Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the chairman of the Appropriations Committee yield? I worked with the chairman and the chairman of the House Commerce Justice State Appropriations Committee during the supplemental appropriations conference to craft report language that requires the Department of Commerce to take into account a very important forthcoming GAO study which analyzes the cost of maintaining four National Weather Service regional headquarters offices in the continental United States versus consolidation into three offices by closure of the Southern Region Headquarters office. The language requires the Department of Commerce to take this report into account. It is my wish that it will cease its efforts to close the office now so that it may take the report into consideration, as this language requires them to do. I want to ensure that this legislative history will be carried forward with the Senate's supplemental appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, can you give me this assurance?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, want to thank a few people because I have been very involved in this supplemental emergency appropriations. I have seen the back room negotiations hour after hour, night after night. I want to thank first the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. There is not a person who has stood truer to principle than the majority leader on all of the issues in this emergency appropriations. He was prepared at all times to make sure that disaster victims were able to get the money that they needed in absolute due course. He was prepared to make sure that all of the money in the defense accounts would go in. He also was standing on a principle to set the process in place so that at the end of this fiscal year the people who work for the U.S. Government, the people who look to the U.S. Government for services such as passports and all of the other Government services, and the people such as veterans who have earned pensions would know that there would not be a disruption in Government. I think there has been a lot of rhetoric that has blurred the facts on these issues. In fact, there was never a question of the actual amount that would go to the flood victims of North Dakota. They have been getting the millions of dollars that they need to start the process of rebuilding their State. And we want them to have that. They deserve it. They have it. It is ongoing right now. And it never was in question. But, Mr. President, I think it is very important as we get ready to vote on this issue to see exactly what is on the table. We have a supplemental appropriations bill that is not only emergency disaster relief, but it is supplemental appropriations. There are many people who are concerned about how big this appropriations bill is. I am concerned as well. I think that it grew too much. But since it is the first appropriations bill of this year--and this is June; we are halfway through the year--a lot of people felt that we had to replenish the coffers before we would get to the 1998 appropriations. So there is that issue and that concern. We have now a separate opportunity to deal with the anti-Government- shutdown provisions. I think we are going to have a day of reckoning on this because there are those on the floor who have said, ``We don't want to shut down Government, but this isn't the right bill.'' So now we have an agreement that we will take up, without a filibuster, the issue of shutting down Government. We will send a bill to the President that gives him the opportunity to tell the people of America once again that he does not want to shut down Government. The President has said this on many occasions, but he did not like this bill to have the anti-Government-shutdown provisions. So he is going to get this bill separately, and we are going to vote on an anti- Government-shutdown bill. It has been agreed to by both sides that that will happen without any more political games. I think the people of America should wake up and see who is trying to play political games with the anti-Government-shutdown issue. We are trying to prepare in an orderly way for the appropriations process in this Congress. We are trying to assure the people who depend on Government, the people who work for Government, and the people who have pensions that are supported by Government that there will not be a disruption if Congress and the President have not agreed on some part of the appropriations bills. So we have now set the process. We are going to vote on a supplemental appropriations, and we are going to vote on an anti- Government-shutdown provision; and we are going to see if the President of the United States is sincere about wanting to work with Congress in a negotiation with a level playing field that will set a process in place so that we will not have a Government shutdown. I think the test is yet to come. I hope that the people of America will look to see how people vote when we have a straight up-or-down vote, which the President has asked for, which Congress has acceded to giving the President what he has asked for, and see if the President is sincere about wanting to work with Congress. I hope very much that the President and Congress will be able to work together. I think Congress has shown for its part that Congress is willing to work with the President and to bow to his wishes. We have given him everything that he has asked from this Congress in a budget resolution, and now in a supplemental appropriations. I hope that this good will goes both ways. Last, Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Stevens from Alaska, who likes to describe himself as a bear but who, in fact, is actually one of the most fair, even-handed people I have ever seen in a committee chairmanship in this Congress. He deserves a lot of praise for his patience in working, not only with the President, but with the Democrats and with the Members of the House of Representatives to have a bill that would make sure that we cover the costs of Bosnia, of the flood victims in North Dakota, of the tornado victims in Texas, who will have some little bit of help from this bill, and the many others who have suffered disasters in our country. I want to thank my cosponsor, Senator John McCain, for standing up on the principle that we would not have a Government shutdown. I will tell you that Senator McCain and I will not let this issue die. We are going to be back. We are going to have a clean vote. We are going to put the President to the test to see if he really wants to set a process that does not shut down the Government. Senator McCain and I are very sincere in wanting to make sure that never again will we have the debacle of 1995. So I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens. I thank especially Senator Lott and Senator McCain for standing on the principles that will make our appropriations process work in a responsible way. Thank you. