[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 34 (Tuesday, March 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2482-S2486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATURAL DISASTERS AND OVERSEAS
PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 2102, as modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Gorton amendment
No. 2102 to Senate bill 1768.
The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the yeas and nays
on that amendment be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. I send a modification of that amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . LIMITATIONS ON INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND LOANS TO
INDONESIA.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United
States Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund
to use the voice and vote of the United States to prevent the
extension of International Monetary Fund resources--
(1) directly to or for the direct benefit of the President
of Indonesia or any member of the President's family; and
(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the
Executive Director to use the U.S. voice and vote to oppose
further disbursement of funds to Indonesia on any IMF terms
or conditions less stringent than those imposed on the
Republic of Korea and the Philippines Republic.
Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent Senator Gregg be added as a
cosponsor to the modified amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Earlier this afternoon, I introduced an amendment which
would have instructed the U.S. representative to the International
Monetary Fund to vote against any proposal with respect to Indonesia
that would have benefited President Soeharto or his family or his close
associates.
I did so because it seemed to me that while several of the Nations in
Southeast Asia that have been subjected to these runs on their currency
and toward the present economic crisis were close friends of the United
States, had developed democratic institutions like our own, were
struggling toward free markets like our own, this was not taking place
in Indonesia. It was a wholly-owned family subsidiary benefiting
largely the Soeharto family and not the people of Indonesia.
I pointed out that it seemed to me unfair to impose heavy
requirements on friends of ours like the Republic of Korea and the
Philippine Republic and allow any IMF money to go to Indonesia that was
resisting all of the attempts by IMF to reform its economy.
Others, including the Treasury, the distinguished chairman of the
committee, and many others who have been interested in the
International Monetary Fund asked me to modify my amendment. I have
done so, to make it more narrow with respect to aid to the Soeharto
family, narrow enough so I must say, I think it is symbolic only, but
to require the United States not to favor any proposition with respect
to Indonesia that is less stringent than those that the IMF is imposing
on the Republic of Korea and the Philippine Republic, two of the
closest allies and best friends with the longest association with the
United States of any of the countries of Southeast Asia.
With that motion, I understand the amendment is acceptable and will
be adopted by a voice vote. But I do want to say that I know that I
represent a strong strain of opinion in this Senate that we should not
be bailing out the Soeharto family, even indirectly, through our
contributions to the International Monetary Fund.
I want the message to be heard loud and clear in Jakarta that true
reforms to its economy are absolutely essential, that the International
Monetary Fund and the United States are simply not interested in
bailing out a family enterprise--fortunes stolen through corruption and
inside dealing in the way that has been all too true in Indonesia over
the course of the past decades--that there is a difference among the
countries seeking aid in Southeast Asia from the International Monetary
Fund. I am told that in some respects the requirements being imposed on
Indonesia are tougher than those on South Korea and the Philippine
Republic. If so, that is fine. But I certainly don't want us favoring
Indonesia over those two nations that have been our allies for such an
extended period of time.
So even if this amendment is only symbolic at this point--and it may
very well be--I think the symbolism is important. I think that
symbolism is vitally important.
I believe as a general proposition that it is in the interests of the
United States to help the International Monetary Fund help countries
that are willing to try to help themselves out of a severe economic
crisis, even selfishly from the point of view of our own economy and
our own exporters who are already seeing, in increasing trade deficits,
the adverse impacts on trade in the crisis in Southeast Asia.
Certain IMF assistance is in the interest of the United States.
Bailing out the Soeharto family is not, and that is what this amendment
is designed to accomplish.
Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding that the amendment of Senator
Gorton has been cleared on both sides, and I know of no other debate. I
congratulate the Senator for working so hard on this amendment. I
remember the discussions that he and I had with various members of the
South Pacific community in Australia when we were down there earlier
this year. This certainly reflects the general feeling in the Senate.
