Chief may, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     prepare and authorize substitute projects within the same 
     state to be offered or initiated in fiscal year 1998 or 
     fiscal year 1999. Such projects shall be subject to the 
     requirements of subsection (a)(2).
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 2070

       On page 18, following line 5, insert the following:
       An additional amount for emergency river and shoreline 
     repairs along the Missouri River in South Dakota to be 
     conducted at full Federal expenses, $2,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of the 
     Army is authorized and directed to obligate and expend the 
     funds appropriated for South Dakota emergency river and 
     shoreline repair if the Secretary of the Army certifies that 
     such work is necessary to provide flood related benefits: 
     Provided further, That the Corps of Engineers shall not be 
     responsible for the future costs of operation, repair, 
     replacement or rehabilitation of the project: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request of $2,500,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2071

 (Purpose: To provide funds for assistance to replace or rehabilitate 
           trees and vineyards damaged by natural disasters)

       On page 5, after line 3, insert the following:


                       ``tree assistance program

       ``An amount of $8,700,000 is provided for assistance to 
     replace or rehabilitate trees and vineyards damaged by 
     natural disasters: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     for $8,700,000, that includes designation of the entire 
     amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined 
     in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.''

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment provides $8.7 million in 
assistance to farmers whose trees and vineyards were lost or damaged as 
a result of natural disasters. The Tree Assistance Program (TAP) 
provides assistance for the cost of replanting, reseeding, or repairing 
damage to trees, including commercial trees, orchards, and vineyards.
  This assistance has been extended to producers in past years. Funding 
for this program was not included in the Administration's disaster 
funding request. However, based on discussions with Members from the 
affected States and the Department, there is an apparent need for this 
program. This program is not intended to duplicate assistance for tree 
losses covered by programs of the United States Forest Service.


                           amendment no. 2072

       On page 18, following line 5, insert the following:
       An additional amount for emergency levee repairs at Suisun 
     Marsh, California to be conducted at full Federal expense, 
     $1,100,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed to 
     obligate and expend the funds appropriated for the Suisun 
     Marsh, California levee repair to proceed with engineering 
     and design and reconstruction if the Secretary of the Army 
     certifies that such work is necessary to provide flood 
     control benefits in the vicinity of Suisun Marsh, California: 
     Provided further, That the Corps of Engineers shall not be 
     responsible for the future costs of operation, repair, 
     replacement or rehabilitation of the project: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request of $1,100,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2073

       On page 18, following line 5, insert the following:
       An additional amount for emergency maintenance dredging at 
     Apra Harbor, Guam to be conducted at full Federal expense, 
     $1,400,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed to 
     obligate and expend the funds appropriated for the Apra 
     Harbor, Guam emergency maintenance dredging if the Secretary 
     of the Army certifies that such work is in the national 
     interest: Provided further, That the Corps of Engineers shall 
     not be responsible for the future costs of operation, repair, 
     replacement or rehabilitation of the project: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request of $1,400,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.

[[Page S2408]]

     
                                                                    ____
                           AMENDMENT NO. 2074

 (Purpose: To subsidize the cost of additional boll weevil eradication 
                                 loans)

       On page 3, line 3, strike ``and''.
       On page 3, line 4, before the period, add ``; and for boll 
     weevil eradication program loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     1989, $222,000''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment provides $222,000 to cover 
the cost of additional boll weevil eradication loans. This will correct 
a shortfall in the fiscal year 1998 appropriation due to an interest 
rate subsidy miscalculation. The additional amount provided by this 
amendment will maintain the fiscal year 1997 $40 million loan level in 
fiscal year 1998.
  These loans are used to enhance the funding of the Boll Weevil 
Eradication Program and are made to the participating States' 
individual Boll Weevil Eradication Foundations. The applications for 
the loans are not made until April when the need for the actual money 
during the planting season can be determined by farmers. This procedure 
is in response to the Farm Services Agency's concerns that the funds be 
utilized when received rather than deposited for future use. At a 
recent Mid-South Boll Weevil Action Committee meeting, the committee 
agreed that applications will be made for the use of approximately $40 
million and this money will be needed in fiscal year 1998.
  Again, I wish to reiterate that this amendment is only for a small 
amount and is necessary to maintain this program at its current level.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator 
Cochran, Chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related 
Agencies Subcommittee, in offering an amendment to S. 1768 relating to 
the boll weevil eradication loan program. Our amendment will provide an 
additional $222,000 in budget authority to support an increased program 
level of nearly $19,000,000. This amendment will return the program to 
the fiscal year 1997 level of approximately $40,000,000 which is 
consistent with the program's identified need.
  This loan program is an important component of USDA's overall boll 
weevil eradication strategy. Already, regions of this country are 
benefitting from complete boll weevil eradication. The benefits of this 
program include reduced chemical applications, higher net farm income, 
increased land values, and other attributes important to the vitality 
of rural America. This program benefits not only farmers, but everyone 
interested in a clean environment and economic prosperity.
  There are still large regions of the country where the boll weevil 
eradication program is either in the very early stages or has not yet 
begun. In my state of Arkansas, referendums have been recently 
concluded in which farmers are agreeing to assessments to pay their 
share of the boll weevil grant program that is administered through the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The loan program that we 
seek to increase, administered by the Farm Service Agency, helps 
farmers accelerate the timetable for complete eradication of this pest.
  It is very important that we move these areas forward as quickly as 
possible to help protect the environment and to help sustain rural 
economies. The program level made possible by this amendment will 
return the program to last year's level which is the very least we 
should do at this time.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Cochran for his leadership on this 
issue and to Senators Stevens and Byrd for seeing it included in the 
text of S. 1768.


                           amendment no. 2075

(Purpose: Waive the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 125(b)(1) with respect to 
  emergency disaster highway assistance necessitated by the 1997/1998 
                          storms from El Nino)

       On page 45, line 13, after the words, ``highway program 
     made available by this Act'', insert the following: ``: 
     Provided further, That 23 U.S.C. 125(b)(1) shall not apply to 
     projects resulting from the Fall 1997 and Winter 1998 
     flooding in the western States''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2076

       At the appropriate place in title II of the bill insert the 
     following new general provisions:

     SEC.   . SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION IN IRAQ.

