[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 34 (Tuesday, March 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2452-S2462]
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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1768, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1768) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for recovery from natural disasters, and for 
     overseas peacekeeping efforts, for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Stevens (for Kyl) amendment No. 2079, to provide contingent 
     emergency funds for the enhancement of a number of theater 
     missile defense programs.
       Ashcroft amendment No. 2080, 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 bi-weekly work programs as Federal employees 
     currently enjoy to help balance the demands and needs of work 
     and family, and 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2080

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to spend a 
few moments speaking about two of America's most fundamental values. 
These values are embraced by our people across the Nation from sea to 
shining sea. If we were to inventory values among the American people, 
I think these would percolate to the top. They are the values of family 
and the values of work. These values come together when we think about 
how our workplaces impact families.
  Sometimes when they come together, it is through collision. This 
collision takes place when the value of family conflicts with the value 
of work--the workplace actually competes with the family and the 
family's needs. Sometimes, though, they can come together through 
cooperation instead of by collision. I think that is what we ought to 
seek to encourage in our culture that these two most important values 
of our culture--work and family--should be able to coexist and to 
cooperate. They must be able to coexist and cooperate to build a strong 
America. But when one of these values undermines, erodes or undercuts 
the other value, we develop tensions that keep us from operating at our 
highest and best.
  How we resolve the particular conflicts between these values that are 
important will determine how well we do in the next century. Most of us 
want to be survivors in the next century; we don't want to be 
succumbers. We want to be swimmers; we don't want to be sinkers. We 
want America to continue to define the world culture. We want the 21st 
century to be marked as an American century. We can do that if the 
Congress builds an important framework which allows people to respect 
these values in cooperation rather than in conflict. If we make it 
possible for the value of work to be a value which can be elevated 
without undermining or eroding the value of family.
  So it is important for us to make sure that, as a Government, that we 
allow rules to exist and we provide a framework in which both the value 
of work and the value of family can flourish. Without hard work, we 
will never make it. Without strong families, we will never make it. 
Without finding a way to harmonize these competing interests--we will 
never be able to succeed in the next century.
  Since 1965, the amount of time that parents spend with their children 
has dropped 40 percent. This is a decrease of almost half of the amount 
of time that parents spend with their children. This does not 
necessarily threaten the work part of the equation, but it certainly 
indicates that there is a serious challenge to the family side of the 
equation. These two values of work and family must work together--must 
be elevated together. And if we have elevated work to the detriment of 
family, we have to find out ways, we have to seek out ways, we have to 
search for ways to make it possible for families to spend more time 
together.
  A 1993 study found that 66 percent--two out of every three adults 
surveyed nationwide--wanted to spend more time with their children.
  How can we begin to restore a balance? How can we restore the 
capacity of families to have that kind of chemistry within them that 
builds the strong sense of loyalty, of belonging, and of confidence 
that provides the basis for transmitting values from one generation to 
the next?
  The family is the best department of education; it is the best 
department of social services and health; it is the best employment 
training in the world. If we have strong families, we will succeed.
  How can we make it possible for these 66 percent of American adults

[[Page S2453]]

who want to spend more time with their children to do so?
  Fifty-five percent of the adults surveyed are willing to give up some 
seniority or pay at work in exchange for more personal time. People 
feel this need to be with their family very strongly.
  According to the U.S. Department of Labor in its report ``Working 
Women Count''--and here is the cover of the report. This was the 
executive summary of the cover from the Women's Bureau, the U.S. 
Department of Labor. According to that, ``The number one issue women 
want to bring to the President's attention is the difficulty of 
balancing work and family obligations.''
  That was out of this report from the President's Department of Labor, 
U.S. Department of Labor, May 1994.
  In 1940, just 2 years after the passage of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act, 67 percent of all the families had sort of a traditional 
structure. Let's go to the next chart.
  In 1938, only 2 out of 12 women with school-aged children worked 
outside the home. So for these women, they had lots of time with their 
children. Only 2 out of 12, 1 out of 6--about 17 percent--only 2 out of 
12 worked outside the home. Look at the difference today. By 1995, we 
had a situation where 9 out of 12 women with school-aged children 
worked outside the home.
  This represents a major change in America's families, a substantial 
change in the structure of the home, a major change in the ability of 
people to spend time with their children. It is becoming very clear 
that we need to do something to make it possible, if we can, to allow 
families to spend time together.
  By 1995, only 70 percent of families had a traditional structure; 43 
percent of all families had two working spouses.
  In 1995, almost 70 percent of single women headed families with 
children. That is a real situation where not only do you not have a mom 
and dad to work to help children together, but you have one-parent 
families. And if you take that one-parent family into a rigid 
employment environment where there is no ability to accommodate the 
needs of the family, you basically have a situation where there is no 
capacity to meet the needs of children when the work of the family 
comes in conflict with the work of the workplace.
  There is a way for us to improve this situation. There is a way for 
us to help American families meet the needs of their families and the 
needs of the workplace as well. This solution was recognized as far 
back as 1945 when the Federal Employee Pay Act was passed to give 
Federal workers a compensatory time-off option. I want to restate the 
date. That is 1945. That is a long time ago. In 1945, over half a 
century ago, Federal workers began to have the ability, instead of 
taking time-and-a-half pay for overtime hours they worked, to take time 
off sometime later when they realized, ``Wait a second, all the time-
and-a-half pay in the world will never buy me more time with my family 
if I can't get a break. Could I possibly make it some time so that when 
I work an extra hour, instead of getting an hour and a half pay for the 
overtime, I would get time off sometime later to spend with my 
family?''
  This concept was recognized again in 1978 when Congress gave flextime 
options to the Federal Government. I think it is important to note that 
that was a major step forward. It took individuals looking down the 
tunnel of time a little bit to understand there would be more and more 
women in the work force, more and more families without time spent by 
parents for children.
  Among those who were at the forefront of the march to help preserve 
the capacity of families to spend time with their children is the 
senior Senator from Alaska, who was part of this 1978 effort to give 
Federal Government employees options for flextime in addition to 
comptime.
  What is important is that in 1994, President Clinton decided that 
flextime was so valuable that he extended this sort of flexible-
working-arrangement time situation to a whole group of individuals in 
the executive department of Government, because he understood the need 
that workers and their families have to spend more time together. The 
Federal workers have it.
  Here is a little chart: Flexible scheduling today. Who can benefit? 
Mr. President, 2.9 million Federal employees are eligible for flexible 
scheduling benefits under the current law.
  Who can't have it? By law, 59.2 million private-sector workers cannot 
make the same choices about their work schedules. Special privilege to 
the Federal worker with flexible scheduling; the absence of this 
capacity to assist individuals, reinforce the value of family and work 
together for non-Federal workers.
  When asked, 8 out of 10 respondents supported continuation of the 
program in the Federal sector. The General Accounting Office, conducted 
the study and workers indicated that they approve the program; 72 
percent stated they had more flexibility to spend time with their 
families. Just think of that, flexible working arrangements had helped 
72 percent of the Federal employees spend more time with their 
families--that is something we should encourage--rather than 
discourage, all Americans to do.
  What is interesting is that these studies also included that 
productivity went up. What we are beginning to define here is a win-win 
situation. The workers have their capacity to spend more time with 
their family--at the same time--the employer has its capacity elevated 
because productivity goes up. This defines a new way of looking at the 
relationship between employees and employers. We need for the next 
century to see ourselves as teams going forward together, not 
adversaries that can only move forward if the other moves backward. 
That is a very important concept as we face the 21st century. We will 
never do well in the 21st century if we don't understand that we only 
walk forward together.
  Seventy-four percent of Federal employees participating in these 
programs said that alternative work schedules improve their morale. 
Overwhelmingly, American workers want the same options to be available 
in the private sector.
  There is a group of those who survey public attitudes, Penn and 
Schoen, these are pollsters who often work for President Clinton. Their 
studies show that 75 percent favor allowing employees the choice of 
getting time off, time and a half either in wages or as time off. Three 
out of four, 7\1/2\ out of 10 people surveyed said they would like to 
have that choice--they just want a choice. Fifty-seven percent said 
they would take time off instead of being paid, if the option were 
available, from time to time.
  What is interesting is that you don't have to make a choice under 
these proposals to always take time as comptime and never get paid for 
it. As a matter of fact, you can take it as comptime when you have 
something, some needs, arising in your families, not take it as 
comptime if you need the money more--it is your decision. Unlike the 
current situation when workers have no choice, no choice whatsoever, as 
to whether time is more valuable than money.
  If you decide you want it as comptime and later on change your mind 
because you need the money, the proposal allows you to cash in the 
comptime. Fifty-eight percent of those who would choose the option of 
time off would choose it more often than pay, they say. This indicates 
that there is a strong demand and a capacity of American workers who 
believe they could make their own choice here. They would like simply 
to have the choice. In fact, a recent poll by Money magazine found that 
64 percent of the American people and 68 percent of women would rather 
have their overtime in the form of time off than in cash wages.

