[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20810-20813]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      Mr. JEFFORDS:
  S. 3158. A bill to shift Impact Aid funding responsibility for 
military connected children and property from the Department of 
Education to the Department of Defense; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


 ``EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MILITARY CONNECTED CHILDREN ACT OF 2000''

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Educational 
Assistance for Military Connected Children Act of 2000,'' legislation 
that would transfer from the Department of

[[Page 20811]]

Education to the Department of Defense financial responsibility for 
impact aid payments used to support the education of military 
dependents.
  The impact aid program is authorized as Title VIII of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Unlike other ESEA programs, 
however, impact aid payments are not used to support specific 
educational activities. Rather, these payments serve as general aid to 
local educational agencies to replace tax dollars which are foregone as 
the result of the presence of the Federal government. For example, 
Federal property--such as military installations--is not subject to 
property taxes. In addition, under the terms of the Soldiers' and 
Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, many military personnel do not pay 
taxes in the States and localities where their children attend school.
  Replacing lost revenues that would otherwise have been available to 
support local schools is an obligation of the Federal government in 
those cases where the revenue loss is directly related to Federal 
action. The Department of Education, through the impact aid program, 
provides nearly $1 billion each year for this purpose.
  Over the past two years, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions has been reviewing all ESEA programs. In the course of 
that review, I have come to the conclusion that the children of 
military personnel would be better served if the impact aid provided on 
their behalf were offered through the Department of Defense.
  For one thing, DOD officials are in a far better position than are 
Education Department personnel to assess the needs of schools on or 
near military bases and to be aware of activities--such as downsizing 
or the construction or renovation of base housing--which can have a 
major effect on the amount of the impact aid assistance available to a 
school. In many cases, my committee has been asked, after the fact, to 
address specific impact aid problems which have confronted schools as a 
result of such decisions.
  In addition, problems such as inadequate funding, overcrowded 
conditions, and lengthy delays in the issuance of impact aid payments 
could be better addressed if their resolution were the responsibility 
of those who are most familiar with the needs of these schools and 
their students.
  On a number of occasions in the past, defense-related legislation has 
included provisions which have directly changed impact aid or have 
supported parallel programs. I do not see that the interests of schools 
or students are best served by this duplication of effort.
  The Department of Defense currently offers of variety of services to 
military dependents--ranging from child care to health services. I 
believe the education of these children to be equally important. The 
legislation I am offering today is, I believe, a good starting point 
for impact aid reform designed to improve the educational opportunities 
available to military dependents.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 3159. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
clarify provisions relating to the use of accrued compensatory time by 
certain public employees; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.