       In addition to the amounts appropriated to the President 
     under Public Law 105-118, there is hereby appropriated 
     $5,000,000 for the ``Economic Support Fund,'' to remain 
     available until September 30, 1999, for assistance to the 
     Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as 
     organization, training, disseminating information, developing 
     and implementing agreements among opposition groups, and for 
     related purposes: Provided further, That within 30 days of 
     enactment into law of this Act the Secretary of State shall 
     submit a detailed report to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress on plans to establish a program to support the 
     democratic opposition in Iraq: Provided further, That such 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress.

     SEC.   . ESTABLISHMENT OF RADIO FREE IRAQ.

       In addition to the amounts appropriated to the United 
     States Information Agency under Public Law 105-119, there is 
     hereby appropriated $5,000,000 for ``International 
     Broadcasting Operations,'' to remain available until 
     September 30, 1999, for a grant to Radio Free Europe/Radio 
     Liberty for surrogate radio broadcasting to the Iraqi people: 
     Provided, That such broadcasting shall be designated ``Radio 
     Free Iraq'': Provided further, That within 30 days of 
     enactment into law of this Act the Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors shall submit a detailed report to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress on plans to establish a surrogate 
     broadcasting service to Iraq: Provided further, That such 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251 (b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment 
providing $5 million for overt political support and $5 million for the 
establishment of ``Radio Free Iraq.''
  This is a bipartisan amendment. I am joined by Senators Lieberman, 
Gregg, Hollings, Kyl, Stevens, Helms, and Brownback in support for this 
start to a political approach to changing the regime in Iraq.
  This emergency appropriations bill contains over $1.3 billion for 
U.S. military operations in Southwest Asia. Our military deployments to 
the Persian Gulf are very expensive. They are necessary to keep 
pressure on Iraq.
  But I believe that a new policy goal is necessary as well. I have 
publicly advocated an approach that has an explicit goal for the 
removal of Saddam Hussein from power. I expect to continue to examine 
how such a policy can be developed and implemented. I will continue to 
work with the Administration to explore ways we can develop a Iraq 
policy that is more effective and more sustainable.
  The amendment today is intended to be a first step in a policy 
reappraisal. It is drawn from a provision in the State Department 
Authorization Conference Report. Section 1814 authorizes $38 million 
for a number of purposes, including political support and creating 
``Radio Free Iraq.''
  The amendment today would appropriate the money. It would be non-
offset--designated as an emergency. It seems reasonable to me to put a 
modest $10 million for political efforts when the underlying bill has 
more than $1.3 billion for military efforts.
  I would also like to note what the statement of managers on the State 
Department Authorization Conference Report says about the Iraqi 
opposition: ``The Committee further notes that disparate Kurdish, 
Shiite and Sunni groups have in the past been willing to set aside 
their differences and unite under the umbrella of the Iraqi National 
Congress (INC) to challenge Saddam Hussein.''
  This amendment requires the Administration to submit their proposal 
to spend these funds within 30 days. Congress will review their 
proposal very carefully--especially what groups the Administration 
plans to work with.
  I understand there is some division within the Administration about 
the INC. I know you can always find reasons for not undertaking a 
difficult policy. In my view, the Iraqi National Congress should be 
front and center in any efforts to develop a strategy for a democratic 
Iraq. There may be other

[[Page S2409]]

opposition groups deserving of support but I do not know of any that 
have been as effective as the INC was until the fall of 1996.
  Along with the other sponsors, I intend to keep pressing on various 
elements of this strategy during legislative action on fiscal year 1999 
bills.
  I thank the co-sponsors for their support and look forward to the 
unanimous adoption of this amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments (Nos. 2069 through 2076) were agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that action and I 
move to lay my motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to lay on this table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan has an 
amendment that we have previously discussed. I encourage him to raise 
it at this time.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 2077

  (Purpose: To urge the President to formalize certain benchmarks by 
  agreement with NATO and to provide for NATO review of any failures 
  timely to achieve such benchmarks, and to impose related reporting 
                             requirements)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2077.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 15, after line 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 205. (a) Congress urges the President to enter into an 
     agreement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
     that sets forth--
       (1) the benchmarks that are detailed in the report 
     accompanying the certification that was made by the President 
     to Congress on March 3, 1998;
       (2) a schedule for achieving the benchmarks; and
       (3) a process for NATO to carry out a formal review of each 
     failure, if any, to achieve any such benchmark on schedule.
       (b) The President shall submit to Congress--
       (1) not later than June 30, 1998, a report on the results 
     of the efforts to obtain an agreement described in subsection 
     (a); and
       (2) semiannually after that report, a report on the 
     progress made toward achieving the benchmarks referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1), including a discussion of each achievement 
     of a benchmark referred to in that subsection, each failure 
     to achieve a benchmark on schedule, and the results of NATO's 
     formal review of each such failure.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to build on the 
President's March 3, 1998, report to Congress that sets forth a series 
of benchmarks for the implementation of the Dayton accords in Bosnia. 
That report was submitted by the President pursuant to identical 
provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1998 and the National Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 1998.
  The benchmarks, which are described in the report as ``concrete and 
achievable,'' however, were established unilaterally by the 
administration and were not shared with or agreed upon by our NATO 
allies.
  My amendment would call for the President to seek agreement by NATO 
to those benchmarks to an estimated timetable for their accomplishment 
and to a process to review the accomplishment of those benchmarks.
  The amendment would thus attempt to ensure that all NATO members are 
using the same objectives and estimated time lines for their 
achievement and are committed to reviewing the situation if those time 
lines are not met.
  I want to stress, Mr. President, that the time lines are not 
deadlines, they are not rigid or inflexible; they are estimates. But I 
do believe that establishing benchmarks without an estimated timeframe 
within which you hope to accomplish those benchmarks is only doing half 
the job. This is particularly true when, as here, the benchmarks, with 
one exception, are largely beyond the control of the NATO-led 
stabilization force.
  That force, SFOR, can create the secure environment within which the 
civil implementation of the Dayton accords can take place and SFOR can 
provide support to the Office of the High Representative, the 
International Police Task Force, the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe and the International Criminal Tribunal for 
Yugoslavia, but SFOR cannot and should not seek to directly carry out 
those civil implementation functions.