  We wouldn't be here to tell people that they had to take it in time 
off, to say they must take it in wages or must take it in time off. I 
think what we ought to do is allow people to have the flexibility to 
meet their needs at the moment, to meet the needs of their families at 
the moment. There are times when they might prefer to work a little 
extra and have the extra cash, but there are times when they would be 
asked to work overtime and they would like to say, ``You know, I have 
been working a lot, I need to spend time with my family, we need to 
take a day off together, we need to go to the zoo,

[[Page S2454]]

we need to go to the basketball game, we need to see our son and 
daughter in a play; how about I work the extra time you are asking me 
and I get time and a half off later on?'' Eighty-two percent of the 
people said they support the Republican proposal to give working men 
and women more control over their time.
  This is the challenge we face. We have two competing values in 
America: the value of work, which is understood as one of the primary 
values of our culture, and the value of family, family the primary 
institution of our culture. We shouldn't have them colliding and 
conflicting in the law. We should have them cooperating, and we should 
find ways to give people more options to make choices that respect both 
of those values.
  Let me make a few points about the amendment which I propose. First 
of all, it does not alter the 40-hour workweek. It is a new section at 
the end of the Fair Labor Standards Act that does not revise the 40-
hour workweek, and it is voluntary, totally voluntary. Anyone who wants 
to operate under the current law could continue to operate that way 
without discrimination, and if there are any violations of this 
provision, the penalties are doubled for violations.
  It just provides that there is a potential for compensatory time off 
when time is more valuable than money to individuals. There would be 
limits so that we wouldn't have a situation where people might be 
putting a lot of compensatory time off into a bank and then if the 
employer went out of business or were to leave the area that the 
person, his or her time off or income would be jeopardized. 
Accumulation would be limited to 160 hours. At the end of every year, 
any accumulated time would be cashed out so that if you didn't use your 
comptime by the end of the year, you just got time-and-a-half pay. Or 
any time prior to taking the time off that a worker decides, ``Hey, I 
don't think I am going to be able to afford to take that time off, I 
just would like to have my money instead,'' the law would allow the 
worker to just take the time-and-a-half pay instead of the time off for 
comptime. Under this amendment, cashing-out your comp time bank is an 
absolute right.
  There is a strong provision in this amendment which would allow for a 
reasonable use, at the employee's option, of the time off if it does 
not unduly disrupt the employer's operation. The undue-disruption 
criterion has been used in the employment setting for quite some time 
now, so that there is relatively good understanding that employers are 
required to make a significant showing, and can't just unreasonably 
deny an employee's request to take that time off.
  Sometimes people worry about whether or not there would be some sort 
of coercion under this proposal. I think it is important for us to 
understand that there are strong protections to prohibit coercion. The 
protections that are provided in this law would be far greater than the 
protections that are enjoyed by the State and local and Federal 
Government workers as it relates to comptime now.
  For instance, for State and local workers, workers can be required to 
participate--as a condition of employment--in comptime provisions. Ours 
would be totally voluntary in the private sector. So that is a 
protection, a safeguard, against coercion of any worker who didn't want 
to participate in comptime. This would be an authorization for an 
employer and employee to work together, but an employee who chose not 
to participate in getting comptime off could, with total assurance, 
have the resources instead, and even if the worker decided to take the 
comptime off and later changed his or her mind, just like that, the 
money has to be paid.

  Management can decide when a worker must use comptime under the State 
and local workers' law. Not so under ours. Management cannot dictate, 
and the workers would have the right to make choices about when to use 
them.
  Under the State and local workers' law, comptime is paid in cash only 
when the worker leaves the job. Under the State and local situation, in 
order to convert your comptime to cash, you have to leave your job. Not 
so under the provision of the amendment which we are proposing. Any 
time you want to convert your comptime to cash, you could automatically 
do it, as a matter of right. Just say, I want to change from the 
comptime which I have in the bank, time I had intended to take off, and 
I would like to have the overtime pay instead.
  Under S. 4, participation is strictly voluntary. It cannot be 
required. This is in stark contrast to the required participation 
condition of State and local workers which currently is the law now.
  Under this proposal, workers cannot be coerced into using their 
comptime. For state and local government workers--management can decide 
when the comptime is to be used. Under this proposal, workers cannot be 
coerced, comptime must be cashed out on request under our proposal and 
must be cashed out at the end of every year.
  You can only cash out your comptime under the State and local 
provisions which have been in effect now for the last, basically, dozen 
years. You can only get your money when you leave the job. Under our 
proposal, you get the money anytime you decide you want the money.
  Now, in addition to the compensatory time option to make the values 
of family and work harmonious--so that they are in cooperation, not in 
conflict--so that they work together in harmony and unity to provide a 
better setting for workers, there is another thing besides comptime. It 
is called flexible schedules.
  One of the most popular programs in the Federal Government is the 
ability to--the ability to--allocate hours from one week to the next 
and to figure the 40-hour week over a 2-week period. A lot of Federal 
workers have done this so that they can take a day off, an extra day 
off every other week.
  When a lot of folks are asked the question, would you like to have 
every other Friday off or every other Monday off or would you like to 
have a weekday off every other week, they respond very positively to 
that. In order to do that, sometimes you will have to allow people, as 
a matter of choice, to say, ``I'll work more than 40 hours in one week 
in return for working less the next week.'' So that the most popular 
schedule among Federal workers in flexible working arrangements is to 
work 45 hours the first week, 35 hours the next week, and in so doing 
by working 9 hours a day for most of the days, have every other Friday 
off.
  Now this gives people a chance to take a weekday off so that they can 
go to the schoolhouse and talk to teachers or they can attend events or 
maybe even just go to the motor vehicle department and stand in line so 
they can get their license renewed. Or maybe just be told that they did 
not bring the right supporting documents and get sent home to get 
whatever is necessary.
  But this ability to have flex hours at the option of the workers--at 
the request of the workers--so that people can take an extra day off 
every other week and still preserve their paycheck and still have the 
complete capacity, is an important thing. This flexible credit hour 
provision is important because not all workers earn overtime. In other 
words, comptime alone will not solve the problem. Workers who do not 
earn overtime also would like to have some time off so they can just 
rearrange their schedule but would be precluded from doing so under a 
comp time only plan.
  Flexible scheduling. Sure, lots of people who work overtime can take 
Friday off every other week, if they are working enough overtime. The 
vast majority of people do not get overtime, but they would like to 
have flexible scheduling. They would like to have some time off in 
which they can meet the needs of their families.
  Only 20 percent of workers who get paid by the hour report receiving 
overtime during a typical week--only one out of five. Seventy-two 
percent of those reporting overtime compensation are men. So that some 
of the people who need flexibility--women--need to be able to take some 
time off, but are not the ones who are getting the capacity to take 
time off. Comptime alone would help only 1.9 million working women. 
That is only 4.5 percent of all the working women in the private 
sector.
  Other flexible scheduling options: Instead of helping just 4.5 
percent of the women, flexible scheduling options

[[Page S2455]]

would help 67 percent of all working women. In addition to the comptime 
for people who actually get overtime, we ought to be working with 
individuals who are only going to get 40 hours a week. We can do this 
by giving them the opportunity to tailor that 40 hours a week in ways 
that gives them time off to spend with their families, spend with their 
children, or if they do not have families, they can spend it on 
themselves.
  The idea that individuals should not be able to agree with their 
employers to arrange things so they can have a more fulfilling life--to 
be with their children or take care of themselves--is an idea of the 
past. American workers know how to accommodate their needs and should 
be able to agree with their employers in a framework of protections to 
do that.

