Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the jurisdictional committee, for this very important piece of legislation. I appreciate his allowing me to be the subcommittee chairman for the labor portion of that committee, which is referred to as the Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee. We get to work on these kinds of issues on a regular basis. In the past, it has been known as one of the more contentious committees. But I recommend people take a look and note it is one of the more reasonable committees now, where we are reaching bipartisan solutions to problems for people in the workplace. That has always been our intent. We are actually having some confidence in each other now and are able to achieve those sorts of things. I am pleased to be able to rise today to speak in favor of S. 2323, the Worker Economic Opportunity Act. The large number of bipartisan cosponsors on this bill says a great deal for both its importance and its balanced, fair nature. I commend the hard work of my colleagues, Senator Jeffords, Senator McConnell, and Senator Dodd, both in crafting a solution on the issue and in garnering the bipartisan support for the bill. Elizabeth Smith, the legal counsel for the Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee, has been one of the coordinators of the bill and has helped us to bring it all together. That is not only coordination between the House and Senate, between Republicans and Democrats, but it is also with the administration. A few days ago we had an opportunity to gather and talk about this bill and Secretary Herman was there, and she has played a role in getting this done. The problem was brought to us from where it should come, and that is the workers. Workers were being told that because of the labor laws, their employers may have to stop giving them stock options. That is an important factor because stock options are seen as a way for people throughout this country, workers throughout this country, to own a share of the company. The better the company does, the better they do. It is a way that from their job, and the risk they take having that job, employees get to benefit from the productivity and returns they put into the business. And, boy, some of these businesses are really doing well; millionaires are being created overnight--and we want hourly workers to be able to take advantage of those stock options. A little flaw, because of the amount of time that has gone by since fair labor standards passed, said you will have to do some calculating so the value of that stock option shows up as a direct payment. Nobody really knows what the value of those stock options are, particularly at the time they receive them. They do know sometime down the road, when they take advantage of them, and probably even further down the road when they actually get to sell them, but there is a huge change, hopefully, in the value of that stock between the time it is awarded to them and the time there is some value to it. So how do you calculate that back in years, to the time they received it, to calculate it into overtime? The difficulty of calculating it led the companies to say: We can't figure out a formula for doing it. The Department has a formula for doing it, but we can't possibly process that through so we can avoid court action. So what we are going to do is we are going to end stock options. That is when the workers said to Congress: Solve this problem for us. That is what brings everybody together for a solution, the people at the far end asking that they be allowed to continue participating in the prosperity of this country. That is what has happened in this instance. We are here today because the workplace has changed for the better, but the labor statutes have not. Many employers now give stock options, not only to the executives and the managers, they give it to secretaries, factory workers, janitors, mailroom clerks--everybody. Those are the hourly employees who provide the critical support on which a company's success is built. I am proud of those employers who give stock options to those employees. They recognize the value of giving workers a stake in the company's business. They are leading the charge to move workplaces into a new, modern era of better employer-employee relations. In fact, the line is dimming on who is the employer and who is the employee. Unfortunately, the decades-old Fair Labor Standards Act has not kept pace. This statute, drafted during a very different time in the history of the American workplace, threatened to prevent employers from giving hourly employees stock options. S. 2323 removes this threat and ensures that companies can continue to give stock options to hourly employees so they can share in the success of their employer and this country's economic growth. This legislation takes an important step toward bringing an outdated labor statute up to date with the modern workplace. I am very concerned there are many other examples of problems such as the one we are solving today, examples of other obsolete restrictions in the 30- to 60-year-old labor statutes that are stifling the development of the new creative ways to benefit employees, such as the stock options program and telecommuting arrangements. We should be encouraging these advances in employer-employee relations, not stifling them. By passing this Worker Economic Opportunity Act we can provide encouragement. I hope we can continue to look for ways to solve similar problems. I am particularly pleased the Department of Labor has worked with us in this bipartisan group. As chairman of the Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee, I firmly believe cooperation between lawmakers and agency is the best way to develop practical solutions that benefit both the employees and the businesses. I want to mention we have been doing that for about 2 years now. We passed the first changes in OSHA in 27 years, a year and a half ago; little incremental changes that will make a difference to the workers, that will make the workplace safer. That is what we are trying to do. Recently we worked together on home inspections. OSHA, through a letter, had suggested they were going to go into the homes and check and see how telecommuters were operating. Home is the least safe place there is. It worried a lot of companies about how they were going to do the inspections without imposing on the privacy of their employees. Employees were worried about companies coming into their homes. The Department and OSHA and Congress saw the error of that. The Department withdrew the letter. Both OSHA and congress agreed that OSHA should not be a threat to people working in their home offices. People who work in their homes really enjoy doing that. There are a lot of benefits to them, many of which people who work in the District would understand because of the parking and the traffic problems. I was very pleased that the agency and congress agreed on this. Last week we had agreement on a funding proposal, a sense-of-the- Senate proposal that would have been on the budget agreement except for a parliamentary move that was done at the last moment. But there was agreement on both sides that there needs to be not only enforcement of OSHA--which does get attention--but justification by OSHA of how it is reducing workplace illnesses and injuries and a discussion of the value of compliance assistance activities, which are extremely important. There are 12,000 pages of OSHA regulations. It is difficult for a small businessman to make it through that many pages of that kind of rhetoric. So we have been trying to make it more incentive-based, so the agency would participate more in telling them what they need to do instead of beating them over the head for what they did not do. We think, with a more cooperative program, there will be more safety in the workplace; that employers will not live in fear of OSHA, but rather in anticipation of help from OSHA and an understanding of the way they can keep their employees safe. Those are a few of the things we are working together on to have a better workplace. This legislation is a key piece and a key beginning to a number of changes we can make to affect the workers of this country. I look forward to working together on similar measures in the future as we move toward the shared goal of better matching our Federal laws to the needs of the modern workplace. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Elizabeth Smith, the legal counsel for the Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee be granted the privilege of the floor during further debate on the bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the chairman for taking the time to clarify this point for us. I can assure you that this issue is of paramount importance for many small farmers in our states, and we look forward to working with you and the rest of our colleagues to address their situation in the near future.