        state and local government family friendly workplace act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very 
important piece of legislation. This bill continues my effort to help 
working parents balance the demands between work and family.
  Over the past five years, we have been talking about the difficulty 
that parents have balancing work and family obligations. I do not think 
there are two values that are more highly or intensely admired in 
America than these. The first one is the value we place on our 
families. We understand that more than anything else the family is an 
institution where important things are learned, not just knowledge 
imparted but wisdom is obtained and understood in a family which 
teaches us not just how to do something but teaches us how to live.
  The second value which is a strong value in America and reflects our 
heritage is the value of work. Americans admire and respect work. The 
difficult issue that face us as a nation, is how are we going to 
resolve these tensions? I think that is one of the jobs, that we have 
to try and make sure we build a framework where people can resolve 
those tensions. Since 1965, the amount of time parents spend with their 
children has dropped 40 percent and a 1993 study that found that 66 
percent of adults surveyed nationwide wanted to spend more time with 
their children.
  This tension between the workplace and the home place, juxtaposed or 
set in a framework of laws created in the 1930's that does not allow us 
flexibility, is a problem. For example, you might be asked to do 
overtime over and over and over again, and you do overtime, and then 
you are paid time and a half. But at some point, you would rather have 
the time than the money. If the employer agreed to it voluntarily--both 
parties--we ought to let that happen. Right now, it is against the law. 
According to a number of surveys, this is what Americans want. For 
example, a 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. Eighty-two percent said they 
supported the Republican's plan to give working men and women more 
control over their hard-earned time. Money magazine, May 1997.
  In an attempt to address these work and family tensions, in each of 
the last three Congresses, I have introduced legislation. Each of these 
bills provide flexible working arrangements--or ``flex-time,'' and 
compensatory time off--or ``comp time.''
  The comp time provisions in the Family Friendly Workplace Act (S. 
1241) would permit employees to choose, if the employer agreed, to be 
compensated with time-and-a-half compensatory time off for overtime 
hours worked in lieu of time-and-a-half pay--whenever time is more 
valuable than financial compensation to the employee. This gives hourly 
employees the ability to meet their family obligations while still 
taking home a full paycheck.
  The flex time provisions would allow private sector hourly employees 
to work biweekly work schedules the same as federal employees have been 
able to since 1978. Rather than being limited to 40 hours in a seven-
day period, private sector workers could schedule 80 hours over a two-
week period in any combination if their employers agree. Overtime would 
have to be paid for any hours ordered by the employer in excess of 
those in the designated biweekly work schedule. For example, if an 
employer asked an employee to work 45 hours in a week when the employee 
was scheduled to work only 35 hours under the biweekly work schedule, 
the employer would be required to pay the employee 10 hours of overtime 
compensation. This is true even though absent the agreement, the 
employer would only be required to pay the employee five hours of 
overtime.
  When these provisions were developed, I took seriously the concerns 
raised by my constituents that adequate protections had to be contained 
in the bill to make sure this was a real choice made by employees--not 
employers. Both of the provisions were designed to do just that. In the 
Family Friendly Workplace Act employers cannot require accepting 
compensatory time off in lieu of over time pay as a condition of 
employment. Nor can they require employees to work flex time as a 
condition of employment. In addition, such agreements to work these 
alternative work schedules have to be in writing, signed by the 
employee. Coercion into these programs--or even attempted coercion--is 
strictly prohibited and contain severe penalties.
  Due to the nature of comp time, there also are protections specific 
to that program. Employers would be prohibited from coercing, or 
attempting to coerce, employees into using or not using their comp 
time. The bill requires employers to cash-out their employees' comp 
time bank at the end of each year or in the alternative, within thirty 
days of their employees' request.

[[Page 20812]]

These cash-out provisions serve two important purposes. First, it 
ensures that employers who offer the option of comp time do not do so 
with the belief that it will give them ability to avoid paying 
overtime. Second, it also structures comp time programs with a built-in 
incentive for employers to allow employees to use their comp time when 
it is needed by the employee.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to provide these superior 
protections to state and local government workers. First, it will 
prohibit the practice of requiring employees to accept comp time as a 
condition of employment. It also will require state and local 
governments to cash-out comp time banks at the end of each year or 
within thirty days of request by the employees. Finally, it will 
specifically prohibit state and local governments from forcing 
employees to use their accumulated comp time against their wishes. It 
is those workers who are giving up time with their families--they 
should be able to use it to spend time with their families. These 
protections will impact 290,405 workers in Missouri, or approximately 
twelve percent of the workforce.
  No doubt, state and local governments will be concerned about the 
cost of cashing out these comp time banks or changing their scheduling 
patterns in order to allow workers to use their accumulated comp time. 
As a former Governor, I understand these concerns. However, I have to 
take seriously the practice that can no longer be called isolated 
incidents. Forcing employees to work over time takes away time from 
their families. Our police officers, fire fighters, corrections' 
officers, and other state and local government workers should have the 
choice whether that time should be compensated with time or money. They 
know what best fits their needs and should not be forced--with the 
blessings of the federal government--into giving up that choice.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 3160. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study 
the suitability and feasibility of designating the Abel and Mary 
Nicholson House, Elsinboro Township, Salem County, New Jersey, as a 
unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