  Comptime would only help 5 million working men. That is only 10 
percent of the working men in the private sector. The other flexible 
scheduling options provided in this amendment would benefit 61 percent 
of all men working in the private sector.
  Who would gain from flexible scheduling? Mr. President, 59.2 million 
private sector workers would have new choices in setting work schedules 
and making time for their family and friends--30.4 million men, 28.8 
million women.
  These are individuals with families; these are individuals who have 
something that competes with the workplace for their interests. We 
should not make it a situation where in order to do your job you cannot 
be a parent or be a good parent or in order to be a good parent you 
have to be a bad employee. We should provide the flexibility of 
scheduling. We should tailor the laws of this country to make it 
possible for individuals--to make it possible for individuals--to be 
able to meet the needs of their families and the workplace.
  We mentioned earlier, when we surveyed the situation in Government, 
the General Accounting Office said two things happened: Morale and 
productivity went up, and worker satisfaction and their ability to 
spend time with their families went up. Wait a second. Here is a win-
win situation. The value of work went up and the value of family went 
up. When Government can provide a basis for enhancing the value of 
families and enhancing the value of work in this culture, we ought to 
seize that opportunity. Too much of what we do impairs the value of 
these cultures.
  Well, there are others who have said there are other solutions. 
Frankly, the solution that has been proposed on the other side of the 
aisle is more unpaid leave, more of the so-called Family and Medical 
Leave. And that is a tragedy because unpaid leave exacerbates one of 
the problems that families are enduring--that is, they need resources.
  A lot of families would not have both adults in the work force if 
they did not need the money. So telling people that they should not get 
money, that they should take unpaid leave, is saying, sure, we know you 
are having a problem spending time with your family and a problem 
funding your family, so you should take more time with your family and, 
therefore, have greater difficulty funding it. That is a vice. That is 
a crack into which we should not let families fall.
  That exacerbates the tension between the home place and the 
workplace. It does not lift them both together. Let me give you some 
data which I found to be stunning. The Family and Medical Leave 
Commission report, which included notable Members of this Chamber, 
reported that in order to make up for the money people lost when they 
took family leave, 28 percent of the families had to borrow money--go 
further into debt.
  This basically says, if you need to have some time off, you have to 
go into debt to spend time with your family. We should not try to force 
people into financial crisis. As a matter of fact, 10.4 percent of the 
families who took family and medical leave had to go on welfare in 
order to accommodate the needs that arose from the lack of resources 
when they took family and medical leave. And this is stunning, 42 
percent--41.9 percent; let me not overstate it--41.9 percent had to put 
off paying bills.
  I don't know about most folks, but if I have to put off paying a 
bill, that is a matter of serious tension. If you have to go on welfare 
just to make up for your family and medical leave that you took for 
your time off, that is a matter of serious tension. Or if you have to 
go into debt, 28.1 percent had to borrow money under the family and 
medical leave provisions in order to meet the needs of their family. 
That is serious tension.
  I think it would be far better if, instead of asking people to take a 
pay cut, which you have to do in order to address the needs of your 
family under family and medical leave, that you should allow us to have 
flexible working arrangements where you might have compensatory time 
off as a result of overtime you have worked or you have a flexible 
working schedule that you have designed.

  Well, the provisions in this bill are not the kinds of things that 
are new or novel or have not been tested. Since 1945, comptime has been 
available to Federal workers. We have seen how it works. Since 1985, it 
has been available to State and local workers. We know how it works. 
And we have designed a superior product with more choices for workers 
in this amendment than are existent for Federal workers and for State 
and local workers who like the program. It seems like common sense.
  We offered this during the 104th Congress, the Work and Family 
Integration Act. It was selected as one of the top 10 agenda items on 
the Republican side of the Senate for the 105th Congress. This past 
summer the bill was filibustered by the other side of the aisle.
  Yesterday, there was a lot of talk in this Chamber about having time 
for debate, having time for amendments, and the need to have amendments 
and debate. Well, you know, last year we brought up the Family Friendly 
Workplace Act. There was not a single amendment brought forward by the 
individuals who opposed this on the other side of the aisle. Not one 
amendment came to the floor, and yet they would not let us vote. They 
talked and talked and talked. I stood on this floor and encouraged them 
to offer amendments to address their concerns. I encouraged them to 
offer these amendments so the issues could be resolved--so we could end 
up with a product they could support. Not one amendment was offered.
  We did fail to get two cloture votes while I, along with many other 
Republicans, stood on the floor and asked for our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to offer their amendments. They simply were not 
forthcoming. We even had Republican Members come down to offer our own 
amendments to address some of their concerns. But we were unable to 
because Democrats were stonewalling the issue.
  Eventually President Clinton rhetorically supported comptime. He even 
spoke to me personally about it. The very day of the last failed 
cloture vote, I was told that flextime is the most important thing we 
could do for American families by the President himself. But when we 
tried to begin negotiations, it became a series of unreturned phone 
calls while making continued statements to the press of the importance 
of flextime and their desire to compromise--but no real negotiations.
  Not only did I try to get the White House to sit down and talk, so 
did the chairman of the Labor Committee and Congressman Ballenger, the 
sponsor of the House comptime bill. We were told, ``Wait until we 
finish the budget,'' and then ``Wait until the fast track vote,'' and 
wait and wait and wait.
  I am reminded of the old saying in the Ozarks, ``Wait is what broke 
the bridge down.'' I think the bridge collapsed under the waiting of 
the bridge. We are still waiting.
  Well, we will not wait idly by while millions of Americans are denied 
the ability to balance their work and family demands. This is something 
the American people deserve. This is something that is essential to the 
survival of our culture. We must respect our families. We must give 
them the opportunity to survive, and we must have a competitive and 
productive work force. And there are ways for this to happen. We must 
harmonize these values. They must work together in cooperation. They 
cannot work antagonistically in conflict.
  This is an issue that the Democrats in Congress and the President 
will not be able to make disappear. I will continue to bring this issue 
up at every opportunity. We have been accused of

[[Page S2456]]

being unwilling to compromise. Well, we have made changes in the bill 
to try to address concerns that have been raised.
  We added bankruptcy protections to ensure that employees will be able 
to collect accumulated comptime if their employer declares bankruptcy. 
We limited the number of hours that an employee can accrue from 240 
hours to 160 to make sure that a person does not get too many hours of 
comptime out there and somehow it might not be fulfilled.

  We have put a sunset provision on the bill saying, look, we are only 
trying it for 5 years. Let the American people find out about it. If it 
is abusive to the workers, it will be over in 5 years. It will not be 
abusive. If this was an abuse of workers, they would have curtailed it 
after 5 years in 1950, from the time it started in 1945; or for State 
and local workers in 1990, after it was started in 1985.
  We completely eliminated the flexible credit hour provisions of the 
bill so that we are just talking about flexible scheduling. This 
amendment only permits workers to move 10 hours from one week to the 
next, but that would provide a basis for a day off every other week.
  We will find out who really supports giving workers the flexible work 
schedules that workers desperately need. We will do so by asking that 
this bill move forward. We will find out who believes that it is 
appropriate for Government to allow flexible work schedules for their 
own employees and for salaried workers but not for laborers, those who 
have built this great Nation. Everybody has flexible work time. All the 
Government does, all the salaried workers. The boardroom has it, the 
people on salary.
  Local and State governments have it. But who doesn't have it? Hourly 
workers in America, the people who built this country. They are in the 
minority now. They don't have it. I believe it is time for them to have 
this same kind of capacity to be with their families the way others 
have found it to be with theirs. We also will find out who really cares 
about women's positions in the workplace.
  It is interesting to note that Working Woman Magazine says this:

       Poll after poll shows that Americans want to spend time 
     with their families and cite flexible scheduling as a top 
     priority. . . . Give women what they want, not what you 
     (Members of Congress) think they need.

