[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.

                          ____________________