[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.
____________________