  That is what Working Woman Magazine said. This is a fight that must 
be continued. I believe that this is a fight that should be continued 
for the hourly workers of America, who don't happen to be Federal 
workers, who don't happen to be State workers, who don't happen to be 
local government workers, who don't happen to be salaried workers, who 
don't happen to inhabit the walnut-paneled boardrooms of America, but 
do happen to have families and do happen to have the same kinds of 
needs.
  President Clinton and the Democratic platform have all endorsed 
flextime as a way to help Americans balance the needs of work and 
family. It is time for that endorsement to become a reality. It is time 
for Congress to stop ignoring the serious challenges that are facing 
families in today's workplace and give American workers what they want 
and need.
  This issue will not go away. This issue of giving working Americans 
the ability to balance work and family must be addressed. I am not 
going to tie up this supplemental appropriations bill with this 
amendment at this time. But I lay this before the Congress as a clear 
signal and indication that this is a must-address issue. I will bring 
this issue back to the floor on an insistent basis. While we are 
meeting the emergency needs of Government, we cannot continue to ignore 
the needs, emergency needs, of families and of the American work force, 
particularly those who have built this Nation as hourly workers.
  So I will withdraw my amendment at this time. I will indicate that 
this is a must-address issue, but I will not allow it to foreclose or 
preclude or otherwise impair our ability to address the emergency needs 
of troops that are deployed by this country overseas. But I will say 
that neither will I allow this body to ignore this issue and thereby 
ignore the needs of American families, just as we are not going to 
ignore the needs of the American Government.
  Mr. President, I ask for the opportunity to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, is 
recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy. He 
is the original sponsor of the legislation that provided the Federal 
system flextime and comptime, and I have supported what the Senator is 
doing. I think it is a step that should be taken. I regret that we 
cannot proceed, but I appreciate the fact that he has seen fit to 
withdraw this amendment now so that we can proceed and try to keep this 
bill limited to those items that are emergency in nature, which affect 
our defense and affect the disasters that have taken place in this 
country. I commend the Senator for his action. I am very appreciative 
of it.


                           Amendment No. 2079

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Kyl amendment 
that I offered on behalf of the Senator from Arizona is the pending 
amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to have that remain the 
pending amendment now so we can see if we can dispose of it. I am not 
sure we can do that before noon, but I hope that we can. I urge any 
Members who have any questions about this to come and discuss them with 
me. Unfortunately, Senator Kyl is not here. I am not sure whether he 
will be here today because of illness. It is not serious; he just has a 
problem, I am told.

  Let me say this to the Senate. I and a number of my colleagues have 
watched with concern as Iran has worked aggressively to develop longer 
range theater ballistic missiles.
  There have been many reports that a new Iranian missile, the Shahab-
3, may be tested within the coming year.
  This new missile, with a range approaching 1,300 kilometers, can now 
reach targets in the Middle East that were previously not threatened by 
ballistic missiles from Iran.
  Further, the Shahab-3's velocity and range could require changes in 
our own theater missile defense systems currently under development.
  Obviously, our allies, particularly Israel, are very concerned about 
this new Iranian missile development effort. In parallel--and I believe 
this is of utmost importance--North Korea has continued to pursue the 
development of a longer range missile. They are working on the no dong 
and the taepo dong missiles. These missiles have created concern not 
just in Asia, but in my home State of Alaska, as well as in Hawaii, 
which is the home State of both of my colleagues from Hawaii.
  Now, I believe the Senate should know that the first targets within 
the reach of the longer range Korean missiles are in fact the States of 
Alaska and Hawaii.
  As a nation, I think we have to react swiftly to the threat posed by 
these new ballistic missile development and test efforts.
  Senator Kyl and others who have watched this issue closely have urged 
that we take action now to respond to this threat. Therefore, I have 
offered this amendment on behalf of Senator Kyl and myself to provide 
emergency appropriations to respond to this dangerous new threat.
  The amendment will provide $151 million for urgent development 
efforts which directly address these new missile threats. I might say 
that this matter has been reviewed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. 
They have indicated that if additional resources are not made 
available, they can address these initiatives with reallocation of 
existing funds. Now, that is exactly what we don't want. The funds have 
already been allocated, and what this bill is doing is trying to make 
additional funds available to make up for the ones that have already 
been used in Bosnia and in the deployment in Southwest Asia.
  This amendment provides for better integration of Army and Navy 
missile defense systems and radars, for additional testing of the 
Patriot and lower tier systems against these longer range

[[Page S2457]]

theater ballistic missiles, and other efforts which will link our 
existing sensors, communications, and weapon systems to defeat improved 
theater ballistic missiles.
  In addition, the amendment specifically provides funds to assist 
Israel in purchasing a third arrow missile battery. The capabilities of 
the emerging Iranian threat force us and Israel to add additional 
batteries to protect not only our forces, but our allies in Israel.
  Mr. President, I believe these efforts have some of the most urgent 
projects we could undertake in the Department of Defense. As I 
indicated, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre wrote a letter 
bringing these needed investments to the attention of our colleagues in 
the House. The emergency supplemental before us provides an opportunity 
to deal with these critical investments. But we cannot do it from here 
directly. This amendment provides that the moneys in the amendment will 
only be available if there is an official budget estimate for the 
amounts that are designated to be an emergency. This would be in a 
request transmitted to the Congress as emergency requirements, as 
defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
1985, as amended.
  Now, as I say, the amendment I offered for the Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. Kyl, does not make that money available. It will only be available 
if the administration agrees that there is a critical issue here and 
that these moneys should be available now to deal with these issues.

  Mr. President, we have troops, once again, stationed in this area. We 
do not have an adequate theater missile defense system. We don't have a 
missile defense system that is even currently planned for the total 50 
States. When it was presented to our committee, the Department 
specifically pointed out that it was not possible for a period of 15 or 
more years to cover the States of Alaska and Hawaii. But a theater 
missile defense system would.
  I believe there is an emergency. I believe it is highly important 
that we proceed to make these investments. I do not think the 
investments should be made available from funds we have already 
appropriated for other critical projects in the Department; nor do I 
think we should defer acquisitions of new systems. That has been done 
too much already.
  Mr. President, we spent more time in the last 3 years reprogramming 
money we have already made available to the Department of Defense than 
we have in considering how much money should be available to the 
Department of Defense. I don't want to start the concept of 
reprogramming. What this does is, it says to the administration that if 
they are as serious as we are about proceeding now with the ballistic 
missile defense system--we have made the finding ourselves that it is 
an emergency, and we ask the President to simply make the decision. I 
hope the executive branch will agree that these funds will respond to 
security crises and the projects should be added. If they do not, these 
funds would not be available under this amendment. I do believe that my 
good friend from Hawaii wants to make a statement on the matter when he 
arrives.
  (At the request of Mr. Stevens, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, my amendment to the supplemental 
appropriations bill (S. 1768) would accelerate the development and 
deployment of theater missile defense systems.
  Recent revelations that Iran has nearly completed development of two 
new ballistic missiles--made possible with Russian assistance--that 
will allow it to strike targets as far away as Central Europe have 
convinced me that U.S. theater missile defenses must be accelerated in 
order to counter the emerging Iranian threat. This increased Iranian 
missile threat has materialized much sooner than expected due to the 
extensive assistance Russia has provided over the past year.
  According to press reports, development of Iran's 1,300 kilometer-
range Shahab-3 missile, which will be capable of reaching Israel, could 
be completed in 12 to 18 months. Development of a longer-range missile, 
called the Shahab-4, whose 2,000 kilometer range will allow it to reach 
targets in Central Europe, could be completed in as little as three 
years. Both missiles could be armed with chemical or biological 
warheads. These revelations are part of a string of very troubling 
disclosures that have surfaced over the past year detailing the 
extensive aid Russia has provided to Iran.
  A bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives have been working 
on various legislative approaches to address the Iranian threat for 
some time. For example, last fall both Houses of Congress passed a 
Concurrent Resolution which Representative Jane Harman and I submitted 
expressing the sense of the Congress that the Administration should 
impose sanctions against the Russian organizations and individuals that 
have transferred ballistic missile technology to Iran. The annual 
foreign aid bill passed last year also contains a provision 
conditioning the release of foreign aid to Russia on a halt to the 
transfer of nuclear and missile technology to Iran. And, Senator Lott 
and Representative Gilman have introduced legislation that would 
require that sanctions be imposed against any entity caught 
transferring goods to support Iran's ballistic missile program.
  In addition to these legislative initiatives, the Administration has 
engaged in a series of diplomatic exchanges with the Russians. 
According to press accounts, Vice President Gore has raised the issue 
with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin on several occasions. President 
Clinton has discussed the matter with President Yeltsin at the Helsinki 
summit in March 1997 and at the P-8 summit last June. The President 
also appointed Ambassador Frank Wisner as his special envoy to hold 
detailed discussions with Russian officials about the dangers of aiding 
Iran's ballistic missile program. This is a very serious issue which 
the Clinton Administration has clearly acknowledged.
  As a result of the Administration's diplomatic efforts, in January 
Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin signed a decree issuing catch-all 
export controls on nuclear, biological, chemical, and missile 
technology. The Russian government has also said it will not assist 
Iran's missile program. While we all hope this will lead to an end to 
the transfer of Russian missile hardware and expertise to Iran, I think 
the jury is still out on whether Moscow will fully comply with its 
obligations. For example, just one month after Prime Minister 
Chernomyrdin issued the decree on catch-all export controls, the 
Washington Times reported that Russia was still providing missile aid 
to Tehran. Specifically Russia and Iran's intelligence services were 
reportedly coordinating a visit to Moscow by a group of Iranian missile 
technicians and Russian missile experts were planning to teach courses 
in Tehran on missile guidance systems and pyrotechnics.
  It is also worth remembering that Russia promised three years ago to 
phase out conventional arms sales to Iran and to join the Missile 
Technology Control Regime. In addition, last March, President Yeltsin 
assured President Clinton at the Helsinki summit that it was not 
Russia's policy to assist Iran's missile program. But Russia has given 
missile aid to Iran in violation of these commitments. Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of State Einhorn summarized this situation well in Senate 
testimony last year stating,