Mr. ENZI. We wanted to draw the Chairman's attention to a crisis amongst farmers that produce forage grass seed and turf grass seed in a number of Western states. Due to the recent bankruptcy filing of AgriBioTech, one of the Nation's largest handlers of seed products, thousands of farmers are facing financial disaster.

Mr. ENZI. Similarly, in my state of Wyoming, we have close to one hundred alfalfa seed growers who may lose their farms without timely assistance of some form. These growers are owed close to $4.5 million on seed they have already delivered. Many of my growers have found that the continuing uncertainty surrounding the bankruptcy case has made it impossible to secure even the short-term credit needed to see them through another year.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by my friend from Colorado, Senator Allard. This is an amendment that will keep our budget balanced. It will protect the Social Security surplus by preventing these revenues from being used for additional spending, and--this is the important part--it establishes a concrete schedule for paying off the publicly held debt payments with non-Social Security surplus. This is a true paydown of the debt. I am pleased we had the comments from the Senator from South Carolina to whom I have been paying attention since I got to this body. I am pleased to say I think this is a bill he could sign onto when we have an opportunity to explain all the ramifications. The first year Senator Allard and I were in the Senate, we talked about balancing the budget. It seemed a dream at that time, but it happened. Everybody in this body listened to constituents at home and said, by golly, they want the budget balanced. And we balanced it. Now, a little fluke in that was that we were partly balancing it with Social Security surplus. The difference between what people paid into Social Security and the amount paid out was a positive revenue; it was extra money. And we were spending it. We said: That is not honest. The people of America listened, and they said: We want some honesty with our Social Security money. Quit spending the Social Security surplus. We have done that. Everybody paid attention last year. We will have an honest surplus, not counting Social Security surplus for the first time in decades. Now what we are talking about is debt accountability. Honesty with the trust funds is where we are headed. Debt accountability is what we need to get there. There is a fellow in Gillette, WY, who calls me regularly. Steve Tarver is a fellow accountant, retired now. He says: Congress keeps talking about the debt being paid down, but I call the Treasury regularly and I say: How much is the national debt? The debt keeps going up, in spite of the Social Security surplus, which is supposed to be used to be paying down the public debt already. We are taking the money out of one pocket and putting it in the other pocket. Debt to the public becomes debt to the Social Security trust fund. But it is IOUs. That debt as of 11:51 this morning: $5 trillion, 730 billion and some-odd change. The U.S. population as of 11:51 this morning was 274,548,318 people. A little simple division demonstrates that every man, woman, and child in this Nation right now owes, in national debt, each of us, $20,873. I love to go to school classrooms and say: Did you know you already owe a tremendous debt? That amount is over $20,000. That is pretty staggering to a kid in sixth or seventh grade. He or she doesn't just owe that $20,000; every single person in each family owes that $20,000. That is how big the debt is for the Nation. We have gotten some benefits as we have run up the till. But it is a debt. I can say as I have traveled across Wyoming, the people understand that debt. They don't like the Federal Government being in debt any more than they like being in debt. They recognize the debt is something you have to pay off sometime. They don't think it is fair that we make our kids and our grandkids pay off our debt. Maybe the portion that attributes down to them, they could; OK, but $5.7 trillion is one heck of a package to pay off. It is a staggering package. So how do we do it? We do it by starting sensibly. We start with a plan. We put this country on a mortgage program. The mortgage program is outlined in the bill. It starts with a payment of $15 billion. It sounds like a lot of money. Around here it is not much money--$15 billion. Essentially, the money then that you save in interest, you do not run out and spend; you add that to the principal. And the next year you pay down the $15 billion. We are adding a little bit to it because those surpluses are going up, and it has been predicted, if we pay down the national debt, if we honestly pay down the national debt--and that is what we are talking about, debt honesty--there will be an increase in the national economy. That is the biggest factor that can increase the national economy. That means we will have a little additional revenue we can add to the $15 billion plus the interest we save. Each year we will escalate that payment so in 20 years we pay off the national debt, not using the Social Security surplus. This is honesty in paying down the national debt. We have to do something about these trust funds that are IOUs. People keep talking about it. This one does not add a dime to the IOUs. This one pays down the national debt in a very calculated, fashioned program. I do not think we are tied to 20 years on this. I do not think we are tied to $15 billion the first year. I do not think we are tied to the same additions each year. It is time this country got on a plan to pay that debt down. You want to make the loan longer? You want to have some years when you have a little flex in it? It does not matter to me. We just have to be honest on paying down the national debt. This is one that forces honesty. This is a plan that pays off the national debt honestly over a 20-year period. This amendment makes good economic sense, and it is good for America's future. It fulfills our promise to America's seniors without savaging our grandchildren's future. For too long, Congress has followed the path of reckless abandon in spending money we didn't have for programs with short-term benefits and long-term burdens. We have left our children and grandchildren holding the mortgage on this $5.7 trillion Government mansion that they may not even be able to visit. That is right. If we fail to rise to the challenge of eliminating the Federal debt, we leave our children shackled to the high interest payments that were mentioned earlier, and the looming debt created by the last 40 years of big Government