 abel and mary nicholson house national historic site study act of 2000

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Abel and 
Mary Nicholson House National Historic Site Study Act of 2000. This 
bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to study the 
suitability and feasibility of designating the Abel and Mary Nicholson 
House located in Elsinboro Township, Salem County, New Jersey, as a 
unit of the National Park System. As part of the study the Secretary 
would also be required to consider management alternatives to create an 
administrative association with the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail 
Route. The bill I am introducing today would authorize the National 
Park Service to acquire this land in compliance with the service's 
standard rules and regulations.
  Mr. President, the Abel and Mary Nicholson House is prized for its 
architectural and historical significance to, not only my state, but, 
our entire nation. It is a unique resource which can provide 
unparalleled opportunities for studying our national cultural and 
natural heritage. Situated along Alloway Creek, a tributary of the 
Delaware River, the house is surrounded by an intact cultural landscape 
of farm fields, wetlands and forests. The original access to the house 
was from the creek, as rivers were the highways of 18th century 
America.
  The Abel and Mary Nicholson House is a Delaware Valley, brick, 
patterned-end mansion constructed in 1722. The original portion of the 
house has existed for 280 years with only routine maintenance, no major 
remodeling or restoration, and without the intrusion of either 
electricity or a central heating system. It stands alone as the only 
known, pristine survivor of an Anglo-American building tradition that 
existed for three quarters of a century.
  The Nicholson House is changing the thinking of architectural 
historians about the construction and use of rooms in the earliest 
houses of the Delaware Valley. The house has been called an 
architectural Rosetta stone that provides new insight to our 
understanding of the use and function of interior space during the 18th 
century. Additionally, Mr. President, an 1859 addition to the house 
enhances the significance of the property with a similar level of 
architectural integrity.
  Mr. President, the Abel and Mary Nicholson House also has cultural 
significance in its well-documented associations with the earliest 
Quaker settlement in North America and the first permanent English 
settlement in New Jersey. Abel Nicholson arrived in New Jersey at the 
age of three. He was brought to New Jersey by his father, Samuel 
Nicholson, a follower of John Fenwick. They arrived in 1675, seven 
years before William Penn arrived to settle Philadelphia. John Fenwick 
was the founder of Greenwich and Salem, New Jersey, the first permanent 
English-speaking settlements on the Delaware River.
  Samuel Nicholson purchased 2,000 acres in Elsinboro Township, New 
Jersey and a 16-acre lot in the City of Salem where he constructed a 
home. It was in the Salem house that the first Salem Meeting of the 
Society of Friends was organized in 1676. In 1680, Samuel Nicholson 
donated the Salem house to the Salem Meeting and relocated to the 
Elsinboro property. In 1693, Abel Nicholson married Mary Tyler, the 
daughter of another Quaker. Abel and Mary Nicholson built the present 
house, in 1722, which historians believe either replaced or abutted the 
earlier structure built by his father.
  Mr. President, the Nicholson House represents the Mid-Atlantic 
region's colonial history and traditions. Because of its architectural 
integrity and what it is teaching scholars about how 18th century 
building spaces were used, it is considered to transcend regional 
significance and ranks as one of America's iconic early structures.
  Mr. President, the Abel and Mary Nicholson House is a national 
treasure that deserves consideration for preservation and protection so 
it can continue to teach future generations of Americans about the 
contributions and lives of the early Americans. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3160

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Abel and Mary Nicholson 
     House National Historic Site Study Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Abel and Mary Nicholson House, located in Elsinboro 
     Township, Salem County, New Jersey, was built in 1722;
       (2) the original section of the House is the only pristine, 
     surviving portion of a Delaware Valley brick patterned-end 
     house featuring a diaper or diamond pattern in glazed bricks 
     in the gable wall of the building, and less elaborate 
     decorations of checkered string courses on the other 3 walls;
       (3) the original section of the House--
       (A) contains early paint, original hinges, locks, shelving, 
     floorboards, roof framing, and chimneypieces; and
       (B) has received only routine maintenance and no major 
     remodeling, and is without the intrusion of either 
     electricity or a central heating system;
       (4) the 1859 addition to the House enhances the 
     significance of the property with a similar level of 
     architectural integrity;
       (5) the House has well-documented associations with the 
     earliest Quaker settlement in North America;
       (6) the House and surrounding property may be available for 
     acquisition from a willing donor; and
       (7) the House is--
       (A) 1 of the most significant ``first period'' houses 
     surviving in the Delaware Valley; and
       (B) an architectural Rosetta stone on the domestic life of 
     the first 2 generations of settlers in the Delaware Valley.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) House.--The term ``House'' means the Abel and Mary 
     Nicholson House, located in Elsinboro Township, Salem County, 
     New Jersey.

[[Page 20813]]

       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service.

     SEC. 4. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the 
     Secretary shall, in consultation with the State of New 
     Jersey--
       (1) carry out a study on the suitability and feasibility of 
     designating the House as a unit of the National Park System;
       (2) consider management alternatives to create an 
     administrative association with the New Jersey Coastal 
     Heritage Trail Route; and
       (3) submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report describing the findings of 
     the study.
       (b) Contents.--The study under subsection (a) shall be 
     conducted in accordance with Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-
     1 et seq.).

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

                          ____________________