  Thus, since the accomplishments of these benchmarks are generally 
beyond SFOR's control, it is important for NATO to agree on the 
benchmarks and the estimated time lines for their accomplishment so the 
Bosnian entities and the several international organizations are aware 
of what is expected of them.
  The amendment also calls for NATO to periodically review the 
accomplishments of the benchmarks within the estimated time lines that 
they establish and calls on the President to submit semiannual reports 
to Congress on the results of NATO's review.
  I am not here, Mr. President, criticizing the Bosnian entities or the 
international organizations involved in the implementation of the civil 
aspects of the Dayton accords. As a matter of fact, I am pleased with 
the progress that has been made over the last 6 months, particularly 
with the installation of a new government in the Republika Srpska.
  Finally, Mr. President, I believe, as I have expressed many times on 
this floor, that U.S. ground combat forces should remain in Bosnia only 
for a reasonable period of time beyond June of this year. I do not 
believe our commitment should be open-ended. This amendment, by seeking 
to ensure that everybody agrees on the same benchmarks and the same 
estimated time lines for their achievement, will, I believe, provide a 
framework by which to judge the movement forward to the time that U.S. 
ground combat forces can be withdrawn from Bosnia.
  Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Alaska has a 
second-degree amendment that he wishes to offer which is acceptable to 
me. I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I offer my apologies to the Senator from Michigan. I 
have discussed this matter, Mr. President, and I would like to make 
certain that the amendment of the Senator from Michigan does not 
reflect approval or disapproval of the benchmarks concept in the 
President's certification transmitted to Congress.


                Amendment No. 2078 to Amendment No. 2077

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment in the second degree 
which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2078 to amendment No. 2077.
       At the end of the amendment, add the following: (c) The 
     enactment of this section does not reflect approval or 
     disapproval of the bench--marks submitted by the President in 
     the certification to Congress transmitted on March 3, 1998.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment is necessary because of 
the problems we had with the Bosnian money in this bill already. Many 
people oppose Bosnian deployment, as the Senator from South Carolina 
has just stated. I want to make certain we are not going to get into a 
debate over the benchmarks when we get to conference, and I am grateful 
to the Senator from Michigan. I believe he will agree to this 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I do welcome the amendment. I think it is a 
clarification that is important, and I support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2078.
  The amendment (No. 2078) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.

[[Page S2410]]

  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the underlying 
amendment No. 2077, as amended?
  Mr. STEVENS. We are prepared to accept the amendment as amended.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 2077, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 2077), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2079

(Purpose: To provide contingent emergency funds for the enhancement of 
             a number of theater missile defense programs)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Kyl, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2079.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 15, after line 21, add the following:
       Sec. 205. In addition to the amounts provided in Public Law 
     105-56, $151,000,000 is appropriated under the heading 
     ``Research Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'': 
     Provided, That the additional amount shall be made available 
     for enhancements to selected theater missile defense programs 
     to counter enhanced ballistic missile threats: Provided 
     further, That of the additional amount appropriated, 
     $45,000,000 shall be made available only for the procurement 
     of items and equipment required for a third Arrow missile 
     defense battery: Provided further, That the entire amount 
     shall be available only to the extent that an official budget 
     request for $151,000,000, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have asked this be presented at this 
time so that other Members may see it and have a chance to discuss it 
with me or with Senator Kyl before the time tomorrow when we will seek 
to have it either adopted or voted on.
  I ask now that that amendment be set aside in order that Senator 
Ashcroft may offer his amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 2080

 (Purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide to 
  private sector employees the same opportunities for time-and-a-half 
 compensatory time off and biweekly work programs as Federal employees 
   currently enjoy to help balance the demands and needs of work and 
  family, to clarify the provisions relating to exemptions of certain 
 professionals from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the 
                   Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. I am pleased to 
have this opportunity today. We are speaking about a supplemental 
appropriations measure that relates to emergencies, about the needs 
that individuals in Government have. I would like to talk about 
emergencies that relate to the needs of America's families. Frankly, I 
want to talk about how we value women in our culture.
  Over the last 2 months, our sensibilities have been assaulted with 
the national debate on the President's behavior toward women in the 
workplace. I am worried that this preoccupation with the President's 
alleged sexual advances in the workplace is taking the focus off the 
real concerns of working women everywhere.
  Working men and women face a unique challenge in the workplace. Not 
only must they navigate the choppy waters of sexual politics in their 
own jobs, but at the end of the work day, they head home to their 
second full-time jobs as moms and dads.
  Working moms wake up each morning, hustle to ensure that the toddler 
is bathed, changed, fed and dressed, all the while keeping track of the 
7-year-old or 4-year-old or a 3-year-old, doublechecking homework, 
packing lunch. With all these balls in the air, working moms must then 
get dressed and head off to the workplace, stopping to drop off the 
youngest at grandma's or at preschool. Then it begins again after 8 
hours on the job.
  These are monumental challenges that America's supermoms meet and 
beat every day. Yet, we in Congress have been unable to extend to 
working moms and dads an invaluable option for the workplace. For 2 
years, the Senate has debated and declined to pass flexible work 
arrangements that would grant these working moms and dads and all 
workers the freedom to adjust their work schedules to meet the needs of 
their families. Flexible working arrangements could allow a mom to 
leave work early on a Friday when the nurse at the first grader's 
school calls to ask that the child be taken home. That mom could take 
that afternoon off and make up the missed hours the following Monday, 
or any day that next week, without suffering a loss of pay.
  This is currently illegal under today's outdated labor laws, and we 
find that America's families are in a state of real need. And while we 
are looking to meet the needs of Government, I think it is appropriate 
that we work as well to meet the needs of America's families. I think 
it is time that we fix this absurd result in the law.