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 866 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we extend this time for 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I appreciate the distinguished majority leader yielding to me for a question because I do have a question. I think it is not a matter even of the supplemental appropriations, that they are not worthy, but I think timing is the issue. I just sense that all of a sudden the ground is shaking. First they said, ``Just pass the clean emergency help to the victims.'' That was the first thing that was said. Now, then, you said, well, OK, let's talk about what is an emergency, and I am seeing all of a sudden a different argument, a different argument that says, oh, wait a minute, what do you mean, that there might be some parts of this bill that would not be part of the emergency? In fact, there are billions in this bill that are supplemental. They are good. We hope they will pass. But they are not an emergency. So if you are going to say that it is not important to provide for the orderly transition of fiscal years right now in the first appropriations bill that has come on the floor this year--Mr. President, I think the distinguished majority leader will agree that we have not had another appropriations bill on the floor. If we are not going to set the process right now for how we are going to handle the transition of fiscal years in an orderly and responsible way, when would we do it? Would we do it 1 month before the end of the fiscal year so people would not be able to plan, so that we would not know for sure exactly what was going to happen, so that Federal employees would not know for sure that we would not have another Government shutdown, so that veterans would not know for sure that their pension checks would be on time? I think to say that now all of a sudden it is not just emergency relief but also everything in the supplemental appropriation which is important to many people in this body--but so is the resolution about not shutting down Government important to a number of people in this body. I think the distinguished majority leader in good faith said, well, would you like for us to consider a pared down emergency for anything that would not be covered already under the Federal Emergency Management Agency funds which we know have at least $2 billion in the coffers right now that are going right now to the victims in North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota? The money is going in. There may be a few places where it is not going in, so the distinguished majority leader, as I understand it, is saying, OK, we should make a list of those where there really is an emergency, not supplemental but emergency, and would you consider working with us to pass that? Now, all of a sudden, it seems that the argument is changing and we are saying, oh, no, we not only need the emergency appropriations that might not be covered if there are categories like that, but, in addition, we must also have all of the supplemental appropriations for the National Park Service, for the Fish and Wildlife Service, for the Forest Service, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for the Army Corps of Engineers, for the Postal Service fund, for the bulk cheese price survey, for the food stamp changes, for grants to local education agencies. Now, I have no doubt these are important appropriations, but are they emergency? That is the question that I ask the distinguished majority leader. Once he said, ``I am willing to talk about a pared down real emergency,'' all of a sudden it seems to me that now we are shifting to a different issue. We are shifting now to a whole different argument, and they are saying you have to take everything in the bill that the distinguished Senators from North Dakota want, take out everything that the distinguished Senators on this side of the aisle were hoping to get in the way of process to establish a process in the appropriations bill, the first one this year. It is like saying we have all the cards. But that is not the way America is. We work together here. I think we have the ability to determine if there are emergencies that are not being met, and if that is the issue, then I think we would be able to solve it. I just ask the majority leader if he believes that we have the ability to determine what is an emergency and what is a supplement.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I was really wanting to question in the arena of a timetable for kinds of disaster relief. It was indicated by one of the Senators from North Dakota that perhaps it was all or nothing, as if the entire supplemental appropriations bill was part of an emergency disaster. And I was just going to ask the distinguished majority leader if he was not thinking that perhaps there are certainly judgment calls that we can make. I think the majority leader is saying that if we are going to make some very slimmed down bill to provide for emergency assistance--I think the distinguished majority leader would agree with me, there is also $30 million for plane crash investigations; $6 million to the FBI to reimburse New York State, but New York State has had ongoing expenses with regard to TWA flight 800; $197 million for the National Park Service; $103 million for Fish and Wildlife; $67 million for the Forest Service; $20 million for the Bureau of Indian affairs; $585 million for the Army Corps of Engineers. I am just wondering if the majority leader doesn't think that perhaps these are supplemental appropriations that are not of an emergency nature and that maybe Congress would be able to make a judgment call if in fact we were talking about emergency relief. Because it seems to me that some of the Senators are saying that, ``Look. We want everything, but your issues aren't important. The issue of process, of not being able to shut down Government isn't important.'' It may not be important to someone on the other side of the aisle, but it is very important to many people on our side of the aisle that we have a process by which we say to people, here is what you can expect. Veterans can expect to get their pension benefits on time, regardless of whether Congress and the President have not agreed on a particular appropriations bill, that Federal employees can expect to get their checks on time regardless of whether there is an agreement between the President and Congress. So, you know, I think that there are a lot of issues. And I sincerely believe that it is important for us to set the process of how we are going to handle appropriations this year. Perhaps others do not think that is important. But to say, ``You take all of our issues. Throw away all of yours. And that's the only thing that will be acceptable,'' seems to me to be a little unreasonable. I just ask the majority leader if he would put all of these other supplemental appropriations in the same position as some part of the emergency bill that really is an emergency where funds really might not be available if there are funds like that?