programs, while the benefits of that spending fade into the sunset of history. This Congress is in the best position of any Congress in a generation to eliminate the debt held by the public--honestly. In 1999, after only 4 years of a Republican Congress, we were able to balance the budget. We have now projected budgeted surpluses beyond the next 10 years, and every year those are recalculated and become considerably greater. Given this unique opportunity made possible by the ingenuity of the American people and the hard work of a Republican Congress willing to control Government spending to reduce it from an annual growth of about 20 percent a year, down to about 2 percent a year--it is still growing--we should get our financial house in order by setting up a definite repayment plan to eliminate the $3.6 trillion of publicly held debt, while ensuring Social Security remains strong for future retirees. This amendment contains three main provisions that have been outlined, three main ones that start out easy and build as we go and then continue to pay down the debt, even if Congress enacts meaningful Social Security reform next year. It creates a responsible, concrete method of paying off the debt while ensuring the future solvency of Social Security. I have been listening to the budget debate. I found it interesting to hear the number of people on the Democratic side of the aisle talk about the budget resolution before us being irresponsible because it allows for a modest tax cut over 5 years. They argue we could be using that money to pay down the debt. This is not the first time I have heard this argument. In fact, I have heard a lot of these same claims as we debated the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, which is the best policy discussion and only policy discussion we have had on taxes since I have been in the Senate. I think it helped people understand how we could make a more fair, more simple Tax Code. It passed. It was vetoed. During that time, I heard a lot of rhetoric about how the most important thing was paying down the national debt. I do not think the people using the rhetoric necessarily believe the national debt would be something we would put up as a project, that it could actually be done. That is what we are doing here. We are giving everyone a chance to back up their rhetoric with real action, by voting in favor of debt reduction by voting for this amendment. This amendment contains three main provisions. First, it requires Congress to continue passing balanced budgets for each and every year. Second, this amendment requires yearly repayments to be made from the non-social security surplus. This schedule would begin a payment of $15 billion in the coming fiscal year, and this amount would increase in each succeeding year by $15 billion per-year. Third, this amendment requires that the entire social security surplus would be used for debt reduction until Congress enacts social security reform legislation. These last two provisions are essential, because they ensure that we will continue to pay down the debt even if Congress enacts meaningful social security reform next year. This amendment creates a responsible, concrete method of paying off the publicly-held debt while ensuring the future solvency of social security. As the only accountant is the Senate, I spent a great deal of time listening to last year's discussion on tax relief. I was amazed at the number of my Democratic colleagues who opposed the tax relief bill because they said the money should be used for debt reduction. This was the same reason the president gave for vetoing our tax cut. When the president submitted his budget to Congress this year, he made clear that his rhetoric on debt reduction was a fleeting facade, behind which he could hide his real desire for countless new government programs, each one requiring substantial new government spending which would further threaten our children's economic future. As soon as the threat of a tax cut disappeared, so did President Clinton's commitment to debt reduction. This amendment challenges my Democratic colleagues to choose between a plan that offers real debt reduction or the hollow promises of President Clinton which are nothing more than a smokescreen for huge new Government spending. I urge my colleagues to join me in rebuilding a financial house of responsibility where our parents and grandparents can retire in peace and where our children and grandchildren will be welcomed for years to come. We should join together in laying an important cornerstone in that foundation today by supporting Senator Allard's amendment to this budget resolution. I want to mention a few of the things my colleagues have said. The Senator from North Dakota said: The first choice, it seems to me, ought to be, during good economic times you pay down part of the Federal debt. That is the best gift we can give the children of this country, and that would also stimulate lower interest rates and more economic growth. The Senator from Virginia--this is the Democratic Senator from Virginia--said: I would rather have nothing, notwithstanding some of the good things upon which both sides agree, and simply begin to pay down the debt. The Senator from the other side of the aisle from Michigan said: That would be the greatest gift of all that we could make for the American people, the reduction on that debt, because that would be a reduction in the interest rates which people pay on their mortgages and cars and credit cards, and that would truly be a contribution to the well-being of our constituents. And the Senator on the other side of the aisle from Vermont said: I believe Congress should follow three basic principles to continue our strong economy and provide targeted tax relief. First, we must continue to keep our fiscal house in order and pay down the national debt. The national public debt stands at $3.6 trillion. That's a lot of zeros. Like someone who has finally paid off his or her credit card balance but still has a home mortgage, the Federal Government has finally balanced its annual budget but we still have a national debt to pay down. Indeed, the Federal Government pays almost $1 billion in interest every working day on the national debt. The Senator from California said: Debt reduction is the external debt, the debt that is owed to private people, Americans and those around the world who picked up our bonds. We owe them debt. I see my friend from South Carolina has pointed this out. Because of that debt, we are paying over $300 billion a year in interest payments which, as my friend said, is bad for the economy, it's wasteful, it does no good to anyone. And finally the Senator from the other side of the aisle from Washington said: We will not be able to pay off our debt, a very important issue that is facing us, which we have not left ourselves room for with a massive cut of this size. That is a lot of people encouraging us, giving us an indication that they would like to see the debt paid down. I hope they will follow through on that and help us do it.