  I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2080.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in today's fast-paced, information-based 
society, the rigid and inflexible provisions of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act have paralyzed those whom it was meant to help. It is 
interesting to note what Franklin Delano Roosevelt's words were: 
``Those who toil in factory and on farm to obtain a fair day's work'' 
were to be the focal point of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  That Fair Labor Standards Act now deprives employees of the right to 
structure their daily lives on and off the job to meet the 
responsibilities they have both at work and at home. It is not the 
employer who holds the employee in this Catch-22. It is, however, the 
Government. Inside-the-beltway elitists who think they know best 
continue to deprive America's working families of the right to make 
decisions which employees think meet their circumstances best.
  The charge to America's lawmakers now and into the next century is to 
restructure the rules regulating the workplace to help increase long-
term productivity. How do we build a workplace for the next century 
rather than try to recreate the workplace of the last century? How do 
we reflect the needs of the American family as it currently exists, 
rather than try to impose upon the American family, as it currently 
exists, the laws which were shaped 70 years ago to deal with families 
as they then existed?
  The days are past when the Federal Government can treat employment 
policy and employee productivity as if they were wholly unrelated. Our 
ability to compete in an international marketplace of intense 
competition is going to be largely dependent on our ability to provide 
for workers an accommodating, comfortable work environment where they 
can both meet the demands of the workplace and the marketplace and also 
meet the very compelling demands of their families.
  I just might add that not only is this an issue of economic 
productivity, in terms of this ability to sort of boost production and 
boost moral and boost the sense in which individuals are able to work 
effectively; this is a matter that relates to whether or not the most

[[Page S2411]]

fundamental unit of American culture, the family, can be successful, or 
whether we are going to make it impossible, whether our Government will 
be at war with the values of American families.
  I don't think there are very many people anyplace in this culture who 
wouldn't underscore the fact that when moms and dads can spend time 
with their kids that those kids do better, that we build a strong 
future. And yet we have to make sure that our culture does not have 
rules and regulations which make it impossible for moms and dads to 
accommodate the needs of the youngsters.

  As Washington's establishment clings to the workplace policies of the 
1930s, which assume employer-employee relationships that are always 
adversarial, we have to make sure that Government itself does not 
become adversarial to the fundamental values of American culture and 
American life. Prime among those values is the value we place on 
families. And essential to that value on families is the ability of 
moms and dads to find time to spend with their children.
  The law has assumed for too long that if something is good for the 
employer, it is bad for the employee. And if it is good for the 
employee, it must be bad for the employer. That cannot be so. We will 
not succeed in the marketplace of the next century assuming that we 
must always fight, that we must always be antagonistic or we cannot be 
successful. As a matter of fact, we know that the real key to success 
is teamwork, employers and employees working together, accommodating 
each other's needs, making sure that what is good for one is good for 
the other. We have a great opportunity to do that by giving employers 
and employees the opportunity to have adjustable work schedules and to 
allow for moms and dads not only to meet the demands of the workplace, 
but allow them to accommodate the needs of their families.
  America's employers have found that this adversarial basis for 
writing the employment law, which happened to have characterized the 
way it was written in the 1930s, is counterproductive and it hurts our 
competitiveness. However, our companies are managing within the narrow 
constraints of the Federal law to establish progressive employment 
practices in cooperation with their employees.
  Employees are becoming owners of their companies through employee 
stock option plans, and profit-sharing incentives are on the rise. The 
benefit of giving employees greater input in their decisionmaking 
processes is making command and control style situations far less 
acceptable. So what we have to do really is to find a way to 
accommodate these competing demands of the home place and the workplace 
if we are going to be successful.
  Let me just stop for a moment to give some data about the difference 
between the family as it was and family as it is.
  First of all, back in the 1930s, when we originally crafted our Fair 
Labor Standards Act, about one out of every six or seven --about 16 
percent--of the moms of school-aged children were in the work force. 
That means that five out of six--or six out of seven--were in the home 
place. And so the need for flexible working arrangements was not the 
same as it is now.
  There has been a virtual sea change in the work dynamic in America in 
the way in which the work force is configured. Very frankly, now, 
instead of one out of six or one out of seven being moms of school-aged 
children who are in the workplace, now four out of five moms of school-
aged children are in the workplace. So that the vast majority of moms 
of school-aged children are working as opposed to the vast majority in 
the 1930s not working. And this means that our needs are different. It 
means that it is impossible for us to get the same kind of return on a 
legal system which no longer provides a basis for meeting the needs of 
the culture since the culture's needs are vastly different.
  There are some companies that are going to very significant ends to 
try to help their employees, companies like TRW, Eastman Kodak, 
Computer Sciences Corporation, the insurance company Mass Mutual. They 
are finding ways to make their employees' lives better by offering what 
they can in terms of flexible working arrangements.
  However, the Federal law limits the extent to which they can offer 
these benefits. I might just add that these companies are trying--they 
are trying--to match what is available in the Federal system for 
Federal employees. They are trying in many ways to match what is 
available at the State system for State employees. But they cannot 
because they are prevented by the law.
  They have sought to provide flexible working arrangements, but if you 
are trying to have flexible working hours, it has to be within a week. 
There can be no change that goes over from one week to another in the 
employment week. That means generally that if you need to make up an 
hour that you want to miss on Friday afternoon, you cannot make it up 
on the next Monday unless you are a Federal Government employee.
  Oddly enough, the Federal workers have had that privilege since 1978. 
And what is interesting about it is that Federal workers have had it 
not only since 1978, but it has been vastly successful. When the 
General Accounting Office, for example, decided to inventory the extent 
to which individuals in the Federal system respond constructively to 
flexible working times, they found that 9 out of 10 Federal workers who 
had an opinion on flextime said that it was good--it was very good--9 
out of 10. It is very hard to find 9 out of 10 Federal workers who will 
agree on virtually anything. So the Federal Government workers find 
that it is a very good way to try to meet the competing demands of the 
home place and the workplace.
  And secondly, not only is flextime highly regarded in the Federal 
system, but comptime is the ability to say, look, I have worked a 
little overtime, instead of paying me time and a half for that 
overtime, will you give me time and a half off at another time so I can 
spend time with my family? That is a very popular program with Federal 
workers. So popular was that with workers at the Federal level that it 
has been extended, that capacity to be involved in that kind of 
operation has been extended to other Government workers, particularly 
at the State and local level.
  So we have a real interesting situation where the universe of workers 
is not treated fairly or equally. Governmental workers had the 
opportunity for flextime and comptime. Both at the State level they 
have comptime, and at the Federal level they have comptime. They have 
flexible working arrangements at the Federal level. They simply do not 
in the private sector. No comptime in the private sector. It is against 
the law to have comptime in the private sector, and when it goes from 
one week to the next.
  These kinds of privileges, these kinds of opportunities really would 
make it a lot easier on our families. They would give parents the 
ability to go and attend to a sick child. They would give parents the 
ability to attend events where children are being honored or children 
are performing. They would frequently give the opportunity to 
individuals who had built up some comptime to take some time off, 
perhaps extend a vacation or provide for a 3-day weekend without 
sacrificing their salaries.
  This benefit, which is available to Government workers in virtually 
every level, is not available to workers in the private sector who are 
paid by the hour. But interestingly enough, salaried workers have 
pretty much had the ability to have flexible working arrangements for 
quite some time.