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the title of the bill I send to the desk is the Environmental Protection Partnership Act of 1997. By introducing this bill, I am suggesting that the Federal Government take a cue from the States regarding environmental protection. Many State governments have passed laws that allow for voluntary audits of environmental compliance. These laws encourage a company to conduct an audit of its compliance with environmental laws. By conducting the audit, the company determines whether it is in compliance with all environmental laws. If it is not, these state laws allow the company, without penalty, to correct any violations it finds so it will come into compliance. What my bill does is let the Federal Government do the same thing. It lets the Federal Government say to companies all over America, if you want to do a voluntary audit for environmental compliance, we are going to let you do that. We will encourage you but not force you to do it. And we are not going to come in and threaten you with the hammer of the EPA if you, in fact, move swiftly to come into compliance when you find that you are not in compliance. We think this is the most effective way to clean up the air and water. Our air and water are invaluable natural resources. They are cleaner than they have been in 25 years, and we want to keep improving our efforts to guarantee their protection. This bill will ensure that, in the same fashion as many States have done. It does not preempt State law. If State laws are on the books, then the State laws prevail. But this offers companies all over our country the ability to comply with Federal standards in a voluntary way, to critically assess their compliance and not be penalized if they then take action to immediately come into compliance. So I am asking that we take up this bill very quickly in committee. I think through this bill we can do a lot of good for America. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will ensure that we continue to increase the protection of our environment in the United States. My bill, the Environmental Protection Partnership Act of 1997, provides incentives for companies to assess their own environmental compliance. Rather than playing a waiting game for EPA to find environmental violations, companies will find--and stop--violations. Many more violations will be corrected, and many others will be prevented. Under my bill, if a company voluntarily completes an environmental audit--a thorough review of its compliance with environmental laws--the audit report may not be used against the company in court. The report can be used in court, however, if the company found violations and did not promptly make efforts to comply. By extending this privilege, a company that looks for, finds, and remedies problems will continue this good conduct, and protect the environment. In addition, if a company does an audit, and promptly corrects any violations, the company may choose to disclose the violation to EPA. If the company does disclose the violation, the company will not be penalized for the violations. By ensuring companies that they will not be dragged into court for being honest, the bill encourages companies to find and fix violations and report them to EPA. This does not mean that companies that pollute go scot-free. Under this bill, there is no protection for: willful and intentional violators; companies that do not promptly cure violations; companies asserting the law fraudulently; or companies trying to evade an imminent or ongoing investigation. Further, the bill does not protect companies that have policies that permit ongoing patterns of violations of environmental laws. And where a violation results in a continuing adverse public health or environmental effect, a company may not use the protections of this law. Nor does this bill mean that EPA loses any authority to find violations and punish companies for polluting. EPA retains all its present authority. At the same time that EPA retains full authority to enforce environmental laws, I propose to engage every company voluntarily in environmental protection by creating the incentive for those companies to find and cure their own violations. This frees EPA to target its enforcement dollars on the bad actors--the companies that intentionally pollute our water and air. Twenty-one States have already passed audit laws. These States understand that to truly protect the environment, everyone must participate. These States have made it possible for companies to want to be good actors and play an active role in environmental protection. Texas has an audit law. Hundreds of companies have carried out a voluntary environmental audit, and after only 18 months, companies had already reported and corrected 50 violations. Other States report similar success. My bill does not mandate that States adopt these policies. It does not mandate that States amend their laws. Quite the opposite. My bill specifically does not preempt State law. Therefore, a State may choose not to enact an audit law, but a company in that State can still conduct a voluntary audit with respect to Federal environmental law. Further, in a State with an audit law, a company will be able to thoroughly review its entire State and Federal compliance, and remedy any violations it may find. Therefore, my bill supports--but does not supplant--State efforts by encouraging companies to audit their compliance with Federal environmental laws as well. We have made great strides in cleaning up our environment over the past 30 years. To continue this trend, we need to be preventing pollution, rather than always reacting to environmental problems after they occur. Even EPA agrees that to achieve this, companies need to play an active role in environmental protection. In a recent policy Statement, EPA pointed out that because Government resources are limited, maximum compliance cannot be achieved without active efforts by the regulated community to police themselves. The Environmental Protection Partnership Act will make companies active partners with EPA in assuring compliance with environmental laws. I am very pleased to be working with the majority leader on this legislation and I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort to increase environmental protection.