The Senator is to be congratulated for doing this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2102), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Faircloth
amendment, No. 2103.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that amendment might be
temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2111 through 2116, En Bloc
Mr. STEVENS. I will send to the desk the managers' package of
amendments that have been cleared on both sides: The first amendment,
for Mr. Leahy, to eliminate the State matching requirement with respect
to certain amounts made available for fiscal year 1998 for the Small
Business Development Center Program of the Small Business
Administration; the second amendment, for Senators Coverdell, Cochran,
Bumpers, Boxer, and Cleland, to provide additional funds for emergency
watershed and flood prevention separations and strike certain earmarks
from the bill; third is an amendment, for Senator Kennedy, to authorize
the Secretary of Defense to lease or create another type of short-term
interest in certain land near the Massachusetts Military Reservation;
fourth is, for Senators Coats and Lieberman, to extend the National
Defense Panel to the end of fiscal year 1998; the fifth amendment is on
behalf of Senators Shelby, Byrd, Boxer, and Senator Dorgan, to provide
funds for emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair; the last
amendment is on behalf of Senators Gregg and Hollings, to allow the
transfer of funds from various agencies to the State Department to
address the cost of departmental overhead.
As I indicated, these have all been cleared on both sides. I ask for
their consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments
No. 2111 through 2116, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
[[Page S2483]]
amendment no. 2111
(Purpose: To eliminate the State matching requirement with respect to
certain amounts made available for fiscal year 1998 for the Small
Business Development Center program of the Small Business
Administration)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Notwithstanding section 21(a)(4) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(a)(4)) or any other provision of
law, of the amount made available under the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-119) for
the account for salaries and expenses of the Small Business
Administration, to fund grants for performance in fiscal year
1998 or fiscal year 1999 as authorized by section 21 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648), any funds obligated or
expended for the conduct of a pilot project for a study on
the current state of commerce on the Internet in Vermont
shall not be subject to a nonfederal matching requirement.
____
amendment no. 2112
(Purpose: To provide additional funds for emergency Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations and to strike earmarks from the bill)
On page 4, line 1, beginning with the word ``of'', strike
all down through and including the word ``That'' at the end
of line 3.
On page 6, line 6, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert
``$100,000,000''.
On page 6, line 7, beginning with the word ``of'', strike
all down through and including the word ``That'' on line 10.
On page 6, line 12, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert
``$100,000,000''.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I would first like to commend the
chairman, Senator Stevens for his attention to Georgia disaster victims
in this bill. I would also like to thank Senator Cochran for his fine
work as Agriculture Subcommittee chairman in working through the many
requests for assistance he has received.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. COVERDELL. I would like to ask a question of Chairman Cochran if
I might. Is it the Senator's understanding that the $40 million in the
Emergency Conservation Program account and $10 million in the Emergency
Watershed and Flood Prevention Program account we provided for the
State of Georgia in the 1998 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill
is sufficient to fully cover our losses.
Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from Georgia is correct with regard to the
Emergency Conservation Program. Officials at the Department of
Agriculture have reported that the $60 million that we provided for
this program will be more than sufficient to address Georgia's disaster
needs. Regarding the Emergency Watershed and Flood Prevention program,
officials have reported that Georgia will require approximately $25
million, according to the current estimates.
Mr. COVERDELL. Would the Senator from Mississippi be willing to
consider an amendment providing additional funds for the Emergency
Watershed and Flood Prevention account in order to cover the $25
million needed for relief in Georgia and for needs resulting from more
recent disasters elsewhere? And, if this assistance is provided at
these levels, will it be sufficient to cover Georgia's estimated
disaster needs?
Mr. COCHRAN. I would be happy to agree to the amount necessary to
cover disaster assistance under the Emergency Watershed and Flood
Prevention Program for Georgia in the wake of its recent flooding and
tornado damage. In response to the second question, it is my
understanding currently that the agricultural disaster needs of Georgia
will be sufficiently addressed with a total supplemental appropriation
of $100 million in the Emergency Watershed and Flood Prevention account
and $60 million in the Emergency Conservation Program. So, yes,
Georgia's needs will be accommodated, and the Senator's work on behalf
of his state is appreciated.