  We have pressed the Russian leadership at the highest levels and we 
have been told that it is not Russia's policy to assist Iran's long-
range missile program. But the problem is this: There's a disconnect 
between those reassurances, which we welcome, and what we believe is 
actually occurring.

  In any event, the United States and our allies must be prepared to 
protect ourselves from the possibility that Iran will use ballistic 
missiles armed with nuclear, biological, or nuclear warheads. It is 
that possibility that this amendment is intended to address. Neither 
the United States nor Israel will have missile defenses capable of 
countering the threat from the Shahab-3 or Shahab-4 missiles before 
those systems are deployed. This amendment provides funding to 
accelerate the development of some key theater missile defense systems, 
as well as procurement of items for a third Arrow missile defense 
battery for Israel.
  In crafting this amendment, I have worked closely with the Defense 
Department and my colleagues in the

[[Page S2458]]

House of Representatives. Last month, Deputy Defense Secretary Hamre 
identified a variety of initiatives which DoD felt were needed to 
counter the new missile threat from Iran. In a letter to Representative 
Weldon, Mr. Hamre indicated the Administration felt so strongly about 
the need for these new initiatives that if additional funding was not 
provided, that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization would 
reprogram $100 million from existing missile defense programs for this 
purpose. Reprogramming missile defense funds would be counterproductive 
since, in effect, we would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  The $100 million of funding for initiatives identified by DoD are the 
core of this amendment. This funding requested by the Administration 
would provide:
  $35 million for integration of the Patriot (PAC-3), Navy Upper and 
Lower Tier, and THAAD radar systems to allow earlier, more accurate 
cueing that will increase the effective range of these missile defense 
systems.
  $15 million to accelerate completion of the PAC-3 remote launch 
capability. Remote launch allows PAC-3 missiles to be deployed at 
considerable distances from the PAC-3 radars effectively doubling the 
amount of territory defended.
  $40 million for one additional test flight of the PAC-3 and Navy 
Lower Tier systems to test their capabilities against longer-range 
missiles such as the Shahab-3 missile that Iran is developing.
  $10 million to improve interoperability between the Arrow and U.S. 
TMD systems.
  In addition to providing funding for the programs identified by the 
Administration, this amendment would also provide $6 million to 
integrate a variety of sensors and communication systems to provide 
better, more accurate early warning data from a missile launch, and $45 
million to purchase a third radar for the Israeli Arrow system, the 
first step toward eventually providing a third battery of the system to 
Israel.
  The proposals contained in this amendment enjoy bipartisan support. 
Last week, the House National Security Committee passed a bill, which 
is very similar to the amendment I have offered, by a vote of 45 to 0. 
It is also important to note that the amendment I have offered simply 
makes $151 million in funding available to the administration. In order 
for the Administration to use this funding it must designate it as an 
emergency requirement.
  In closing, I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Stevens for his support and urge my Senate 
colleagues to support this amendment which will help ensure that the 
United States and its allies can take meaningful steps to counter the 
growing threat from Iran's missile program.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2085

 (Purpose: Treatment of Educational Accomplishments of National Guard 
                    Challenge Program Participants)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have three amendments that have been 
discussed on both sides of the aisle and have been cleared now. I send 
to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Leahy; a second amendment 
proposed by myself and Senators Cochran, Boxer, and Bumpers; and an 
amendment for Senator McCain that has been cleared.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the clerk read only the 
amendment that I offered for myself and Senator Cochran at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), for himself, Mr. 
     Cochran, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2085.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 15, after line 21 of the bill insert:
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     the case of a person who is selected for training in a State 
     program conducted under the National Guard Challenge Program 
     and who obtains a general education diploma in connection 
     with such training, the general education diploma shall be 
     treated as equivalent to a high school diploma for purposes 
     of determining the eligibility of the person for enlistment 
     in the armed forces.''

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this came to light during a hearing we 
held in the Defense Subcommittee of our Committee on Appropriations 
last week. Since that time, I have discussed it with members of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and other members in the armed services.
  These young people who go through the Challenge Program get a general 
equivalent degree, a GED, but under our existing law a person must have 
a high school diploma to enlist. This amendment covers only those 
people who come through that program with a GED. They will have spent 
20 weeks or more with the National Guard in a semimilitary situation, 
and they go through and get their GED, which is acceptable to colleges 
and universities but not acceptable for enlistment in the Armed Forces. 
Having spent their time with the National Guard in its Challenge 
Program, many of them really want to continue and go into military 
service and continue their education as a member of the armed services. 
We believe that opportunity ought to be there for these young people 
who have made a commitment to change their lives and who have made a 
commitment that they want to be part of the military system.
  This, as I said, is something that is very limited in scope and only 
deals with a few hundred people in the country as a whole. But they are 
people that the Guard has worked with, and they have worked with the 
Guard.
  As I said, that was one of the most impressive hearings that I have 
conducted in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. It was very 
emotional, really, to listen to these young people who came forward and 
told us they had problems with drugs, or being members of gangs, and 
they decided they wanted to change. And they have changed. One young 
man was in his second year at The Citadel. He got into The Citadel with 
a GED, but he could not have gotten into the Army, or the Navy, or the 
Air Force. We think that ought to change.
  This provision will change that. I believe it should be adopted. It 
has been cleared on both sides, and Senator Byrd wishes to be listed as 
a cosponsor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Alaska.
  The amendment (No. 2085) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the time being, I ask that the other 
two amendments I have sent to the desk be held in abeyance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, has the Kyl amendment finally been 
disposed of?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not been disposed of.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S2459]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent Senator Bond be listed as a 
cosponsor of amendment No. 2085.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, on behalf of Mr. Biden, I ask unanimous 
consent that Mark Tauber, a State Department Pearson Fellow on the 
Foreign Relations Committee staff, be granted floor privileges for the 
duration of consideration of S. 1768, the emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am now informed that the Kyl amendment 
has been cleared on both sides. Is it the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Arizona.
  The amendment (No. 2079) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2092

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2092.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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 51, line 22, strike Section 2004 and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

     SEC. 2005. PROVISIONS RELATING TO UNIVERSAL SERVICE SUPPORT 
                   FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
                   USERS.