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we have been hearing about the Social Security surplus, and I hate for the debate to really revolve around the Social Security surplus. The Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, did come up with a marvelous plan last year--the lockbox for Social Security--which has been adopted as one of our budget principles now; we lock up the Social Security surplus. I can't give enough credit to him for his effort, along with those of us who joined him to make that preservation of Social Security. It is extremely important. That continues under this bill. The focus of the bill should be a plan to pay down the rest of the national debt over a specified period of time, just as you do a house payment. Why is this important? Every family in America will understand why that is important. I hear some words around here occasionally that if you have extra money after you do these other things, then you understand you are supposed to pay down your debt. No, that is not how it works, and the American people understand that. If you have a debt, you have a payment you have to make, and you allocate that payment before you do anything else. That is what we are talking about here--responsibility, just as you have in a family, for paying down the national debt. It would come first. It would have to be the first thing we did. We would still find the money to do the other things we thought were important, but we would first pay down this national debt we have accumulated on behalf of our kids and grandkids. We have talked about the debt being reduced by $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years. That is marvelous. That is taking the Social Security surplus and locking it up. It is a very important concept. But that does not pay down the national debt so there is money left with which to eventually do additional things. There was a comment that there is $130 billion in interest savings by paying that down. Not if we are being honest about Social Security. If Social Security has bonds, Social Security should earn interest. If Social Security earns interest, that also has to go into the account because we can't spend it. We don't want to spend it, we are not supposed to spend it, and we have made it a principle not to spend it. But we should still pay the interest to Social Security. It will increase the debt reduction on this changing from one pocket to another. But it is still interest that has to be paid. We are talking about a billion dollars a day of interest on the national debt--borrowing from what the Senator from South Carolina used as a figure. But I have to tell you, that billion dollars a day is not free to be spent until all of the national debt is paid off--all of it. When you pay down a house mortgage, you pay it down a little bit and it saves you some interest, but you actually apply that interest to your payment because the payment stays constant on a house payment. So you can't spend the interest you save on a house payment. We are suggesting you can't spend the interest you save on a debt reduction payment. As the only accountant in the Senate, I spent a great deal of time listening to last year's discussion on tax relief. I was amazed at the number of my Democrat colleagues who opposed that bill because they said the money should be used for debt reduction. This is the same reason the President gave for vetoing our tax cut. When he submitted his budget to Congress this year, he made clear his rhetoric on debt reduction was a fleeting facade behind which he could hide his real desire for countless new Government programs, each one requiring substantial new Government spending, which would further threaten our children's economic future. As soon as the threat of the tax cut disappeared, so did the President's determination and commitment to debt reduction--other than moving it from one pocket to the other on Social Security. This amendment challenges all of my colleagues to choose between a plan that offers a real debt reduction or the hollow promises which were nothing more than a smokescreen for huge Government spending. I urge colleagues to join me in rebuilding the financial house of responsibility where our parents and grandparents can retire in peace and where our children and grandchildren will be welcome for years to come. We should join together in laying an important cornerstone in that foundation today by supporting Senator Allard's amendment to this budget resolution. I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. If I can answer the question, in the State of the Union speech, the President said we are going to use the Social Security surplus to pay off the national debt. Over a 10-year period, we are going to have $1.8 trillion in money we can use to pay off the national debt. And I said the same thing you did, that is, moving the money from one pocket to the other. That is not honest. But we have made a commitment that we will protect that Social Security surplus. The one thing that is allowed by law to be done with that is to pay off bonds in the public debt. The only investment we are allowed to have at the present time for Social Security is bonds.

Mr. ENZI. So there are the public bonds out there and the private bonds out there. If we wind up with more private ones, we have to buy out some of the public ones. It can be done a number of ways. They are all exactly the same. They are transferring money from one pocket to another, as the Senator says. Paying down the national debt is a commitment this Congress has made. We are not changing that commitment. We put that in the bill, and we are not changing Congress' commitment. We would like to change Congress' commitment. If Congress changes Congress' commitment, they can do that. That is what that says. In addition, there is an honest debt repayment in the amendment. The Senator is choosing to overlook the honest portion of the debt repayment, which is the focus of this bill. It is the focus of the bill that Senator Allard and I introduced the first year we were here: Paying down, with true surplus, the public part of the debt. We are going to do that part and another part.

Mr. ENZI. I am on a limited time.