Mr. COVERDELL. The Chairman's assistance is greatly appreciated. Rest
assured these vital funds will go to good use in what has become a very
trying year for Georgia farmers, and the Chairman's leadership is
especially helpful to my state.
THE CHINO DAIRY PRESERVE IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, one of the consequences of the torrential
rains in Southern California has been massive flooding. In the Chino
Basin in San Bernardino County, we have a dairy preserve that is home
to more than 325 thousand dairy cows. Because of the heavy rains,
wastewater wash flows and related manure that are usually stored in
lagoons for subsequent disposal, have become inundated causing
overflows. These overflows discharge into the Santa Ana River,
threatening the underlying aquifer and impairing the water quality. It
is important to note that the Santa Ana River is a drinking water
source for more than 2 million citizens in Orange County, California.
These threats include inorganic salts, parasites, bacteria and viruses
and can pollute drinking water with high levels of nitrates that can be
potentially fatal to infants.
I would like to ask Senator Cochran, chairman of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee, a question. I have been told by the United
States Department of Agriculture that $5 million of the amount
requested by the Administration for California from the United States
Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, is for the Chino Dairy
Preserve in San Bernardino County. Is this the understanding of the
Chairman?
Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, I understand that the United States Department of
Agriculture estimate includes $5 million for the Chino Dairy Preserve
in San Bernardino County. I support this appropriation.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the chairman.
This $5 million will provide important emergency work to begin
repairing flood control channels, berms and other related activities
that will ensure that this important watershed is provided every
protection possible.
With this disaster assistance, we can begin the process of responding
to this public health problem without delay and ensure that the
citizens of Orange County will have continued confidence in their water
supplies. I express my deep appreciation to the chairman, my colleagues
on the Committee, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for their
support of this appropriation.
amendment no. 2113
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to acquire a lease or
other short-term interest in certain cranberry bogs near the
Massachusetts Military Reservation, Massachusetts)
On page 15, below line 21, add the following:
Sec. 205. (a)(1) The Secretary of Defense may enter into a
lease or acquire any other interest in the parcels of land
described in paragraph (2). The parcels consist in aggregate
of approximately 90 acres.
The parcels of land referred to in paragraph (1) are the
following land used for the commercial production of
cranberries:
(A) The parcels known as the Mashpee bogs, located on the
Quashup River adjacent to the Massachusetts Military
Reservation, Massachusetts.
(B) The parcels known as the Falmouth bogs, located on the
Coonamessett River adjacent to the Massachusetts Military
Reservation, Massachusetts.
(3) The term of any lease or other interest acquired under
paragraph (1) may not exceed two years.
(4) Any lease or other real property interest acquired
under paragraph (1) shall be subject to such other terms and
conditions as are agreed upon jointly by the Secretary and
the person or entity entering into the lease or extending the
interest.
(b) Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available
for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1998, up to
$2,000,000 may be available to acquire the lease or other
interest acquired under subsection (a).
____
amendment no. 2114
(Purpose: To extend the National Defense Panel to the end of fiscal
year 1998)
On page 15, after line 21, insert the following:
Sec. 205. (a) Section 924(j) of Public Law 104-201 (110
Stat. 2628) is amended to read as follows:
``(j) Duration of Panel.--The Panel shall exist until
September 30, 1998, and shall terminate at the end of the day
on such date.''.
(b) The National Defense Panel established under section
924 of Public Law 104-201 shall be deemed to have continued
in existence after the Panel submitted its report under
subsection (e) of such section until the Panel terminates
under subsection (j) of such section as amended by subsection
(a).