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the title of the bill I send to the desk is the Environmental Protection Partnership Act of 1997. By introducing this bill, I am suggesting that the Federal Government take a cue from the States regarding environmental protection. Many State governments have passed laws that allow for voluntary audits of environmental compliance. These laws encourage a company to conduct an audit of its compliance with environmental laws. By conducting the audit, the company determines whether it is in compliance with all environmental laws. If it is not, these state laws allow the company, without penalty, to correct any violations it finds so it will come into compliance. What my bill does is let the Federal Government do the same thing. It lets the Federal Government say to companies all over America, if you want to do a voluntary audit for environmental compliance, we are going to let you do that. We will encourage you but not force you to do it. And we are not going to come in and threaten you with the hammer of the EPA if you, in fact, move swiftly to come into compliance when you find that you are not in compliance. We think this is the most effective way to clean up the air and water. Our air and water are invaluable natural resources. They are cleaner than they have been in 25 years, and we want to keep improving our efforts to guarantee their protection. This bill will ensure that, in the same fashion as many States have done. It does not preempt State law. If State laws are on the books, then the State laws prevail. But this offers companies all over our country the ability to comply with Federal standards in a voluntary way, to critically assess their compliance and not be penalized if they then take action to immediately come into compliance. So I am asking that we take up this bill very quickly in committee. I think through this bill we can do a lot of good for America. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will ensure that we continue to increase the protection of our environment in the United States. My bill, the Environmental Protection Partnership Act of 1997, provides incentives for companies to assess their own environmental compliance. Rather than playing a waiting game for EPA to find environmental violations, companies will find--and stop--violations. Many more violations will be corrected, and many others will be prevented. Under my bill, if a company voluntarily completes an environmental audit--a thorough review of its compliance with environmental laws--the audit report may not be used against the company in court. The report can be used in court, however, if the company found violations and did not promptly make efforts to comply. By extending this privilege, a company that looks for, finds, and remedies problems will continue this good conduct, and protect the environment. In addition, if a company does an audit, and promptly corrects any violations, the company may choose to disclose the violation to EPA. If the company does disclose the violation, the company will not be penalized for the violations. By ensuring companies that they will not be dragged into court for being honest, the bill encourages companies to find and fix violations and report them to EPA. This does not mean that companies that pollute go scot-free. Under this bill, there is no protection for: willful and intentional violators; companies that do not promptly cure violations; companies asserting the law fraudulently; or companies trying to evade an imminent or ongoing investigation. Further, the bill does not protect companies that have policies that permit ongoing patterns of violations of environmental laws. And where a violation results in a continuing adverse public health or environmental effect, a company may not use the protections of this law. Nor does this bill mean that EPA loses any authority to find violations and punish companies for polluting. EPA retains all its present authority. At the same time that EPA retains full authority to enforce environmental laws, I propose to engage every company voluntarily in environmental protection by creating the incentive for those companies to find and cure their own violations. This frees EPA to target its enforcement dollars on the bad actors--the companies that intentionally pollute our water and air. Twenty-one States have already passed audit laws. These States understand that to truly protect the environment, everyone must participate. These States have made it possible for companies to want to be good actors and play an active role in environmental protection. Texas has an audit law. Hundreds of companies have carried out a voluntary environmental audit, and after only 18 months, companies had already reported and corrected 50 violations. Other States report similar success. My bill does not mandate that States adopt these policies. It does not mandate that States amend their laws. Quite the opposite. My bill specifically does not preempt State law. Therefore, a State may choose not to enact an audit law, but a company in that State can still conduct a voluntary audit with respect to Federal environmental law. Further, in a State with an audit law, a company will be able to thoroughly review its entire State and Federal compliance, and remedy any violations it may find. Therefore, my bill supports--but does not supplant--State efforts by encouraging companies to audit their compliance with Federal environmental laws as well. We have made great strides in cleaning up our environment over the past 30 years. To continue this trend, we need to be preventing pollution, rather than always reacting to environmental problems after they occur. Even EPA agrees that to achieve this, companies need to play an active role in environmental protection. In a recent policy Statement, EPA pointed out that because Government resources are limited, maximum compliance cannot be achieved without active efforts by the regulated community to police themselves. The Environmental Protection Partnership Act will make companies active partners with EPA in assuring compliance with environmental laws. I am very pleased to be working with the majority leader on this legislation and I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort to increase environmental protection.