Mr. ENZI. No, it keeps the IOUs the same. The Social Security surplus will grow; the debt stays the same. Then the interest gets added to the public debt because, again, it cannot be taken out. It has to be invested in more bonds. That is part of the problem with Social Security; the only thing that can be done with the Social Security funds is buy U.S. bonds.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 2097, the Launching of Our Communities' Access to Local Television Act of 2000. I commend the senior Senator from Texas, Chairman Gramm, for the great work he has done to bring the bill to this point. The bipartisan effort he has encouraged and the painstaking process by which he has produced this bill is to be commended. He has done a tremendous job of watching it from the banking perspective to make sure we could have the loan guarantees and that there would be neither favoritism nor the potential of putting banks or other institutions in financial trouble. He spent a great deal of time and effort on it. I appreciate the willingness of all the members of the Banking Committee to work together to get this bill to this point. As many of you will recall, last year during the appropriations process, this bill would have been a part of that, but there was a lot of concern about how loan guarantees should work, not just loan guarantees for satellite television but loan guarantees, and this is a landmark effort to develop a pattern for banking loan guarantees. Last November, Congress passed the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act to bring the law governing the direct broadcast satellite industry up to date and reflect the current state of technology. As part of that bill, Congress authorized, for the first time, satellite companies to retransmit local stations back into their local markets. However, due to satellite capacity, the two national direct broadcast satellite companies--DirecTV and Echostar--will only be able to serve the top 50 of 210 television markets. That is about 75 percent of the households in the Nation, but that leaves 160 markets, which is 25 percent of the Nation--a very important part, as Wyoming is included in that--without satellite-delivered local television stations. The two media markets in Wyoming are ranked 197 and 199. Remember, we are serving the top 50 out of 210. So 197 and 199 are way down the list, meaning that without some sort of incentive, local television will probably not be available in Wyoming. The bill before us will provide that incentive. It establishes a Federal loan guarantee program to promote the delivery of local television signals at places such as Wamsutter, WY. The bill provides the criteria to protect the taxpayer to the maximum extent. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill could cost American taxpayers about $100 million less than previous versions. There is a cost involved, a potential cost. The Banking Committee had to balance its need to protect the taxpayer and its need to provide a reasonable incentive to make investing in rural television service a worthwhile project for private risk capital. During the committee's deliberations on the bill, we looked at all the other existing government loan guarantees and examined what either made the program successful or, in some cases, caused it to fail. We have taken great care to ensure the loan program is fair and has the greatest chance of achieving the goal of providing local television service to rural America. People rely on TV not just for entertainment but for news and weather and special warnings of impending disasters. Children rely on it for educational programming, and soon students will need improved access to the information superhighway. The more rural a person is, the more that person needs to have access to TV for critical information as well as for entertainment. Almost 40 percent of Wyoming television households are satellite subscribers, the third highest penetration rate in the Nation. People are not choosing satellite over cable or some other system but are satellite subscribers because it is the only way to receive any sort of television programming. Wyoming has television stations in only three cities: Casper, WY, about 48,000 people; Cheyenne, 50,008; and Jackson, which fluctuates during the season but I think is listed at about 6,500 people. The rest of the State is served by stations from out of State or by relay transmitters that bring Wyoming stations to outlying towns. Wyoming has vast open spaces. The borders on Wyoming are about 500 miles on a side, with that big square out there. It gives us a little difficulty with lapel pins because we are not recognizable. We have low populations and lots of distances. We have high altitudes and low multitudes. We have tall mountains that make the best efforts by over-the-air broadcasters and cable companies even more difficult. For households that are in remote areas of the State beyond the reach of cable and relay, satellite is the only reliable and cost-effective choice. But until now, satellite has had one distinct drawback. There was no way to get the news or other local programming through reliable access to a local Wyoming television station. It is doubtful that without some kind of Federal encouragement local television stations would be available to rural households. This bill provides the proper incentive. It gives equal opportunity throughout the United States. It is important to rural Americans, and I do urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Gramm, and am also in opposition, then, to the second-degree amendment offered by Senator Johnson. The Gramm amendment puts all possible lenders on an equal footing. I believe we must protect the taxpayers. It is the primary charge for the Banking Committee to ensure that this program does not turn into a source of free money. The amendment would do that and make the requirements for lending institutions equal regardless of the lender. I have concerns about allowing lenders that are active in the farm credit programs--Government-sponsored enterprises--to get into risky business ventures potentially lending to a new satellite TV venture. The CFC and farm credit banks focus their lending on electric and telephone loans, as well as farm operating and housing loans. They don't have experience with launching satellites. Where taxpayer money is concerned, we can't just open up the program to any lender that has previously participated in the Rural Utilities Service program. Too much is at stake. The amendment would not only allow FDIC-insured institutions to make the loan, but it allows investment banks and commercial lending institutions such as GE Capital and TransAmerica to make the loan. These institutions have unique knowledge of market risks of investing in satellite services. The amendment also provides for not-for-profit cooperative lending corporations to participate in the program only if the loan can be made and not cause the credit rating to fall below an AA rating. A lower credit rating could cause rate increases for rural electric and telephone customers. The Gramm amendment also restricts all lenders to lend only up to 10 percent of their net equity. This solution ensures that no lender is treated differentially. The comment was made earlier that the board is going to be required to predict the future on the ratings for the CFC. That is what boards do. They don't predict the past. They predict the future. And they have to determine whether there