       (a) No Inference Regarding Existing Universal Service 
     Administrative Mechanism.--Nothing in this section may be 
     considered as expressing the approval of the Congress of the 
     action of the Federal Communications Commission in 
     establishing, or causing to be established, one or more 
     corporations to administer the schools and libraries program 
     and the rural health care provider program under section 
     254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)), 
     or the approval of any provision of such programs.
       (b) FCC To Report to the Congress.--
       (1) Report due date.--Pursuant to the findings of the 
     General Accounting Office (B-278820) dated February 10, 1998, 
     the Federal Communications Commission shall, by May 8, 1998, 
     submit a 2-part report to the Congress under this section.
       (2) Revised structure.--The report shall propose a revised 
     structure for the administration of the programs established 
     under section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 254(h)). The revised structure shall consist of a 
     single entity.
       (A) Limitation on administration of programs.--The entity 
     proposed by the Commission to administer the programs--
       (i) is limited to implementation of the FCC rules for 
     applications for discounts and processing the applications 
     necessary to determine eligibility for discounts under 
     section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     254(h)) as determined by the Commission;
       (ii) may not administer the programs in any manner that 
     requires that entity to interpret the intent of the Congress 
     in establishing the programs or interpret any rule 
     promulgated by the Commission in carrying out the programs, 
     without appropriate consultation and guidance from the 
     Commission.
       (B) APA Requirements waived.--In preparing the report 
     required by this section, the Commission shall find that good 
     cause exists to waive the requirements of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code, to the extent necessary to 
     enable the Commission to submit the report to the Congress by 
     May 8, 1998.
       (3) Report on funding of schools and libraries program and 
     rural health care program.--The report required by this 
     section shall also provide the following information about 
     the contributions to, and requests for funding from, the 
     schools and libraries subsidy program:
       (A) An estimate of the expected reductions in interstate 
     access charges anticipated on July 1, 1998.
       (B) An accounting of the total contributions to the 
     universal service fund that are available for use to support 
     the schools and libraries program under section 254(h) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)) for the second 
     quarter of 1998.
       (C) An accounting of the amount of the contribution 
     described in subparagraph (B) that the Commission expects to 
     receive from--
       (i) incumbent local exchange carriers;
       (ii) interexchange carriers;
       (iii) information service providers;
       (iv) commercial mobile radio service providers; and
       (v) any other provider.
       (D) Based on the applications for funding under section 
     254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)) 
     received as of April 15, 1998, an estimate of the costs of 
     providing universal service support to schools and libraries 
     under that section disaggregated by eligible services and 
     facilities as set forth in the eligibility list of the 
     Schools and Libraries Corporation, including--
       (i) the amounts requested for costs associated with 
     telecommunications services;
       (ii) the amounts requested for costs described in clause 
     (i) plus the costs of internal connections under the program; 
     and
       (iii) the amounts requested for the costs described in 
     clause (ii), plus the cost of internet access;
       (iv) the amount requested by eligible schools and libraries 
     in each category and discount level listed in the matrix 
     appearing at paragraph 520 of the Commission's May 8, 1997 
     Order, calculated as dollar figures and as percentages of the 
     total of all requests:
       (I) the amount requested by eligible schools and libraries 
     in each such category and discount level to provide 
     telecommunications services;
       (II) the amount requested by eligible schools and libraries 
     in each such category and discount level to provide internal 
     connections; and
       (III) the amount requested by eligible schools and 
     libraries in each such category and discount level to provide 
     internet access.
       (E) A justification for the amount, if any, by which the 
     total requested disbursements from the fund described in 
     subparagraph (D) exceeds the amount of available 
     contributions described in subparagraph (B).
       (F) Based on the amount described in subparagraph (D), an 
     estimate of the amount of contributions that will be required 
     for the schools and libraries program in the third and fourth 
     quarters of 1998, and, to the extent these estimated 
     contributions for the third and fourth quarter exceed the 
     current second-quarter contribution, the Commission shall 
     provide an estimate of the amount of support that will be 
     needed for each of the eligible services and facilities as 
     set forth in the eligibility list of the Schools and 
     Libraries Corporation, and disaggregated as specified in 
     subparagraph (D).
       (G) An explanation of why restricting the basis of 
     telecommunications carriers' contributions to universal 
     service under 254(a)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 254(a)(3)) to interstate revenues, while requiring 
     that contributions to universal service under section 254(h) 
     of that Act (47 U.S.C. 254(h)) be based on both interstate as 
     well as intrastate revenues, is consistent with the 
     provisions of section 254(d) of that Act (47 U.S.C. 254(d)).
       (H) An explanation as to whether access charge reductions 
     should be passed through on a dollar-for-dollar basis to each 
     customer class on a proportionate basis.
       (I) An explanation of the contribution mechanisms 
     established by the Commission under the Commission's Report 
     and Order (FCC 97-157), May 8, 1997, and whether any direct 
     end-user charges on consumers are appropriate.
       (c) Imposition of Cap on Compensation of Individuals 
     Employed To Carry Out the Programs.--No officer or employee 
     of the entity to be proposed to be established under 
     subsection (b)(2) of this section may be compensated at an 
     annual rate of pay, including any non-regular, extraordinary, 
     or unexpected payment based on specific determinations of 
     exceptionally meritorious service or otherwise, bonuses, or 
     any other compensation (either monetary or in-kind), which 
     exceeds the rate of basic pay in effect from time to time for 
     level I of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 
     5, United States Code.

[[Page S2460]]

       (d) Second-Half 1998 Contributions.--Before June 1, 1998, 
     the Federal Communications Commission may not--
       (1) adjust the contribution factors for telecommunications 
     carriers under section 254; or
       (2) collect any such contribution due for the third or 
     fourth quarter of calendar year 1998.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that this amendment is 
acceptable on both sides. This substitute is very similar to the 
original section 2004 of the bill before the Senate. We have made some 
changes based upon input from several Senators in segments of the 
telecommunications industry.
  This amendment and legislation addresses the fact that the GAO has 
determined that the Federal Communications Commission established the 
Schools and Library and Rural Health Care Corporations in violation of 
the Government Corporations Control Act. That law states that agencies 
must have specific statutory authority to establish such corporations.
  Our bipartisan bill urges the FCC to come to Congress with an 
acceptable structure. Our effort also mandates that the FCC report to 
Congress by May 8 of each year on the cost of this program.
  Consumers experienced a 4.9 percent rate increase on their business 
phone bills after initial collections to fund this program. Congress 
needs to know why rates went up and how we can avoid such an outcome in 
the future.
  I want to personally thank Senators Hollings, McCain, Burns, Dorgan, 
and Rockefeller for their help with this amendment. As I said, it has 
now been found acceptable to both sides as a substitute to the 
provisions that are in this bill as reported by the committee. I urge 
its adoption.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2092) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I tell my friend, the senior Senator from 
Alaska, we have a matter that I think has been somewhat of a regional 
and local controversy about to be worked out. I advise the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I think within 
a matter of minutes we will be able to move on that.
  In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2098

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to S. 1768 to the desk 
on behalf of myself, Mr. Abraham and Mr. Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself, Mr. 
     Abraham and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 2098.