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to finish by adding to what Senator Lautenberg has said, that we sent a bill to the President for disaster relief for the victims of North and South Dakota and Minnesota. We sent him a bill that we hoped he would sign. I don't think the President has explained why he would veto a bill that he says is necessary for these disaster victims when, in fact, all we did was say we are also going to make sure that we don't shut down the Government so that the very people we are trying to help will not be able to get the checks that they need after September 30 if Congress and the President have not come to agreement. It is very important that people understand that the budget agreement for the 1998 budget year are allocations, they are not appropriations. In fact, to actually spend the money, it takes both Congress and the President to agree. Sometimes, the Congress and the President don't agree before September 30, which is the end of the fiscal year. So we have to start a new fiscal year. Now, if there is not an agreement and we don't have a provision for continuing Government, then we can shut down Government again. That is not what anyone wants to do. So Congress has in the disaster relief bill and the supplemental appropriations to go with that bill, the process that says we are not going to shut down Government, we are going to keep spending money at the same level that is being spent this year, and then when the agreement is made between Congress and the President, we will be able to go into whatever Congress and the President agree on. When anyone talks about cuts in spending because we go into the 1998 year under the 1997 spending, there are no cuts because there have been no appropriations for 1998, and we haven't come to agreement on the specifics. I think it is very proper to ask why the President did not sign the bill. I think it is proper to say to the President, ``We did send you a bill; you chose not to sign it. I think you owe an explanation to the disaster victims of why you would stand for the authority to shut down Government when we are trying to continue the process of covering people in case some of the appropriations bills are not passed at the end of the fiscal year.'' We just want to make sure that people can plan ahead, that they will know that their paychecks will be there if they work for the Government, that their pensions will be there if they are veterans who have earned their pensions, that there will not be a disruption of our Government. We are not cutting back from this year's expenditures. We will say we will keep on going until we have an agreement, and when that agreement is made, then we go forward and the President and the Congress together do the job that both of us were elected to do. So I think it is very important the people of this country have the facts and know that we are trying to help with all of the Federal emergency management funds that need to be replenished as well as the funds to replenish the Bosnia accounts and the many other supplemental expenditures that are in that bill. Mr. President, I think it is very important that the President of the United States sign the bill and continue the operation of Government as usual so that the people in our country, on September 30, will not have to worry about a disruption in their lives if they work for the Government or if they have earned veterans' pensions or if they plan a family vacation or if they are going on a business trip and they have not renewed their passports. Those are the things that are at stake here. We have a lot of responsibility. We can meet that responsibility by making sure that the disaster victims are covered and that we keep Government going on a rational and responsible basis. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the responsibility lies in the White House. The Congress has done its job. I would appreciate the President stepping up to the line and saying what is so bad about having a process which everyone knows, right now, and can plan for, an orderly, responsible transfer between fiscal years. I would just like the President to step up and say what's wrong with that. We ask him to do that today. We want him to provide the relief he has asked for. And, Mr. President, Congress has done its job.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I can certainly understand why the Senator from Georgia would be a little confused, when Republicans produced a bill that gave the President everything he asked for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for Bosnia, and for all these other programs that are being replenished for the administration. I can understand why he would be confused that the President would veto the bill and accuse Republicans of playing political games. That is confusing. In fact, I have to say I think the President needs to step up to the line and say what is unreasonable about providing for the orderly process of Government, the orderly appropriations process, telling people what to expect if there is not an agreement on September 30 between the President and Congress. There are no hammers, there is no fear on the part of Government employees or veterans or people who are counting on paychecks coming on time. What is wrong with providing for that? We are not cutting back on what people are getting now. We are just saying, let's provide a level playing field here. Let's negotiate in good faith. And if the President does not want to do that, if the President wants to shut down Government or wants to have a hammer over Congress' head, wants to have some artificial shutdown of Government at his disposal, I would like for the President to explain to the American people why. Why? Because if we do not pass this now, then people will not know what to expect. Government employees will not know what to expect, veterans will not know what to expect. We may not pass an appropriations bill on which this could be put, as a matter of process, for months to come. I think this is the responsible approach to take so everyone understands. If the President disagrees, tell us why. Tell us why you want to shut down Government, Mr. President, or you want people to be in fear of shutting down Government, or you want a hammer over Congress' head in order to have some sort of advantage. I mean, what is it? What is it that would cause you to veto a bill that you say is so important to you, for disaster relief and other supplemental appropriations, when, in fact, all you have to do is sign the bill?