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the report of the National Defense Panel
(NDP) has been tremendously useful to the Congress as we consider the
national security requirements for our military today, and into the
21st century. The termination of the National Defense Panel (NDP) is
extended through fiscal year 1998 to provide additional details on
their deliberations. The members of the National Defense Panel have
provided insightful testimony on their assessment of the scope scale,
and pace of
[[Page S2484]]
military transformation needed to address the operational challenges of
the 21st century. They are also providing insights on transforming the
defense industrial base and infrastructure. The NDP will retain status,
staff, and facilities as directed in section 924 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for 1997.
amendment no. 2115
(Purpose: To provide funds for emergency railroad rehabilitation and
repair on Class II and Class III railroads)
(On page 45 of the bill, between lines 13 and 14, insert
the following:)
Federal Railroad Administration
emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair
For necessary expenses to repair and rebuild freight rail
lines of regional and short line railroads or a State entity
damaged by floods, $10,600,000, to be awarded subject to the
discretion of the Secretary on a case-by-case basis:
Provided, That not to exceed $5,250,000 shall be solely for
damage incurred in the Northern Plains States in March and
April 1997 and in California in January 1997 and in West
Virginia in September 1996: Provided further, That not less
than $5,350,000 shall be solely for damage incurred in Fall
1997 and Winter 1998 storms: Provided further, That funds
provided under this head shall be available for
rehabilitation of railroad rights-of-way, bridges, and other
facilities which are part of the general railroad system of
transportation, and primarily used by railroads to move
freight traffic: Provided further, That railroad rights-of-
way, bridges, and other facilities owned by class I railroads
are not eligible for funding under this head unless the
rights-of-way, bridges or other facilities are under contract
lease to a class II or class III railroad under which the
lessee is responsible for all maintenance costs of the line:
Provided further, That railroad rights-of-way, bridges and
other facilities owned by passenger railroads, or by tourist,
scenic, or historic railroads are not eligible for funding
under this head: Provided further, That these funds shall be
available only to the extent an official budget request, for
a specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the
entire amounts as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress:
Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That all
funds made available under this head are to remain available
until September 30, 1998: Provided further, that the
Secretary of Transportation shall report to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees not later than December 31,
1998, with recommendations on how future emergency railroad
repair costs should be borne by the railroad industry and
their underwriters.
____
amendment no. 2116
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . (a) Any agency listed in section 404(b) of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, P.L. 105-119,
may transfer any amount to the Department of State, subject
to the limitation of subsection (b) of this section, for the
purpose for making technical adjustments to the amounts
transferred by section 404 of such act.
(b) Funds transferred pursuant to subsection (a) shall not
exceed $12,000,000, of which not to exceed $3,500,000 may be
transferred from the U.S. Information Agency, of which not to
exceed $3,600,000 may be transferred from the Defense
Intelligence Agency, of which not to exceed $1,600,000 may be
transferred from the Defense Security Assistance Agency, of
which not to exceed $900,000 may be transferred from the
Peace Corps, and of which not to exceed $500,000 may be
transferred from any other single agency listed in section
404(b) of P.L. 105-119.
(c) A transfer of funds pursuant to this section shall not
require any notification or certification to Congress or any
committee of Congress, notwithstanding any other provisions
of law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 2111 through 2116) were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
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. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2117 to 2119, En Bloc
Mr. STEVENS. I have additional amendments that have been cleared on
both sides. The first amendment, by Senator Ashcroft, is on the IMF and
opening markets to agriculture; second is an amendment by Senator
Hollings to send a Treasury team to collect data on industry statistics
and the impact of the Asian economic crisis; and the last is an
amendment by Senator Grassley, accompanied by a statement that he
wished to insert in the Record before adoption of the amendment
regarding reforms in bankruptcy laws.
I send the package to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be
considered en bloc.
The clerk will please report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments
Nos. 2117 through 2119, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2117
(Purpose: To use the voice and vote of the United States to enhance the
general effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund)
On page 8, after line 25, insert the following new section
and renumber the remaining section accordingly:
SEC. . ADVOCACY OF POLICIES TO ENHANCE THE GENERAL
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY
FUND.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United
States Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund
to use aggressively the voice and vote of the United States
to vigorously promote policies to--
(2) encourage the opening of markets for agricultural
commodities and products by requiring recipient countries to
make efforts to reduce trade barriers.