  The salaried worker takes a 2-hour lunch break to take care of 
personal business or leaves early to go to a child's soccer game. The 
hourly worker who sits beside the salaried worker is tied to his or her 
desk and has to deprive his or her family of that same kind of 
attention. Now, this result is not due to their employers being 
unwilling to help. This result is due to the Federal Government's 
policy--our law under the Fair Labor Standards Act--which makes 
flexible working arrangements and comptime for private-sector workers 
illegal.
  Some of these hourly workers have come to Washington to tell their 
stories about how Federal policies impact their everyday lives.
  One of those individuals I remember who came was Arlyce Robinson. She 
was a worker who had a great story to

[[Page S2412]]

tell about working on an hourly basis, and the snow storm that hit the 
town, hit Washington, DC, as a matter of fact. They had to send workers 
home, and said, you can't work--well, they closed the offices for a 
day. The workers wanted to make up that day in the next week. But in 
order to make up that day in the next week, those 8 hours which they 
missed, those hours would have had to have been paid as overtime.
  The employer could not afford to have a 50 percent increase in his 
labor costs for that time, so those workers simply were unable to make 
that time up the next week. That is a serious problem for individuals 
who are on that kind of a schedule and who are not on salary but are on 
an hourly wage.
  Leslie Langford is a secretary at Mass Mutual in Springfield, MA. Her 
husband is a printer. They have a son who has just had his first 
birthday and a daughter about 6 years old. She put it this way:

       I've been an hourly employee with Mass Mutual for 14 years. 
     As a full-time employee and mother of two young children, 
     including a child just over a year old, it is one of the most 
     valuable commodities in my life. And I can't afford to waste 
     any of my time, like many of you.

  She says:

       I find it a challenge to juggle the needs of my employer 
     and my family.

  She wants to have the ability to have comptime and flextime in the 
private sector. She put it this way:

       Family-friendly legislation such as this is not only 
     desperately needed but long overdue in this country to 
     benefit working parents and their children.

  So you have situations where individuals who work by the hour simply 
are not allowed by the law to cooperate with their employers to develop 
work schedules which will accommodate the competing needs of the home 
place and the workplace. As a result, families suffer.
  Now, as I mentioned, salaried workers frequently get flexible 
schedules because salaried workers do not punch the clock. The 
boardroom and the managers have flexible schedules in that respect. 
Government employees have flexible schedules because they have the 
authority under the Federal Government. In 1978, Congress recognized 
the benefit of flexible working arrangements and passed the Federal 
Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act. And the Senator 
from Alaska, Senator Stevens, was the Senator who helped shepherd that 
act into existence.

  That act allowed the Federal Government employees to experiment with 
flexible work schedules, which are still illegal in the private sector. 
The program allows hourly workers to work an extra hour one week in 
order to work an hour less the next week. As a matter of fact, it goes 
beyond that. Sometimes people work 45 hours one week, so they only have 
to work 35 hours the next week. By doing so, they can arrange their 
time so they have every other Friday off. There are lots of parents who 
would like to have the capacity to take every other Friday off or a 
weekday off every other week.
  These authorities, which make it possible for Federal employees to 
have flexible work schedules, are specific in the law to Government 
employees alone. And the law forbids private workers to have the same 
kind of situation. I know of one family in my home State of Missouri, a 
family in the St. Louis area where there is a Federal worker--one of 
the spouses is a Federal worker--the other is a private sector worker. 
One has the privilege of flexible working arrangements, the other does 
not. The disparity is stark. And the burden inordinately falls on the 
worker who has the flexible work capacity because of the ability of 
that worker to get flexibility in the area of governmental work. But I 
do not think you should have to work for the Government or should have 
to be a salaried worker in the management pool in order to be able to 
be a good mom or dad. You should be able to do it because our 
Government should not be at war with the values of this culture.
  Our Government should be reinforcing the values of the American 
culture and strengthening our families--not attacking them. And a 
failure on the part of Government to allow for flexible working 
arrangements, a failure on the part of Government to allow people to 
work with their employees to have family-friendly working arrangements, 
is simply a way for Government to attack our values rather than to 
underscore our values.
  As a matter of fact, it was as far back as 1945 that Congress 
recognized that when an employee paid by the hour works overtime hours, 
that monetary compensation does not always make up for the time that 
the worker misses with his or her family.
  Now, flexible work arrangements, which I have mentioned, the ability 
to assign work from one week to next week, to take fewer hours of work 
in one week and take more hours in the next week, that is a very 
popular program in the Federal Government. That is flextime.
  The compensatory time is simply when you are being asked to work 
overtime, you have the right to request that some of what you do by way 
of overtime be reflected not in additional salary but you can take some 
time off.
  The overtime rules in our culture generally are, when you are asked 
to work overtime, you get time and a half. But some people realize no 
matter how much time and a half they get paid, that doesn't help them 
get more time with their families. So occasionally they say, ``Instead 
of paying time and a half, will you give me time and a half off instead 
of the payment, so instead of me working the full week next week, I 
could take time and a half off in those hours; I would still be paid as 
if I worked a full week, but I get the time off to be with my family.''
  Now, that became a possibility in the Federal Government system back 
in 1945. In that recognition, Congress amended the Federal Employee Pay 
Act to allow the Federal Government employees the choice of being 
compensated for overtime work with either money or time. Of course, in 
1985--it took 40 years--the Congress gave this same choice to State and 
local employees, the ability of an employee to say, ``I would like to 
have some time off; instead of being paid time and a half, how about 
time and a half off in the next pay period or at some time down the 
road.''
  Time can be more valuable than money, and certainly when it relates 
to our families that can be true. That has never been more true than it 
is today. Yet some Members of Congress continue to fight giving the 
same rights to private-sector employees. A Family Friendly Workplace 
Act would give hourly workers this same choice.
  President Clinton recognized the benefits of flexible work schedules 
when he directed the use of flexible working arrangements for executive 
branch employees. On July 11 of 1994, the President of the United 
States, President Clinton, said, ``Broad use of flexible work 
arrangements to enable Federal employees to better balance their work 
and family responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job 
satisfaction, while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.'' The 
President has clearly recognized the value of flexible working 
arrangements with an Executive order. He states that the broad use--
broad use, not narrow use--of these arrangements to allow workers to 
come to agreement with their employers is where we can find win-win 
situations--better for the worker, better for the employer.
  What does he say is the consequence? Better balance of their work and 
family responsibilities--I underscore that; thank goodness the 
President believes in that and cares about it--and he says increased 
employee effectiveness and job satisfaction. Wait a second, here is job 
satisfaction and effectiveness, boosting productivity, and on the other 
hand we have a win-win situation for the employees, with better service 
for their family.
  This is not the old antagonism of, ``It can't be good for the 
employer unless it is bad for the employee,'' or saying, ``It can't be 
good for the employee unless it is bad for the employer.'' No; this is 
an opportunity to move forward in labor policy as saying yes, let's 
make it good for the employee and also make it good for the employer; 
let's authorize people to cooperate and authorize them to act as a team 
and to improve their performance.
  Unfortunately, though, private-sector employees are denied this same 
right. As I indicated before, salaried people have it; Government 
people have it, at the State and local level; the boardroom has it. But 
individuals working by the hour are a minority,