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. In fact, the majority of the Republican Senators and two-thirds of the whole U.S. Senate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Absolutely.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think that is correct, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, because I do want to respond and make sure that everyone is singing from the same page. I appreciate very much what the distinguished Senators from North Dakota are feeling right now, and what they must feel every time they go home. I, too, have visited disaster areas in my home State in the last week, and it is a devastating situation. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that all of us are going to make sure that the victims of disasters in all the 35 States that are covered will have all of the help they need, and they will have it in the absolute minimum time it takes to get that to them. In fact, the disaster victims in North Dakota and Minnesota and South Dakota are getting help right now. They are getting the SBA loans, they are getting the agriculture help, they are getting the assistance that they need, and it is there now, and we have $2 billion in the pipeline waiting to come in to them, not waiting for us to act. That is in the pipeline now. So the money is there, make no mistake about it. But it is very important that everyone know that this is a supplemental appropriations bill. It is the first appropriations bill that has gone through this year. There are many items that must be covered. We are covering the replenishment of FEMA funds, the Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, because they are being depleted right now as we speak, going to the victims of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, California and other States. We are giving that money to them, and we are going to replenish it with this supplemental bill. But there are many other things covered in this bill. It is not as if this is just a disaster relief bill for those areas. It is also a $1.9 billion expenditure for overseas peacekeeping, to replenish the funds that have gone into the protection of Bosnia. There is $928 million for veterans compensation and pensions, $29.9 million for plane crash investigations, $6.4 million to the FBI to reimburse New York State and local jurisdictions for assisting in the investigation of Flight 800, $197 million for the National Park Service, $103 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service, $67 million for the Forest Service, $20 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, $585 million for the Army Corps of Engineers, $510 million for the U.S. mission in Southwest Asia, $58 million for the Women, Infants, and Children Program. Mr. President, it goes on. This is a supplemental appropriations bill. These are funds that are to replenish funds that have already been spent. In addition to that, we are setting the process by which we do appropriations this year. That is why we have the Government Shutdown Prevention Act. That is why we are saying if we do not come to agreement on October 1 for all of the appropriations bills, that Government will continue to function, that people will not have to worry about their paychecks, that veterans will not have to worry about their pensions, that people going on vacation will not have to worry about it. We are saying right now, here is how we are going to proceed. I think it has been portrayed that Congress is playing games. Congress has passed a bill. It is not absolving the President of all responsibility to veto anything he wants to veto, and then say, well, I didn't like it and it's your responsibility. He has a responsibility. The President can sign this bill. I would like for the President to explain why he wants the ability to shut down Government. I would like the President to explain what is unreasonable about providing for the ongoing Government expenditures at today's levels while Congress and the President might continue to negotiate on an appropriations bill that has not been passed by September 30. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will speak for 5 minutes, and then I will yield the floor to my colleague from Texas. Mr. President, I would like to speak on two issues that were brought up by the Senator, the distinguished minority leader, and also others on the floor, and that is, we keep hearing, ``Send the President a bill he can sign.'' Mr. President, we are sending the President a bill that he can sign. It is like we have a responsibility in Congress just to please the President. Mr. President, I think this is a two-way street. Pennsylvania Avenue runs two ways. It is well settled in American law that there is a Congress that passes laws and a President who signs or vetoes those laws. So it is not, ``Send the President a bill he can sign.'' We are sending the President a bill he can sign. We are sending the President a bill that he has asked for, to replenish the FEMA funding. The people of North Dakota and South Dakota and Minnesota are getting the help they need-- and they should, and we want them to--and we are going to replenish those funds. In addition, we are providing the notice and the process to not only the people who work for Government, the people who depend on it, about what is going to happen, what process are we going to use for appropriations bills so they can plan, so they will know that the veterans checks will be there, so they will know, if they plan their family vacation on October 2, that they will be able to get into the Grand Canyon, so that if they have a problem with a passport, they will know that there is not an artificial disruption of Government on October 1 because the President and Congress have not agreed. What better time to provide that process than right now in the first appropriations bill of this year? Mr. President, we are sending the President of the United States a bill that he can sign to replenish the FEMA funding, and we are acting in a most responsible way so that the veterans of this country will never again have to worry if their check