____
amendment no. 2118
Insert at the appropriate place in the IMF title:
Sec. . IMF Industry Impact Team.--(a) After consultation
with the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States
Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce shall
establish a team composed of employees of the Department of
Commerce--
(1) to collect data on import volumes and prices, and
industry statistics in--
(A) the steel industry;
(B) the semiconductor industry;
(C) the automobile industry; and
(D) the textile and apparel industry;
(2) to monitor the effect of the Asian economic crisis on
these industries;
(3) to collect accounting data from Asian producers; and
(4) to work to prevent import surges in these industries or
to assist United States industries affected by such surges in
their efforts to protect themselves under the trade laws of
the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Commerce shall provide administrative
support, including office space, for the team.
(c) The Secretary of the Treasury and the United States
Trade Representative may assign such employees to the team as
may be necessary to assist the team in carrying out its
functions under subsection (a).
____
amendment no. 2119
At an appropriate place, add the following:
``(c) Bankruptcy Law Reform.--The United States shall exert
its influence with the IMF and its members to encourage the
IMF to include as part of its conditions of assistance that
the recipient country take action to adopt, as soon as
possible, modern insolvency laws that--
``(1) emphasize reorganization of business enterprises
rather than liquidation whenever possible;
``(2) provide for a high degree of flexibility of action,
in place of rigid requirements of form or substance, together
with appropriate review and approval by a court and a
majority of the creditors involved;
``(3) include provisions to ensure that assets gathered in
insolvency proceedings are accounted for and put back into
the market stream as quickly as possible in order to maximize
the number of businesses that can be kept productive and
increase the number of jobs that can be saved; and
``(4) promote international cooperation in insolvency
matters by including--
``(A) provisions set forth in the Model Law on Cross-Border
Insolvency approved by the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law, including removal of discriminatory
treatment between foreign and domestic creditors in debt
resolution proceedings; and
``(B) other provisions appropriate for promoting such
cooperation.
``The Secretary of the Treasury shall report back to
Congress six months after the enactment of this Act, and
annually, thereafter, on the progress in achieving this
requirement.''
Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the IMF funding
amendment offered by Senator Hagel. The amendment I offer relates to
international bankruptcies. As chairman of
[[Page S2485]]
the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, which has
jurisdiction over bankruptcy policy, I believe that it is crucially
important to encourage the IMF to encourage nations which seek IMF
economic assistance to implement meaningful bankruptcy and insolvency
reforms. In fact, last year, I held extensive hearings on the subject
of international bankruptcies. To my surprise, I learned that Wall
Street analysts who assess how risky it is to invest in a particular
developing country often look at the type of bankruptcy system in
place. On the basis of these risk assessments, investors decide whether
to invest in a particular country. In other words, bankruptcy reform
will encourage private development and investment in emerging
economies. My amendment has been developed to encourage the kind of
bankruptcy reform which will in turn encourage increased private
investment.
As I said, the lack of a developed insolvency system to deal with
business failures has frequently been cited as an aggravating factor in
the Asian financial crisis. Without effective legal procedures to deal
with bankruptcies, jobs are needlessly lost and creditors are
needlessly denied access to corporate assets. By encouraging the IMF to
push for meaningful bankruptcy reform in economically troubled nations,
we will strengthen the global marketplace and provide much-needed
certainty to international investors.
The amendment I will offer has been developed in conjunction with the
Office of Legal Advisor in the State Department as well as specialists
in the field of international bankruptcies who have direct, first-hand
experience working with the bankruptcy and insolvency systems in the
troubled Asian nations. So, I believe my amendment will result in
positive and meaningful change. I urge the passage of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments (Nos. 2117 through 2119) were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay the
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2120
(Purpose: To strike unrelated and unnecessary HCFA funding from the
bill)
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Nickles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), for Mr. Nickles,
proposes an amendment numbered 2120.
On page 39, strike beginning with line 21 through line 24.
On page 50, strike beginning with line 20 through line 24.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Nickles intends to raise that
amendment tomorrow. It has not been cleared.