  Mr. LEAHY. 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:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec.  . Section 203 of the National Sea Grant College 
     Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1122) is amended by--
       (1) striking paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraphs (6) 
     through (17) as paragraphs (5) through (16);
       (2) redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (F) of 
     paragraph (7), as redesignated, as subparagraphs (D) through 
     (G); and
       (3) inserting after subparagraph (B) of paragraph (7), as 
     redesignated, the following:
       ``(C) Lake Champlain (to the extent that such resources 
     have hydrological, biological, physical, or geological 
     characteristics and problems similar or related to those of 
     the Great Lakes);''

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from the 
Great Lakes State today to offer an amendment that clarifies an issue 
that relates to ecological research involving Lake Champlain and its 
relatives, the Great Lakes of the Midwest.
  Almost 10 years ago, I embarked on a campaign to reverse what was the 
appearance of initial environmental degradation of Lake Champlain. This 
campaign included access to the research and expertise of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Sea Grant 
Program.
  When I included Lake Champlain within the definition of the ``Great 
Lakes'' for the purpose, and solely for the purpose, of the National 
Sea Grant Program, that change ignited some regional anxiety in the 
Midwest, the traditional home of the five Great Lakes. It sparked a 
geography debate over the last month that has enlightened many a 
classroom. It certainly enlivened the conversation across many a dinner 
table, including my own in Middlesex, VT. But it has had the added 
advantage of even classes that did a poor job of teaching geography now 
had something with which they could do a good job, and people now know 
at least where the top northern tier of States are.
  My original amendment only modified the term ``Great Lakes'' for the 
purpose of the National Sea Grant Program. But it snowballed into 
concerns that we would have to rewrite our encyclopedias or throw out 
our atlases. My amendment to the National Sea Grant Program simply 
allows Vermont colleges that border Lake Champlain to compete for Sea 
Grant College status and research funds.
  Although Vermonters, I must admit to my good friends from the 
Midwest, and New Englanders have always thought of Lake Champlain as 
the ``sixth Great Lake,'' because it is the sixth largest body of fresh 
water in the continental United States, I recognize the historical and 
emotional significance this definition carries in much of the Midwest 
where they have the fantastic Great Lakes--Huron, Ontario, Michigan, 
Erie and Superior. That is why I have been working with my colleagues 
of the Midwest to ensure their image of the Great Lakes remains intact, 
while allowing schools in Vermont to compete for research dollars on a 
level playing field with other schools within the National Sea Grant 
Program.
  Over the last weeks, we have all heard tales of the greatness of Lake 
Champlain and the Great Lakes. We all agree that these lakes share in 
the greatness, whether from their common geological history or their 
shared biological system that supports the diverse flora and fauna in 
the region.
  Lake Champlain is not as large as the Great Lakes of the Midwest, but 
it has proved its greatness throughout American history. The pivotal 
Battle of Valcour in 1776 on Lake Champlain was a key element in 
winning the Revolutionary War, because it turned back the British fleet 
coming down to resupply their forces. A turning point in the War of 
1812 was the Battle of Plattsburg. And last year, the sister ship to 
the Smithsonian's Philadelphia, Benedict Arnold's gunboat, was 
discovered intact in Lake Champlain. So, if we expand the National Sea 
Grant Program to include Lake Champlain, we will be able to preserve 
the environmental, economic, and historical value of a lake that is a 
Vermont and a national treasure.
  The amendment I am offering today with Senators Levin and Abraham 
clarifies the definition of ``Great Lakes.'' Representative Fred Upton 
has also been extremely active and helpful in developing this solution. 
Senator Levin, the new chair of the Great Lakes task force, has made 
darn sure, as have his other colleagues and friends from the Midwest, 
that I have read every editorial written in their region. In fact, I 
expect at some moment to be in front of the blackboard saying, ``I 
shall name''--but, because they are such good friends, and both are on 
the floor now, they didn't make me do that. But the fact that all of us 
are offering this amendment together is testimony to the shared 
understanding and respect for the importance of our lakes to our 
environment, our economy, and our history.
  Unfortunately, while we have that shared interest, we also share some 
common threats to our lakes. In the last year, we have witnessed the 
spread of the zebra mussel infestation throughout Lake Champlain, 
because we connect through the St. Lawrence Seaway, and we share that 
with the

[[Page S2461]]

other lakes. These small freshwater pests are threatening native 
mussels, community water systems, and the network of underwater 
shipwrecks that make up a rich part of our Nation's history. In fact, 
scientists forecast that zebra mussels and other invasive species are 
likely to reach their maximum levels within the next few years.
  The zebra mussel represents one of the many connections between the 
Great Lakes and Lake Champlain, having spread through waterways by 
boaters who travel among our lakes. We share other concerns such as 
toxic pollutants, nutrient enrichment and habitat degradation, and 
these threaten our common fisheries.
  For the most part, this Great Lakes debate has not been a dispute 
among scientists who know the common history and problems facing these 
lakes, but among politicians and columnists and radio talk show hosts. 
By pooling all of our resources on freshwater lake research and 
allowing schools conducting research on Lake Champlain to directly 
participate in the Sea Grant College Program, we are going to be better 
prepared to solve these environmental and economic problems. We have 
already heard from scientists who are excited about the prospect of 
sharing information and starting joint research projects to address 
these problems.
  Our amendment will build on our existing partnership and ensure the 
Sea Grant Program protects the water resources, biodiversity, and 
economic health of the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain.
  The purpose of my earlier amendment was not to change any maps but to 
promote ecological research on the common problems facing our lakes. I 
understand the symbolic issue this has become with our friends in the 
Midwest and, because they are my friends, I do not want to create 
problems for them.
  Even though we are the sixth largest lake in this country, we have 
agreed to call Lake Champlain the cousin instead of a little brother to 
those larger lakes in the Midwest. But we accomplish our goal of 
improving the ecological health of our lakes. I think it is a win-win 
solution that achieves our purposes while skirting the symbolism. We 
can say, ``Mission accomplished,'' because it means all our lakes will 
share the benefits of this research about the common problems, like 
phosphorous runoff, zebra mussels, and mercury pollution. It will help 
us avoid some of the pollution pitfalls that have stricken other lakes.
  In the meantime, it has been a marvelous tourism ad for our beautiful 
lake. I have never seen so many pictures of Lake Champlain on 
television ringed by the Adirondack Mountains of New York and the Green 
Mountains of Vermont. In fact, having watched some more pictures of it 
today, it makes me all the more homesick. I can't wait to be back home 
this weekend.
  I yield the floor with an invitation to any of my friends from the 
Midwest, or any other area: Come to Vermont; we would love to have you 
there.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Leahy for offering 
this amendment. It is a very important amendment to those of us in the 
Great Lakes for the reasons he has described. His initiative was aimed 
at making certain that Lake Champlain would be eligible to compete for 
certain funds. That eligibility is dependent upon Lake Champlain facing 
a common problem.
  There is no reason why Lake Champlain should not be able to compete 
for funds where they face a common problem with the Great Lakes, such 
as zebra mussels or contaminated sediments. So that was never the 
problem. The problem was the redesignation of Lake Champlain as a Great 
Lake, and that is what created the difficulty.
  Basically, what this Leahy amendment does is to reconfirm the 
historical definition of the Great Lakes. That historical definition of 
the five Great Lakes is learned by every child in the Great Lakes 
region. It is HOMES. It is the easy way for our children to learn what 
the Great Lakes are. HOMES--Lake Huron, Lake Ontario, Lake Michigan, 
Lake Erie and Lake Superior. Together they spell HOMES. That is a very 
significant part of our identity in the Great Lakes.