will be a significant impact on a lending institution. Earlier we saw a chart. It pointed out that CFC has an AA rating. And it showed the other 10 rating agencies. One of the things that emphasis was not placed on was the asset size of those different institutions. The banks range in size from $716 billion in assets down to $63 billion in assets. CFC has $15 billion in assets--one-fourth of what the smallest of the 10 banks have. Why is this important? We are talking about a $1.25 billion loan. That is a pretty significant portion of $15 billion. We should pay attention to the impact that it can have on that institution. That is why we have a board to make those decisions. The basis for this legislation is to create incentives for private investors to use their own risk capital to bring local television service to rural areas. The Congress decided it was in the national interest to allow satellite companies to rebroadcast local television stations to their home markets. The loan guarantee program is designed to make that possible in smaller markets, such as Casper, WY, and Glendive, MT. It is not being created to give away the taxpayers' money. The amendment that Senator Gramm has offered levels the playing field for all lenders and addresses the concerns of the Banking Committee. One of those concerns is how to bring more lenders into the program and ensure that any potential qualified borrower can participate. Rural electric cooperatives borrow through the Cooperative Finance Corporation. It is a private corporation with an AA credit rating that caters to the special needs of rural electric cooperatives. Historically, they lend for electricity and telephone projects. A loan to launch a satellite and provide local television stations in rural areas is a much bigger and much different risk than an electric project. There is less guarantee that the service will attract customers or that the launch of the satellite will be successful. The rural language that members of the Banking Committee have been working on with the distinguished Senator from Texas protects the REA members and CFC from taking a bigger risk than necessary but allows them to take the risk. It does not give any lender an advantage over any other lender to obtain the guarantee. I believe Congress should make the playing field as level as possible for all participants. I don't think it should give more potential to those that have some Federal connection. Senator Gramm's language does that. I urge its adoption. I urge a vote against the second-degree amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Is it the case that the program established by S. 2097, the ``Launching Our Communities' Access to Local Television Act of 2000,'' would be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act? For example, would the Board established by this Act be required to make its proposed rules and regulations available for public comment and other relevant procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act?

Mr. ENZI. I thank the chairman for this clarification. application of copyright and communications law to loan guarantee applicants

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of the introduction today of the Worker Economic Opportunity Act, a bipartisan bill to exclude stock options and stock option profits from overtime pay calculations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I want to acknowledge and commend my colleagues Senators McConnell, Dodd, and Jeffords for their hard work on this issue. Earlier this year, the Department of Labor advised employers that they would be required to include stock options in overtime calculations. The advisory also prescribed an extremely complicated method of calculation that created a virtual administrative impossibility for employers. We received overwhelmingly negative feedback that this advisory would result in the end of stock options for hourly employees and create a lose-lose situation for employees and employers alike. The legislation we introduce today ensures that companies can continue to give stock options to hourly employees so that these employees--and not just executives--can share in this country's economic boom. And employers will be able to continue to use stock options as a valuable tool for recruiting and retaining employees in a competitive labor market. This bipartisan legislation also represents an important first step towards reforming outdated labor statutes that no longer meet the needs of today's workforce. Most of the major labor statutes were drafted between 30 and 60 years ago and many of their heavy-handed restrictions are now more harmful than helpful to employees in the modern workplace. We need to think about how to encourage--not discourage--employers' development of new and creative measures to benefit employees, such as stock option programs and telecommuting arrangements. Our legislation will provide just such encouragement and ensure that stock option programs do not fall prey to obsolete legislative prohibitions. Finally, I am particularly proud that both Democrats and the Department of Labor have worked with us on this bill. As chairman of the Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee, I firmly believe that cooperation between lawmakers and agencies is the best way to develop practical solutions that benefit both employees and businesses. I sincerely hope that we can continue to work together on similar measures in the future.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of the introduction today of the Worker Economic Opportunity Act, a bipartisan bill to exclude stock options and stock option profits from overtime pay calculations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I want to acknowledge and commend my colleagues Senators McConnell, Dodd, and Jeffords for their hard work on this issue. Earlier this year, the Department of Labor advised employers that they would be required to include stock options in overtime calculations. The advisory also prescribed an extremely complicated method of calculation that created a virtual administrative impossibility for employers. We received overwhelmingly negative feedback that this advisory would result in the end of stock options for hourly employees and create a lose-lose situation for employees and employers alike. The legislation we introduce today ensures that companies can continue to give stock options to hourly employees so that these employees--and not just executives--can share in this country's economic boom. And employers will be able to continue to use stock options as a valuable tool for recruiting and retaining employees in a competitive labor market. This bipartisan legislation also represents an important first step towards reforming outdated labor statutes that no longer meet the needs of today's workforce. Most of the major labor statutes were drafted between 30 and 60 years ago and many of their heavy-handed restrictions are now more harmful than helpful to employees in the modern workplace. We need to think about how to encourage--not discourage--employers' development of new and creative measures to benefit employees, such as stock option programs and telecommuting arrangements. Our legislation will provide just such encouragement and ensure that stock option programs do not fall prey to obsolete legislative prohibitions. Finally, I am particularly proud that both Democrats and the Department of Labor have worked with us on this bill. As chairman of the Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee, I firmly believe that cooperation between lawmakers and agencies is the best way to develop practical solutions that benefit both employees and businesses. I sincerely hope that we can continue to work together on similar measures in the future.