Amendment No. 2080
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I opposed the amendment by the Senator
from Missouri. The so-called ``Family Friendly Workplace Act'' is
anything but family-friendly. It is anti-worker and anti-family, and it
should not take time away from this emergency appropriations bill.
The amendment was offered three times in the last session, and each
time, my colleagues on the other side failed to invoke cloture. The
reason is clear: the ``Family-Friendly Workplace Act'' has an appealing
title, but appalling substance. It will never become law--nor should
it.
This amendment was offered last June while we were debating another
necessary appropriations bill. That bill provided billions of dollars
of relief to Americans in the Midwest, who were suffering the
devastating effects of floods. Yet my colleagues on the other side
insisted on delaying that emergency legislation, so they could offer
this amendment.
On this side of the aisle, we stood up to the opposition. We said
``no.'' We said that Americans in the Dakotas and Minnesota desperately
needed help. They needed assistance to recover their homes, their
property and their lives. We defeated the opposition's efforts to jam
this bill through the Senate.
Each time the legislation was offered, we defeated it. Finally, last
June, the bill's supporters withdrew. We thought we had seen the last
of this regressive legislation.
But no, here we go again. Another essential appropriations measure is
on the floor, and what do my friends on the other side do? They return
to this anti-worker, anti-family amendment.
We won't let it happen this time, any more than we did last June.
Before I discuss the fatal flaws in this legislation, let me make one
additional point. For the past ten days, the Senate has been trying to
consider an education bill. Throughout that period, the Majority Leader
has insisted that only amendments ``germane'' to the bill should be
discussed. He refuses to allow those on this side to discuss amendments
addressing the nation's crumbling public schools. He won't allow debate
on amendments dealing with reducing class size. And he blocks
discussion of amendments meant to encourage more college graduates to
become teachers.
Somehow, these education amendments aren't important enough to
warrant consideration on the floor of the Senate. The Majority will not
allow full and fair debate on these significant policy issues.
But there is a double standard at work. The appropriations measure
currently before us is an emergency measure. It provides essential
support to our troops in Bosnia and other troubled areas of the world.
And, it gives emergency relief to families devastated by tornadoes,
floods and ice storms, from Maine to Florida to California.
Apparently the Majority Leader is prepared to delay this emergency
appropriations bill with a totally unrelated amendment.
The inconsistency is obvious. The Majority will not permit debate on
important education amendments, because they do not want to delay tax
breaks to families who can afford to send their children to private
school. But when it comes to postponing essential financial help to
American soldiers overseas, and American families at home suffering
from disastrous weather conditions--that is acceptable to my Republican
friends. Those on the other side of the aisle may find this approach
satisfactory, but those on this side couldn't disagree more.
Now, I'd like to offer a few words on the substance of the amendment.
Just a brief review demonstrates why it is unacceptable, and why it
will never become law.
First, the amendment is a pay cut for 65 million American workers.
The so-called ``biweekly work schedule'' lets employers schedule
workers for 60, 70, even 80 hours in a single week. Employers pay every
hour at the employee's regular rate, as long as the total number of
hours worked in a two-week period does not exceed 80. Under current
law, every hour worked over 40 must be paid at time-and-a-half. This
proposal would abolish that guarantee.
Second, the amendment cuts benefits. In many industries, health and
retirement benefits are based on the number of hours that employees
worked. But the amendment does not guarantee that ``comp time'' or
``flexible credit hours'' must be considered ``hours worked'' for these
important purposes. The result could be lower pensions and fewer health
benefits. This does not help working families.
The amendment does not even assure employees an increase in time off.
If an employee takes 8 hours of comp time on a Monday in order to spend
time with her family, the employer is free to force the employee to
work on Saturday to make up for the lost time. The employer does not
even have to pay time-and-a-half for the hours worked on Saturday. The
comp time hours used on Monday do not count toward the 40-hour week.
This does not help working families.
Despite supporters' claims, this provision does not move the Fair
Labor Standards Act into the 21st century. Instead, it turns back the
clock, and makes it harder for workers to juggle the obligations of
their job with the demands of their family.