is going to be there on time, so that the very disaster victims that we are trying to assure have coverage will never have to worry that the check is going to get there on time because they will never have to worry that Government might shut down if Congress and the President have not agreed to one or two appropriations bills by the September 30 deadline. We want Congress and the President to have a level playing field, to negotiate in good faith, as Congresses and Presidents have done for years in this country. The second issue I want to talk about is why we have to do these things in this bill, why we can't do it in a separate bill, as the distinguished minority leader has asked that we do? It is because there is urgency. There is urgency in determining how we are going to do the processes of Government, whether it is census, whether it is just the functions of Government. There is an urgency that we set that process right now. So, Mr. President, when we hear all of the talk about sending the President a clean bill, we are sending the President a clean bill. We are sending the President a bill that provides for the funding for our armed services, to replenish their accounts; we are sending the President the replenishing of the Federal Emergency Management Account; we are providing for the people who are in need as we speak, and we are making sure that there is not a disruption today, nor on October 1 or 2 of this year, because we are providing for the orderly transition of Government from fiscal year to fiscal year. Mr. President, when you hear all of the horror stories about this bill not being clean, having political overtones, we need to set the record straight. The President can sign the bill that we are sending him, or he can tell us what he doesn't like about it and negotiate in good faith. But to tell the American people that any victim of a disaster is not getting funding, especially when he has not even made a decision yet to declare the victims of a tornado in Texas last week a disaster so that they will know the funding is coming, I think is a specious argument. I ask the President and the minority leader to cease and desist from telling the American people something that is not true, and that is that we are not providing for the disaster victims and the armed services of our country. We are doing it, and we are providing responsible Government for the people who depend on Government checks, whether it is the worker or a citizen of our country, so they will be able to plan on October 1 of this year that there will not be a disruption for any reason in the normal processes of Government. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. What is the remaining time?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank you for presiding at this very important morning of celebration. We are here to talk about someone who is truly remarkable--our distinguished colleague, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond. Pablo Picasso once said it takes a long time to grow young. This is one point on which Strom and Picasso would agree. Picasso was still a painter at the age of 92, and of course, we all know what Strom Thurmond is doing today. He is leading our Nation. Strom often reminds me that Col. William Barrett Travis, the commander at the Alamo, was from Strom's home county in South Carolina. Although Strom missed the Battle of the Alamo by a few years, he has displayed the spirit of the Alamo time and time again--the sense of duty and commitment to freedom that made Colonel Travis such a hero at the Alamo. He was commissioned in the Army in 1924, and though he didn't need to, he volunteered for service in World War II at the age of 40. He wanted to. He served in both the Pacific and the European theaters and landed in a glider on the beach at Normandy on D-day. He earned 18 decorations, including the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star for Valor. He remained in the Army Reserve. He retired at the rank of major general, following 36 years of active and reserve military service, nearly 40 years ago. I remember something that made such an impression on me in 1994 when I was a new Member of the Senate. We were celebrating the 50th anniversary of the landing at Normandy in 1944. I remember hearing--in absolute awe--that one current Member of Congress who landed at Normandy, Strom Thurmond, was to be honored. He missed the anniversary, and I remember thinking to myself how extraordinary his reason was. Strom Thurmond, who volunteered at the age of 40, and who landed on a glider at D-day, missed the 50th anniversary because he had a son graduating from high school. This is an extraordinary man. He has served as a State senator, a circuit court judge, a Governor, a soldier in time of war, a Presidential candidate, and now is the oldest and longest serving Senator in our Nation's history. It was my pleasure to serve with Strom Thurmond on the Armed Services Committee, and I can say as one who was there, he worked for only one purpose: To ensure our country's national defense remained strong. During his last campaign, Senator Thurmond asked the people of South Carolina one simple question: Who can do more to help steer the future of America toward the conservative principles we believe in? Who can best continue to diligently and effectively help all the people of South Carolina? The people of South Carolina spoke resoundingly that the person was Strom Thurmond and returned him to the U.S. Senate. We are here today to honor their choice and their confidence in this gentleman. Strom has announced that it is, after all, a man's prerogative to change his mind. He has announced that he will no longer support continual service without term limits. So, now that he has embraced term limits, in a magnanimous gesture he has announced that he will not run for reelection in 2002. We think that really is magnanimous because there are few South Carolina politicians who would have the energy to take on the man that we have affectionately dubbed ``The Thurmonater.'' He began his career in public service as a coach in 1923, and 74 years later he remains a coach and teacher to all of us. Senator Thurmond, it is a pleasure and an honor to work beside you, and I wish you continued success in a long and healthy life that I know you will have. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to talk for 5 to 7 minutes just to augment the remarks of my colleague, the Senator from Missouri, who has done yeoman's service on this issue. Senator Ashcroft has worked on this issue for probably 6 months now, trying to educate people on the importance of allowing this stress relief valve to be passed into law in America. I commend him for it. What he said was very, very important because, in fact, the question I get asked when I am home and talking about this bill is, ``Why is it necessary to have a law? Why can't people go in and ask their boss to take time off on Friday afternoon to see their children's soccer game and make it up on Monday?'' Most people in this country believe that you can do this already. The biggest surprise is that 60 million hourly workers in this country do not have this option. They do not have this option because the U.S. Congress in 1938 passed a law when only 10 percent of the women, the mothers in this country, worked. It said you have a 40-hour workweek, and employers and hourly employees cannot violate the 40-hour workweek unless you pay time and a half for overtime work. Federal employees have the ability to go in and say, ``I would like to work 38 hours this week and 42 hours next week.'' Salaried employees have the same option. But 60 million hourly employees--the ones who need flexibility the most--are not able to do it because of a law passed in 1938 when 10 percent of the mothers in this country worked. Today, two-thirds of the working women in this country have school-age children. When I talk to my friends who still have school-age children, they say what they need more than anything else is time. They need time more than they need money. They need time with their children more than anything else. The stress of not being able to go to the football game or the soccer game is what hurts them the most. So why wouldn't we give them the ability to go in and talk to their employer and have the flextime or the comptime that was described so ably by the Senator from Missouri? Why wouldn't we do that? It is just good, old-fashioned, common horse sense. That is what it is. The people out in the country know that. They can't even believe we are talking about it. Only inside the beltway in Washington, DC, would it be a question that two adults would be able to sit down and say, ``I would like to work 38 hours this week and 42 hours next week, or I would love the ability to work 2 extra hours 4 days a week and take Friday off,'' as Federal employees are able to do. People want the ability to manage their own time without taking a pay cut. You know when the President talks about flextime, he is talking about nonpaid time. We don't want a person to have to forego the mortgage payment or the car payment. We want people to be able to budget, to know, ``This is what I am going to have for spending, this is what I am going to have to spend, this is my budget, and I do not want to give up the 2 hours of pay. But if I can keep on an even keel with my budget and be able to have the flexibility in time, that is what I need most in the world right now.'' Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Texas are going to try to make sure that the 60 million employees in this country who are not now able to sit down with their employer and ask for their flextime or this comptime do, in fact, have that ability. That is what this is about. The Senator from Missouri came up with the idea that we should finally, once and for all, since 1938, come into the real world. And the real world is that two-thirds of the working women in this country have children in school. They need relief. So the Senator from Missouri and I are going to try to give it to them by enacting flextime and comptime so people can work their normal hours or have the flexibility to change their hours but keep their salaries constant. And it is always at the option of the employee to say, ``I would rather have time or I would rather have money.'' That is something that the Senator from Missouri was very careful to make sure in his bill that be protected. That is the right of the employee to say, ``No, I do not want time-and-a-half time; I want time- and-a-half money.'' That should be the right of the employee. But if the employee says, ``Oh, thank goodness. What I really want to do is to go to my child's soccer game on Friday afternoon, and now I can go and ask my employer for that time off and make it up next week and not have to worry about the car payment,'' that is what we are trying to do. That is the simple fact. It is why this bill is necessary. And I commend the Senator from Missouri for working to make this happen. Why we are having so much trouble getting this bill on the floor for debate is because it is being filibustered on the other side, which I don't understand. I don't know why the unions would be against it. This doesn't interfere with union contracts. If there is a closed shop, a contract shop, a union shop, then this law isn't in effect. The union is able to do the negotiating. But if there isn't a union, why should Government be in the way of allowing people the ability to have that time with their child at their soccer game or their football game or their Little League Baseball game? Big brother Federal Government should not be in the way, nor should big brother unions be in the way, because this does not affect union contracts. But there are a lot of people in those 60 million hourly employees who do not have a union contract that also are precluded by law from this flexibility. And, Mr. President, we don't think it is right. We want to do something about it. That is what the Ashcroft bill does for the working people of this country. I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will allow us to get this bill on the floor. Stop filibustering it. Stop stonewalling. Let us get this bill on the floor. Let us have the debate. Let us have the amendments. Whatever is appropriate we will work with if we can just get it on the floor. Right now, for the last 4 weeks, 5 weeks, we have just been trying to get the Democrats to agree to let us bring it up. It is being filibustered. The time has come for everybody to stand up and say, OK, I will put my amendments out there. We will vote them up or down. But let us let the working people of America, the 60 million hourly employees, have the same opportunities as Federal employees, State employees, and salaried employees to be able to take off 2 hours on Friday afternoon and make it up on Monday. That is what this bill is about, and I hope that our colleagues will allow us to debate it and pass it and give this stress relief valve to the working people of America. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.