  Senator Leahy, in his amendment this morning and in his words on the 
floor, recognizes the importance of that historical identity to us, and 
we are very supportive of this amendment, indeed, have actively helped 
to create it, to cosponsor it.
  I also thank Senator Abraham who has played such an active role in 
this effort to maintain the Great Lakes as the traditional five Great 
Lakes. His role has also been critically important, as has the role of 
the other Great Lakes Senators who have been supportive of this 
amendment.
  There are many, many laws that designate the Great Lakes as the five 
traditional Great Lakes. Under the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act, 
for instance, the Great Lakes have been defined as the ``five Great 
Lakes.'' Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, the 
traditional ``five Great Lakes'' have been designated. And so forth 
throughout history, both legislative and geographic, the ``five Great 
Lakes'' have been clearly identified as those five Great Lakes that I 
have just identified.
  I want to, again, state that this amendment may hopefully now resolve 
a controversy. We hope this will pass the House of Representatives. We 
believe it will. But this is not just a tempest in a teapot for those 
of us who live in the Great Lakes region. This is a matter of our very 
identity. The importance of these Great Lakes to us, to our economy, to 
our ecology, to our environment, and to our recreation is clear. So, in 
reversing the designation, as this amendment would, continuing Vermont 
and Lake Champlain as being eligible to compete for funds where there 
is a common problem is the right way to go.
  We thank Senator Leahy for his recognition of that. All of us who 
live in the Great Lakes region, I think, are now going to be assured 
that a traditional definition, which has been so important to us in our 
identities, will be maintained and will be restored.
  Now this language will hopefully pass the House of Representatives, 
and I am sure with Senator Leahy's support, it will do so. Again, I 
thank him, I thank Senator Abraham, and I thank our colleagues from the 
Great Lakes region for their effort in this legislation.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I rise today with my colleagues in support of the Leahy amendment 
which includes S. 1873, legislation which I had previously introduced 
with Senators Leahy and Levin, legislation which will resolve the 
recent controversy surrounding the designation of Lake Champlain as a 
Great Lake. Since being signed into law last month, the Sea Grant 
College Program Act has received a tremendous amount of attention, not 
for the important research it fosters, but for a single sentence that 
designated Lake Champlain as a Great Lake for purposes of the bill.
  Today's agreement will restore the designation of a ``Great Lake'' to 
the original five. This has been made possible as a result of several 
weeks of discussion among myself, Senator Levin, and Senator Leahy. I 
thank them for their efforts. I also thank and draw attention to 
Congressman Fred Upton, our Michigan colleague in the House, for his 
important participation and contributions which have helped us reach 
this agreement.
  Mr. President, I was extremely pleased to be an original cosponsor of 
the Sea Grant College Program Act as passed out of the Commerce 
Committee last year. This act is an important piece of legislation 
which supplies crucial funding for research into a host of problems 
which challenge the health of the Great Lakes, such as zebra mussel 
infestation.
  Late last year, the Sea Grant College Program Act was amended to 
allow Vermont colleges and universities to apply to the Sea Grant 
programs in the hope of securing research grant dollars for the study 
of Lake Champlain. This amendment was offered as part of a managers' 
amendment which addressed a number of technical issues. Unfortunately, 
it did so in a manner totally unacceptable to the residents of the 
Great Lakes, in that it named Lake Champlain a ``Great Lake.''

  As my colleague from Michigan indicated, at least in our part of the 
country, it is a very typical teaching device

[[Page S2462]]

to have students memorize the names of the Great Lakes by using the 
acronym HOMES, H-O-M-E-S.
  To add another letter to this acronym at this late date, Mr. 
President, would, in my judgment, not make sense. And I cannot quite 
figure out what acronym it would be that would be sufficiently 
memorable for our young people to use this as a study device.
  Beyond that, we in Michigan pride ourselves in the fact that our 
State bears, as its own self-proclaimed motto, ``The Great Lake 
State.'' Obviously, to the people in Michigan, it is quite important 
that we remain a State that is in contact with and connected to the 
Great Lakes.
  For those reasons, among many others, great concern was registered, 
as has been previously noted by editorial writers and educators, and 
others, about the way the legislation that was passed with respect to 
Sea Grant colleges might affect the Great Lakes designation for other 
purposes.
  So, Mr. President, although this designation only applied for 
purposes of the Sea Grant Program Act, it still created a serious 
perception problem. The residents of the Great Lakes take great pride 
in the Lakes. In all the world, there is no comparable system of fresh 
water. Even for the limited purposes outlined in this Sea Grant Program 
Act, the designation of any lake as a Great Lake beyond the original 
five was simply unacceptable. So this legislation introduced today 
strikes any reference to Lake Champlain as a Great Lake.
  Yet, Mr. President, it is clear that something needs to be done to 
help Lake Champlain. While not a Great Lake, it is nevertheless an 
important body of water that is part of the Great Lakes freshwater 
system. Outside the obvious differences, Lake Champlain does share a 
host of similarities with its larger cousins and suffers from many of 
the same problems present in the five Great Lakes. Zebra mussel 
infestation is just one of the similarities. Michiganians especially 
can understand and empathize with Vermont's efforts to battle this 
invader. For this reason, my colleagues and I have agreed to language 
which will allow colleges and universities in Vermont to apply for a 
sea grant program in the same manner that a school in a Great Lakes 
State would apply.

  Specifically, this legislation also makes clear that sea grant funds 
directed to the study of Lake Champlain are applicable to the Great 
Lakes system. Because funds directed to Vermont institutions for 
research on Lake Champlain will also be applicable to the Great Lakes, 
funding of sea grant research into Great Lakes problems will not be 
diminished.
  So, Mr. President, I am pleased to have introduced this legislation 
earlier and to support this amendment now, which will reverse the 
designation of Lake Champlain as a Great Lake and will yet allow 
Vermont colleges and universities to apply to the Sea Grant Program.
  I am pleased that we could come to an agreement with our colleague 
from Vermont. He is a tireless advocate for his State. The Great Lakes 
and the St. Lawrence River will benefit from his energy and 
understanding and support of the Sea Grant Program. And I look forward 
to working with him and the Great Lakes delegation in the months ahead 
to facilitate Sea Grant's efforts to preserve and protect the entire 
Great Lakes system.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I would also like to state 
for the record the names of a number of individuals who cosponsored my 
bill, which is now being incorporated into this amendment in the 
supplemental appropriations bill, because I know that they wish to be 
associated with this effort as we move to the finish line. So in 
addition to myself and Senators Levin and Leahy, I ask unanimous 
consent to add on to that legislation as cosponsors Senators Santorum, 
DeWine, Glenn, Coats, Gorton, and Grams.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank all the Senators for their help 
and their support of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chair of the 
Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, Senator Snowe in a colloquy 
regarding her understanding of the amendment offered by Senator Leahy 
and myself on the Sea Grant College Program. The Commerce Committee and 
its Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee have jurisdiction over the Sea 
Grant College Program.
  Ms. SNOWE. I would be pleased to join the Senator from Michigan in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. The Leahy-Abraham amendment, which is based on a bill 
that I introduced, deletes the line in the National Sea Grant College 
Program Act that says ``the term `Great Lakes' includes Lake 
Champlain.'' This line was included in the recent reauthorization of 
the act, and it has caused all of the recent concern on this issue in 
the Great Lakes region. In lieu of this language, the amendment lists 
Lake Champlain separately from the Great lakes in the list of water 
bodies for which Sea Grant projects can be undertaken. It is therefore 
clear from the amendment that Lake Champlain is not designated a Great 
Lake under the National Sea Grant College Program Act. Nevertheless, I 
do think it would be useful to have the chairman of the authorizing 
subcommittee with jurisdiction over this issue state her understanding 
of the term ``Great Lakes'' in the act as it would be amended by our 
amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would be happy to comment on this issue. 
The Leahy-Abraham amendment makes a clear distinction between the Great 
Lakes and Lake Champlain. Lake Champlain is not a Great Lake. There are 
only five Great Lakes--Michigan, Superior, Huron, Ontario, and Erie. 
The Leahy-Abraham amendment clearly reflects this traditional 
understanding of the Great Lakes. With passage of the Leahy-Abraham 
amendment, there should be no doubt that the term ``Great Lakes'' in 
the Sea Grant Act means only Michigan, Superior, Huron, Ontario, and 
Erie.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank Senator Snowe for her comments on this point.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know we are about to go into recess. I 
ask unanimous consent to be able to continue for 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 12:30 was the time 
to recess. Without objection, the Senator may proceed.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to this 
amendment Senators DeWine, Glenn, Kohl, and Gorton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my two friends from Michigan for 
their efforts on this. The distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. 
Abraham, is on the floor now. We have spent hours going back and forth. 
And we are good friends. We talked about this a great deal, as we did 
with Senator Levin, whose office is down the hall from mine. It seems 
we went back and forth and discussed this over and over again, and the 
way to do it.
  I commend them because they have made it very clear they do not want 
in any way to hurt the ecology of the environment of Lake Champlain, 
which is a spectacular lake. They have tried to find a way that they 
can retain their own identity, a well-deserved identity, and with a 
remarkable geographic situation with the five lakes. And I think we 
have ended up with a win-win situation.
  So, Mr. President, I thank them for their help. It is one of the nice 
things about being in the Senate--when you know each other, you can 
sometimes work out things that would be more difficult otherwise.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2098) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________