[[Page S2413]]

frankly, of individuals working in America now. When you consider 
Government workers and salaried workers, you get individuals working by 
the hour. Our labor law of the 1930s prevents them from having this 
benefit. It makes illegal the opportunity of these individuals to 
collaborate, to confer with, to cooperate with their employers to be 
able to serve their families more effectively.

  If everyone agrees that flexibility is good for Federal Government 
employees, for salaried workers, everybody appears to say it works for 
salaried people, for America's boardrooms, why is the group of hard-
working Americans, the hourly-paid individuals, why are they being 
discriminated against? Why can't they have this? The laborers of this 
Nation--stock clerks, mechanics, factory workers, clerical workers, 
store clerks, baggage handlers, gas station attendants--the list goes 
on and on--people who actually serve America, who build America, who 
make it possible for this country to run, why is it that they are 
discriminated against by having a law prohibiting flexible working 
arrangements and prohibiting compensatory time arrangements?
  Because Congress has decided that they cannot make these decisions 
for themselves; is that it? Is it that the Congress feels the backbone 
of the Nation doesn't have the requisite intellect to figure out 
whether they would be better served by time and a half off instead of 
time-and-a-half pay? That somehow these private sector workers who work 
by the hour are not as bright as the Government workers who work by the 
hour and therefore don't have the capacity to make these judgments? 
Surely that can't be the case. I know that it is not the case.
  Frequently during my opportunity to return to my home State, I spend 
time working in jobs in a variety of settings. I have sacked groceries, 
I have sacked seed corn, I have worked to manufacture windows, I have 
worked in a whole variety of settings, and I have learned one thing--
that the American people are bright people. They know whether they need 
time off. They know whether they would rather have time with their 
families or overtime pay, and they would, by far, appreciate the 
opportunity to be able to cooperate so that they could make that 
choice. The poll data on this issue bears that out. The American people 
do not believe that Government should prohibit them from making these 
kinds of decisions and choices. As a matter of fact, they think that 
big Government, which would prohibit that kind of awareness and 
activity, is sad and that it deprives them of their ability to serve 
their family.
  Now the Family Friendly Workplace Act is an act that is designed to 
correct the inequity. It recognizes that hourly workers, the people who 
build America, should have the opportunity to cooperate with their 
employers to work out arrangements, to help those hourly workers find 
time to balance the demands of the family and the workplace. The 
legislation will drag the Fair Labor Standards Act into the realities 
of the working family of the 1990s instead of the 1930s.
  The bill would permit the fair labor standards rigid 40-hour maximum 
workweek schedule to be modified only if consented to by the employee. 
This is important. There are those who say we can't really expect this 
to be a fair situation and this will be an abused situation. These 
provisions in the law that we are promoting in the Family Friendly 
Workplace Act will double the penalties that would normally come from 
overtime violations. They will strengthen the hands of the worker to 
be treated fairly. These will not provide a place where the worker is 
in jeopardy. They will provide an opportunity for the worker to make 
good decisions. I believe it is important for us to make sure that we 
have those protections.

  Under the law as proposed, we have strengthened substantially any 
penalty for an abusive corporation, any penalty for an employer that 
says that the worker must work overtime and not be compensated. There 
are a number of safeguards. Let me say this, the law provides this is 
at the option of the worker. So if the worker says, ``I would like to 
take time and a half off down the road, instead of having time-and-a-
half pay, I would like to be able to do that,'' that gives the worker 
that option. But in order to protect the worker in that option, we have 
made it possible that any time after that decision is made the worker 
is eligible to change his or her mind. So immediately, the next week, 2 
weeks later, or any time prior to taking the time and a half off, the 
worker is able to say, ``Cash me out, I want the money.'' This is a 
little bit of a burden on the employer, because the employer can't 
count on not having to pay the money. The employer will have to 
maintain a readiness to cash it out if it is overtime that was worked 
for pay instead of work for compensatory time. But employers are 
willing to do this. Employers are also willing to provide this option 
because they want to help workers meet these needs.
  So there is a safeguard in the bill that it gives the worker the 
right to cash it out at any time. It also provides that at the end of 
the year, if there is a great accumulation or if there is any 
accumulation of compensatory time, the time is cashed out so that the 
money is given. This is designed to make it so that there aren't 
inordinate opportunities or accumulations of compensatory time that are 
never paid off. As a matter of fact the company will have to pay at the 
end of every year, any unused compensatory time.
  So you have the ability of the worker to cash in the compensatory 
time at any time. You have the requirement that the company pay off the 
compensatory time at the end of the year. You have elevated penalties--
basically, double the normal penalties--in the event there is any abuse 
here. And I think you get the message that the Family Friendly 
Workplace Act is designed to be friendly to families but it is not 
designed to force families into any kind of a situation that they would 
not otherwise be involved in. They don't have to take overtime as time 
off. They can take overtime as pay, and that option enures to them any 
time prior to taking it as time off. Of course, you couldn't take the 
time off and then demand to be paid for it. Obviously, that would be 
inappropriate.
  The most successful corporations in America reflect the new realities 
of American life. They are decentralized, flexible, they are 
nonhierarchical. Meanwhile, our workplace laws for the private sector 
are, unfortunately, stuck in a time warp of centralized, hierarchal, 
one size, so-called, fits all, and we found out that one size fits 
none. America understands that there isn't any single way things are 
done for everyone. We need flexibility. We need to be able to 
accommodate different appeals, different needs, different styles of 
living, kinds of living.
  I think we need to be able to accommodate individuals in this 
respect. Congress has ignored the realities faced in the workplace and 
families too long. American workers need the Government to get out of 
the way so that Americans can work in partnership with and in 
cooperation with their employers, not just against their employers. 
That is what will characterize America in the next century, if we are 
successful.