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, some of the people working for the Federal Government right now have worked in a number of capacities and have seen export licensing from more than one side. I would be especially remiss if I did not mention the dedicated and time-consuming help of Undersecretary of Commerce Bill Reinsch and especially Undersecretary of Defense Dr. John Hamre. At one point, they had visited so much over the telephone about this bill that they caught an ``electronic bug'' and were ill for 24 hours. On my own staff, I thank Katherine McGuire, my legislative director, who also works with the committee, and Joel Oswald, who is my committee person. On Senator Johnson's staff, I not only have to mention his tremendous work and coordination, but I have to mention Paul Nash, who sat in on hours and months of meetings; on Senator Gramm's staff, particularly, Wayne Abernathy; on Senator Sarbanes' staff, particularly, Marty Gruenberg; the staffs from all of the different committee chairs who have been involved in this. This bill has a lot of rabbits, and it has taken a lot of people to keep track of all of the rabbits, particularly as they multiply. I would like to tell you the debate we will hear on this bill is going to be fascinating. I would like to tell you that the bill will hold your attention, that you will be sitting on the edge of your seat, but that would be false advertising. If the bill were that thrilling instead of that detailed, it would have passed long ago. This may be the most important debate we have this year, but I have to warn you, you can't tell the players without a program, and some parts of this debate don't even allow a program. We will ask you to pretend that you are James Bond, but the most exciting mission you will be assigned might make you feel like a proofreader in an atlas factory. We need to talk about country tiering. That is where all the countries in the world are classified according to the risk to our country. We are going to talk about control lists; that is, the list of items we need to keep an eye on and have special instances in which they might need to be licensed. We are going to talk about a process for getting on the list and getting an item off the list. To really complicate the process, we are going to go back to our country list of risk and vary the risk by each item on the control list. Because that will cause some gray areas, we have this little handbook. This little handbook is a translation, a simplification of the rules that, if you are exporting a single thing, you better be aware of because you could be violating the law if you aren't following all 1,200 pages. All of those things have to be blended together into something workable for industry and national security. I am prepared to explain any of those concepts, to go into great detail with anyone who needs that. Hopefully, we will not do that on the floor. I have been doing that for groups as small as one or as great as 500 for the last year. But before you think that is all there is, we threw in two new concepts that have been mentioned before, so I will not go into detail on those except to mention that they are critical. We threw in mass markets and foreign availability. We recognized that if an item is available all over the world, probably the bad guys get that, too. And if a product is mass marketed in the United States, if it is so small and so cheap and sold at enough outlets that it could be legally purchased, easily hidden, and taken out of the country, that if you try to enforce that, you will probably not get anywhere either. I could go on for a long time about the complexities in this bill-- 158 pages of detail. We have established a system that is transparent and accountable to Congress, requires recorded votes, has ways of getting things up to the President, and allows for the President to control some things. We recognized the deficiency in the present system of difficulty of objecting to licenses, objecting to things on the list, and we have cleared those up. Now we need to clear up the misunderstandings that there are with the bill. Industry and national security--each side has the ability to walk away from this bill and cause its demise. It would be the simplest thing in the world. I commend business and the security agencies for their efforts, their teamwork, and their cooperation. They have read the reports that have come out on this. The Cox report has been referred to many times. The Cox report says this needs to be done. Congressman Cox appeared before the Banking Committee and testified that this bill needs to be done. I could go into other examples there. I am asking both sides, industry and security, to stay together, to keep working to stay in the middle so that we can have a system in place that will solve some of the problems of the United States while it increases exports. It can be done. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. With the indulgence of the Senator from New Jersey, I ask unanimous consent for some additional time so I can finish this explanation, which I think is critical to the bill.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as you can tell from the discussions that have gone on today, this is not the simplest bill that has ever come before Congress. There are a lot of complexities. There are still, obviously, a lot of misunderstandings about what is in the bill. There is increased money for enforcement, increased people for enforcement, a tie-down on how we check on end users. But I do not want to get into those very stimulating, exciting details right now. I want to make some more general comments so that my colleagues and other people who are interested in this bill have some idea of why we are having the difficulties we are having. I am one of those people who agrees--and I think Senator Thompson agrees--that the system is broke. I thought we were going to have a debate today on how Congress can fix it because Congress is quickly realizing that we are sacrificing national security and impeding export growth at the same time. We have a chance to fix that problem with this bill or to let it remain broken for about 18 months, at a minimum. If we do not debate this before the budget and appropriations bills come up, which will be the agenda for the rest of this year, we will not be able to debate it until the nominations of a new administration have been completed and those people understand this difficult area. In January of 1999, I became the chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance. Shortly thereafter, this issue was thrust into prominence. It was disclosed that China had access to United States military secrets, and the congressional Cox commission emphasized the problem with the release of their classified report. I also found out the Export Governing Act had expired in 1994. That was the Export Administration Act of 1979. Our country was operating under emergency Executive orders to keep any semblance of security at all. I had a briefing on and read the classified Cox report. I was dismayed. I followed the history of export licensing and found out there had already been 11 attempts to renew the Export Administration