Third, the proposal abolishes the 40-hour week. That protection has
been basic to employee-employer relations for nearly 60 years. Yet the
Republicans want to return to the days when employees could be forced
to work from sunup to sundown, day after day. This does not help modern
working families juggle their obligations at home and at work.
[[Page S2486]]
Finally, the amendment does not guarantee employee choice. The
employer chooses who works overtime and when an employee can use
accrued comp time. The employer is free to assign all the overtime work
to employees who will accept comp time. Those employees who need the
money the most, who can't afford to take time off, would be hurt the
most. Their paychecks would be smaller. This is discrimination, and it
is wrong--but the proposal does nothing to prevent it.
And nothing in the proposal guarantees that workers can take time off
when they want to or need to. The proposal does not guarantee any
worker the right to use compensatory time under any circumstances. Even
if the employee has a legal right under the Family and Medical Leave
Act to take time off, the amendment does not give the employee the
right to use earned compensatory hours for that purpose.
This amendment is a cruel hoax. It does not help working men, it does
not help working women, and it does not help working families.
Many organizations that have historically struggled for the rights of
working women and their families recognize the fatal flaws in this
proposal. 9 to 5, the National Association of Working Women; the
American Nurses Association; the Business and Professional Women; the
National Council of Jewish Women; the National Women's Law Center; the
Women's Legal Defense Fund; the League of Women Voters; the American
Association of University Women--the list goes on and on.
These organizations have fought for years to improve working women's
lives on the job and in the home. They have supported affordable and
high-quality child care. They have supported a living wage on the job.
They were in the forefront of the battle to achieve Family and Medical
Leave. From pay equity to pension equity to equal opportunity at home
and at work, these organizations and others like them have worked
tirelessly with and for working women.
Yet these groups uniformly oppose this proposal. Last spring they
sent a letter to Senators Lott and Daschle, expressing their belief
that the bill ``fails to offer real flexibility to the working women it
purports to help while offering a substantial windfall to employers.''
These organizations understand that working women may want more time
with their families, but they cannot afford to give up overtime pay. As
the letter to Senators Lott and Daschle explained, ``Women want
flexibility in the workplace, but not at the risk of jeopardizing their
overtime pay or the well-established 40-hour work week.''
Democrats in Congress understand these concerns, and we are prepared
to honor them. Unfortunately, this legislation either ignores these
problems or makes them worse.
This is a bad bill, and the President has rightly promised to veto it
should it ever reach his desk. But it should never leave the Senate.
The Senate was right to reject this proposal last year, and we would
have done so again today.
disaster relief needs of u.s. military installations in california
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as I did during the Appropriations
Committee mark-up of the emergency supplemental bill, I wanted to take
a few moments and thank Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for their
efforts on this important legislation. Once again, my state of
California will be able to rebound from a devastating natural disaster,
thanks to the leadership of these two distinguished Senators.
One of the consequences of El Nino has been extensive damage to the
military infrastructure in my state. High winds and massive flooding
have left a trail of destruction that must be addressed. This
legislation includes important disaster funding that is critical to the
readiness of our Armed Forces and to the quality of life of our
military personnel.
I was pleased that the administration requested $50 million in
contingency funding for El Nino related disasters. I am also thankful
that a portion of these funds have been designated to repair Marine
Corps facilities and Air Force family housing in California. However,
it is my understanding that damage estimates from California are still
evolving and it is likely that the current allotment for California
will not be sufficient.
I would like to ask Senator Stevens, Chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, if it is his intention during conference committee to
increase disaster funding for California military installations when
better estimates from the Defense Department are made available?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in the bill being reported by the House
today, the House of Representatives has included additional funds for
damages incurred from these storms. This amount is based on updated
figures that have become available, subsequent to the President's
submission to the Congress.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend, Chairman Stevens, for
his continued leadership. His assistance is greatly appreciated. These
funds are very important to California and to those serving our nation
in the Armed Forces.
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.
____________________