  Now, I believe it is essential that we act on flextime and comptime 
this year. The American people, at about 80 percent of the people, 
believe this is something we ought to do. This has been delayed over 
and over again. The Democrats delayed this benefit on a number of 
occasions last year, and today there were individuals from the other 
side of the floor saying how they want to debate, want to be able to 
bring amendments to the floor.
  In our last effort to bring this to the floor, we brought it to the 
floor and those on the other side of the aisle would not bring any 
amendments. They would not allow us to go to a vote. They would not 
bring amendments. They would just talk because they were not interested 
in amendments. They were not interested in negotiations. There were no 
serious negotiations. They were just interested in stalling. They were 
just interested in filibustering. They were just interested in 
prohibiting the American people from having these kinds of flexible, 
working arrangements at the salaried-worker level. Now we know they 
can't stop them from having them at the hourly level. They can't stop 
them at the salaried-worker level. They already have those 
arrangements. We know Government workers have these arrangements 
already, too.

[[Page S2414]]

  Today we heard a lot of speeches about how we need to debate openly 
and bring amendments to the floor, how we need to make sure that there 
is lots of discussion and we get votes on a variety of things. I think 
that is an important concept that I would like to see honored as it 
relates to this agenda for the American people. We are going to debate 
and act on flextime this year. I can indicate with a relatively high 
degree of confidence that this is a Senator who is going to do 
everything possible to make sure that we get that done. I think it is 
important, because it is an agenda that is important to the American 
people.
  There will be those who talk about other ways to try and help the 
American people. I know last year they said what we really need is a 
different plan for more medical and family leave. The family and 
medical leave provisions in the law now which allow a worker to say to 
the employer, ``I've got a sickness in the family and I'm going to take 
time to leave for that sickness,'' that allows a person to leave the 
workplace, but a person that leaves under family and medical leave law, 
when they leave, their pay stops.
  So in order to be a good parent under the Family and Medical Leave 
Act, you have to take a pay cut. Any time you leave under that 
particular law, your pay terminates.
  Now, what we are looking for, I think what is very important, is in 
the area of flextime and comptime people don't have to take a pay cut 
in order to be a good parent. They can meet the needs of the home place 
and leave the working place, because they have built up some comptime 
or they have flexible working arrangements and they don't have to take 
a pay cut to do it.
  Now, it seems to me that there is a real problem in saying that the 
solution to the country's distress is making people take pay cuts in 
order to be a good mom or dad. Most of the time when you have both 
people in the work force, it is because they need the money. If you 
just read the Washington Post, I believe from this past Sunday, there 
is a big feature that indicates people have both breadwinners in the 
workplace because they can't make ends meet without both of them 
working there. And to tell them, if you want to be a good parent, you 
can just take a pay cut and do so under an expanded Family and Medical 
Leave approach is foolhardy.

  Look what happens to people when they are involved in the Family and 
Medical Leave Act. Leave-takers, according to a Government study here--
and this was a study that was populated by Members of the Senate and 
overseen by a variety of Government individuals--people lose wages when 
they take medical leave. Here is how they have to make up for what they 
have done:
  28.1 percent of the people had to borrow money to make up for the 
wages they lost in medical leave. Well, let's not force them to do 
that. Let's give them the opportunity to have flexible working 
arrangements, to get some comptime built up, or to work flexible 
working hours.
  10.4 percent of the people who took medical leave had to go on public 
assistance in order to make ends meet. I don't think that's the way we 
want to have people accommodate the needs of their families, by going 
on public assistance.
  41.9 percent of the individuals who went on family and medical leave 
had to stop paying their bills because, in order to take leave, they 
had to stop getting their paychecks.
  Now, it seems to me that we have a real choice here. Family and 
medical leave says if you want to serve your family, yes, you can take 
time off, but you have to lose your income, you have to take a pay cut 
when you take time off. But with the Family Friendly Workplace Act, 
with flexible and compensatory time available to individuals, you don't 
have to take a pay cut. You are able to build up some time by having 
compensatory time available, and when the time comes that you need to 
take some time off, you can do it without taking the pay cut. I think 
if it kept 28.1 percent of the people doing it from having to borrow 
money, or another 10.4 percent from going on welfare, or 41.9 percent 
from putting off bills, not paying their bills, when you put those 
numbers together, there is a tremendous group of individuals who find 
themselves severely stressed, borrowing money, going on welfare, not 
paying their bills. Those are the kinds of things we don't want to add, 
in terms of stress, to the American family.
  If you said to people that in order to be a good mom or dad, you have 
to go on welfare, I think we would say that is an affront to the 
dignity of the American worker, that is an assault on the value of 
work, that is an assault on the character of what it means to be an 
American or to be productive. Or if we said that in order to be a good 
mom or dad and take some time off, you have to stiff your creditors 42 
percent of the time, you have to stop paying your bills, the American 
people don't want to do that. They should not want to do that. Or that 
you have to go to a bank or a loan company to borrow money, run up your 
credit card debt, and pay outrageous interest in order to be able to 
accommodate a sick child or witness your child's participation in the 
school play.
  The American people don't think they ought to have to take these 
kinds of pay cuts, borrow money, go on public assistance, or put off 
paying their bills. That is why, at an amazing rate, they indicate 
their preference is not to have this kind of mandated pay cut, but to 
have family-friendly workplace arrangements that allow hourly workers 
to have the same kind of benefits that salaried workers already have, 
that allow hourly workers to enjoy the same kind of benefits that are 
enjoyed by people in the boardroom, that allow hourly workers in the 
private sector to have the same kind of benefits that salaried workers 
in the private sector have and the same kind of benefits hourly workers 
have had in Government.
  Comptime has been available at the Federal Government level since 
1945. Comptime has been available for State and local governments since 
1985. Flexible working arrangements have been available for individuals 
in the Federal Government since 1978. That is when we began the 
program. The President of the United States lauded the program 
officially and extended it by Executive order in the mid-1990s to 
Government workers, and it is time to say, wait a second, we really 
can't afford to have this second-class group of citizens that we will 
call hourly workers in America. They are not the Government workers, 
they are not salaried workers, and they are not boardroom workers; they 
are just hourly workers. We can't afford to give them a lower standard. 
We should not be saying to them: You can't have the same kind of 
benefit for a win-win situation. You can't cooperate with your 
employer. You can't make it possible for your family to endure some of 
the struggles you endure without going into debt, on welfare, or not 
paying your creditors. We don't want you to have that kind of 
potential.
  I think we ought to extend the potential of family-friendly, flexible 
workplace opportunities, including comptime, to all the families of 
America. As I indicated earlier, this is not the first time this 
subject has been debated in the U.S. Congress. This subject has been 
debated on a couple of occasions. But in no circumstance have 
individuals on the other side of the aisle been willing to go to a vote 
in this matter. While earlier today there was quite a discussion about 
the need to go to a vote and to have amendments, when this issue was 
brought up previously, there was not a single individual who brought an 
amendment to the floor to add to this legislation. For days, we talked 
about this legislation, but no one would bring an amendment. It wasn't 
because there was an agreement with the legislation; it was merely a 
way to try to keep us from voting, which they were successful in doing, 
by stonewalling. Now, the American working people should not be 
stonewalled. The working arrangements of the 1930s simply do not fit 
the families of the 1990s. We have in many, many families both parents 
in the workplace, and we need the flexibility to get the job done well.
  Here is a letter from a security guard who occasionally gets 
overtime:

       The federal government should do everything it can to 
     promote family life, particularly since both parents 
     typically work in today's world.
       Given the choice, which the Family Friendly Workplace Act 
     allows, parents

[[Page S2415]]

     would have the ability to be with their kids on occasions 
     when current guidelines prohibit. In my case, my job as a 
     security guard occasionally calls for overtime. Under this 
     legislation, I would be allowed the choice to receive pay or 
     to be more involved in coaching, attending school events and 
     other general activities my kids are involved with.
       Our government serves people in many ways, but there is no 
     better way to serve than building strong families, which the 
     Family Friendly Workplace Act obviously seeks to accomplish.

  There is a security guard that I think feels capable of making 
judgments about whether or not he wants to be paid for all of his 
overtime, or whether he would like to be able to opt to have some time 
off. I am just delighted that there are moms and dads in America that 
would like to be more involved in coaching, attending school events, 
and other general activities with kids. Yet, our Government is keeping 
that from happening.
  Here is a letter from a 29-year-old working mother:

       I am a 29 year old working mother. I have a two-year-old 
     daughter and am pregnant and due. . . .
       I recently heard about your Family Friendly Workplace Act. 
     Under the current law, the law firm in which I am employed 
     does not allow me to have a flexible work schedule.

  No wonder it doesn't; the law doesn't allow it.

       In my current condition, I need to be able to take off for 
     doctor appointments. Due to the fact that I have a 
     complication in my pregnancy, I have more appointments than 
     average. If I was able to take time in one week and work more 
     the next, it would be very helpful to me and other mothers. . 
     .
       My two-year-old daughter is healthy, but there are some 
     days when she needs extra attention and some days that she is 
     sick. Some days she is just two!

  Those of us who are parents are familiar with kids that are ``just 
two.''

       If I was able to take the time I needed for some mornings 
     and make it up the next week, it would make my life much 
     easier.

  Well, these letters are just a few. As we debate these issues during 
this session and over the next few days or as we approach voting on 
this particular measure, I would just say that it is fundamentally 
important for us to recognize the need to provide America's working 
families with the same kind of advantage, with flexible time, which 
American families that work for Government have. If it's good enough 
for Government workers, it is good enough for private workers. If 
Government workers are smart enough to know when they want comptime as 
compared to pay and are able to figure that out and when they would 
like to be able to rearrange their schedules to be involved with their 
children, I firmly believe that private workers have the same kind of 
intelligence and capacity. I think it is incumbent upon those of us in 
Government to make sure that we begin to legislate policy which is 
consistent with the principles of America and the principle of strong 
families, which is one we ought to be careful to understand and 
reinforce.

  So I think we are going to have a great opportunity in this session. 
I expect that it will be a great opportunity as we legislate in this 
particular matter. We are going to have the opportunity to provide 
flextime and comptime to America's private-sector hourly workers. It is 
a privilege that is understood by the salaried workers in the private 
sector, understood by both the hourly and salaried workers in 
Government. Flextime is understood by people in the Federal Government 
system. Comptime is understood by, and enjoyed by, people in government 
systems everywhere, State, local and Federal.
  We have delayed this benefit package for too many days. I say ``we,'' 
and I have done that to label the U.S. Senate. But the delay has come 
from the other side of the aisle. No amendments were offered when we 
brought this up before, but no vote was allowed. It's time that we have 
serious amendments, serious negotiations, and that we seriously embark 
upon providing the people of this country with this opportunity to 
serve their families.
  Today's speeches about how we need to debate openly and bring 
amendments on a family-friendly agenda could not be more on point. So 
let's have the debate, let's have the family-friendly agenda, let's 
have those amendments as it relates to the opportunity for hourly 
workers in the private sector to be able to spend time with their 
families as a result of voluntary agreements with their employers, to 
have flexible working arrangements and compensatory time arrangements 
similar to those of salaried workers and similar to those of Government 
workers.
  We are going to debate and act on flextime and comptime this year. I 
look forward to the debate very much. I am grateful for the opportunity 
to submit this amendment in this respect.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________