Act. All had gone down in flaming defeat. I read the documentation on the failed bills. I am always amazed at how much documentation there is of what has been done in Congress. Several people who had tried to rescue the failed bills are still around. I visited with them. I made several trips downtown to see how the committee process of export licensing works at the present time. I drafted a bill. I began working with the ranking member of my subcommittee, Senator Johnson of South Dakota. Without his cooperation and interest, and without the dedication and involvement of his staff, we would not have gotten to this point today. We looked at the problem. We searched for the difficulties. We established some goals. We began to meet with anyone and everyone. We met with all the agencies involved. We met with companies. We met with industry groups. We met with any Senator willing to give a few minutes or a long period of time. I was amazed at how many were interested. This bill has an interesting constituency. There are two main groups. Neither group has the votes to pass the bill, but each of them has the votes to kill the bill. Of course, everyone knows it is easier to kill a bill than it is to pass a bill. To kill a bill, you only need one negative vote anywhere in an 11-step process, and it is dead. You just have to be able to get a majority confused enough at one point to get a negative vote. But to pass a bill, you have to have a positive vote at each one of those places and get the signature of the President. So it is 11 times easier to kill a bill than it is to pass one. At just one single step for each of the previous 11 attempts at this bill, there was a perception that each of the previous bills that were attempted was either too strong for national security or too easy for imports. The trick on this bill has been to maintain a balance. Along the way, I found that most of the provisions are not in conflict--the goals are just different--and the difference has been perceived as a counter to each other's interest. I know we can have a vigorous export economy and protect the national security. I appreciate the confidence shown by Senator Gramm. He has given Senator Johnson and me a free rein to go after a solution. He has allowed the flexibility to review many unusual solutions. Senator Sarbanes has provided a quiet leadership of fatherly questioning and direction. I appreciate the hours my fellow Senators have taken to explore this national problem and review this proposed solution. Senator Shelby, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and a ranking Banking Committee member, was a big contributor and adviser before the bill even came up in committee. Senators Warner, Thompson, Helms, and Kyl have spent countless hours in the last 3 weeks ironing out difficulties. I have to mention Senator Cochran. He is a warrior of past battles, and he has been a tremendous help. Meetings I have been in during the last year were often so educational that I sometimes thought maybe I ought to be paying tuition. Industry needs reliability and predictability. Industry needs to be able to make it to the marketplace at least at the same time the competitor does; for the sake of the United States, I hope they can make it a little bit ahead of the competitor. For our national security, we need to be sure items that can be used against this country do not fall into the wrong hands. We formed a tough love partnership in this bill that achieves both goals. Teamwork in the bill was begun by higher penalties for violations. I would like to use an example of a conviction that has happened with McDonnell Douglas. They violated the export law. Under the present Executive order, they may be charged as much as $120,000. For a big corporation, they spend more on an ad than that. That is incidental business. Under this bill, they could be fined up to $120 million. That gets the attention of business. Also, the individuals who are willingly and knowingly involved in this could go to jail. They could go to jail for up to 10 years for each offense. So you can see that if there are enough offenses under this bill, they could have life imprisonment. Those are penalties that have their attention. There are several other items. I will not go into all of them. But the teamwork is completed by a well-defined system for reliability and predictability, one that relies on prioritizing enforcement assets to catch the bad guys. The United States makes so many products, they cannot all be watched. I need to make a clarification. While we are talking about national security, we are not talking about guns and missiles. That would be on the munitions list. That isn't under the control of the Export Act. That list, the munitions list, is controlled by the Department of Defense and is much stricter--and has to be. We are not talking about satellites and the technology that goes with that. That technology is controlled by the State Department. We are referring to products which we have given a fancy name. We call those products dual-use technologies. They were not designed for war. Most were not even intended to be dangerous. Many things are common household items. We call them dual-use technologies because they can be used for more than one use, and we worry about those items that can be used in a way that would be harmful to the United States. For example, a stick can provide stability when you are walking or it could be a club. A knife can be a dagger or it could be a vegetable peeler. A precision machine can manufacture toys or stealth airplane parts. A computer can teach you math or it can run math models to test nuclear weapons. Everything your senses can sense can be used for good or for evil. Some evil is worse than others. I think you begin to get a sense for the kind of items this bill could control. I think you can see where the bill could have some validity controlling every single item made or used, except everybody agrees that would not be feasible. If the universe is too great, we cannot afford the enforcement and business will not be able to sell anything. This bill was worked to prioritize logical enforcement. To have a better idea of how enforcement works, I have had a person on loan to my staff for the last several months who is a law enforcement agent, a very specialized enforcement agent, a person who has worked daily with the enforcement of dual-use exports. That help has been valuable beyond belief. We and every one of our constituents know the value of hands-on experience. There are some things about a job you can only learn by experience. I am thankful we have had experience helping us. Also, during the drafting part of this bill, I sought out a person who had experience actually applying for export licenses. He served as a fellow on my staff for a few months and was also instrumental in drafting the bill. I would be remiss if I did not thank all the people from the administration who spent hours showing me what they do or explaining how the system works.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, several of us have comments that we wish to make on the Export Administration Act. Senator Thompson was waiting before I was, so I yield.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each until 3 p.m. today.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I now ask consent there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 8. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1000, the FAA bill, under the previous order.