Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his efforts. I appreciate his leadership as full committee chairman because he makes it possible for members to move important legislation in a timely fashion, and I am pleased to hear his commitment to move S. 738, Amtrak reauthorization and reform legislation, as soon as possible. In particular, he is exercising great leadership on the issue of Amtrak. I know he personally has doubts about our current passenger rail policy but, as chairman, has not acted to impede the will of the Commerce Committee or Congress to continue the national passenger rail system. He does, however, insist these the policies and their implementation be responsible. I commend him for that, appreciate the leadership it represents, and will work closely with him to that end. I support this amendment because I believe Amtrak must have both reform and capital funding. I commend Senator Roth for his commitment to authorize a capital fund for Amtrak and will work with him to see that it occurs. He is a cosponsor of my Amtrak reauthorization bill and am certain he will make a similar commitment to help achieve its passage. I believe we agree that the passage of both of these bills is necessary to sustain Amtrak. Increased Amtrak funding alone is not enough; nor are reforms without adequate funding. However, providing the funding without the reforms not only shortchanges Amtrak, it shortchanges the taxpayer. I fully share the sense of this Senate that appropriations from the new intercity rail fund should go to a reformed and reauthorized Amtrak. I urge all of my colleagues to work with me to pass Amtrak reform legislation as soon as possible in fulfillment of this resolution.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That will be fine. I probably will not need all of that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the chairman of the committee. We are going to vote in about an hour and a half to invoke cloture, which means we are going to vote on whether we can take up the Family Friendly Workplace Act. Mr. President, this act is long overdue. This is going to free the hourly employees of our country to have the same flexibility that Federal workers now have, that most State workers now have, that salaried employees now have. Only hourly employees are not able to walk into their employer and say, ``Could I take off at 3 o'clock Friday afternoon to go to my child's soccer game and work 2 extra hours on Monday?'' The hourly employees of this country are not allowed to walk into their employer and say, ``You know, I don't ever work overtime, but I'd like to be able to work some extra hours and bank those so that when I am able to go on a camping trip with my child, I will have those hours to do it.'' An hourly employee is not allowed to walk in to his or her employer's office and say, ``I would like to know if it would be possible for me to work maybe 9 hours everyday for 2 weeks and take every other Friday off.'' An hourly employee cannot do that. And yet this has worked so well for Federal employees and salaried employees who have dealt with the stresses of being a working mom or a working dad. They need to work, they need the extra income, but they do not have enough time with their children. Salaried employees can do this. Federal employees can do this. State employees can do this. But hourly workers cannot. Why? Because the Federal Government says they cannot, because the Federal Government discriminates against employees by a bill that was passed into law in 1938. Mr. President, in 1938, 10 percent of the women in this country with children worked--10 percent. So it was not exactly an issue on the front burner at the time that working moms had the kind of stresses they do today. The ones who were working did, no question about it, but there were not as many. Today, two-thirds of the working women in this country have school-age children--two-thirds. I was talking to my daughter last night. I was worried because I had not heard from her. I left a message for her Sunday. Ray and I were trying to reach her and we left a message for her Sunday and said call us back. She did not call back. She called me last night about 10:30, and she said, ``Oh, gosh, I'm really sorry, everything is fine, but I had just beem volunteering full time at the school and Travis' Little League directors meeting was tonight, I had just gotten home from the directors' meeting, and we have been working with our twin daughters having a pen pal program with another school and were planning a party for the children who were coming over to meet for the first time.'' My gosh, I thought, how does she have enough hours in the day, and she is a full-time mom. What if she were working and trying to do those wonderful things that she is doing to support her son's Little League, or our twin granddaughters' activities in Brownies, which she hosts every week at her home? All the extra hours that she volunteers at school, reading to all the children in school at the library, I thought, what if she were a working mom? And I thought to myself, two- thirds of the working women in this country have school-age children, and they would love to do what Brenda Maxon, our daughter, does volunteering at school to read to the children, being on the board of directors of the Little League, working with her twin daughters' pen pal class and having Brownie troop meetings every week. Those are such wonderful things, and I am so grateful that my grandchildren have such a wonderful mom. But, Mr. President, if she were working full time, she would have the stresses that would make it impossible. Impossible. Every mom would like to be able to do those things. We are trying to relieve some of that stress with this bill. We are going to try to give hourly employees the ability to say, ``I would like to host a Brownie troop every other Friday. Could I work 9 hours every other day of the week and take every other Friday off so I can host a Brownie troop for my daughter?'' That is what we want for the hourly employees of our country. What this bill does is allow the hourly employees to come in and say, ``I'd like to work overtime and bank the hours to take a day off.'' Or, if an employer says, ``I need overtime work,'' the person can have their choice: Time-and-a-half pay or time-and-a-half hours, and, once again, bank those hours for when they are needed. Or to be able to walk in and say, ``Can I work 9 hours a day and take every other Friday off?'' Or ``Can I work 10 hours 4 days a week and take Fridays off?'' Because other people are able to do that. Maybe they do not have child care on Fridays. They have child care 4 days a week they feel really comfortable with, but not on Fridays. You see, the difference between 1938 laws and today is that I think employers realize how important it is that they have happy, productive employees. And when two-thirds of the working women in this country have school-aged children, they know there is stress in this life. What can we do to make these employees happier, to give them a release valve, to let them have that time to do something special with their children so that they do not worry that their children are going to grow up without their awareness of how much their moms and dads love them, cherish them, and want them to have solid values? So, Mr. President, that is what the bill is. I have heard the opposition. They say, ``Oh, but this will just allow employers to coerce employees. All the rights are with the employers.'' Well, of course the employer is running the business. Many times it is the small business man or woman that has gone out and borrowed the money, that works 80 hours a week trying to make it go, to contribute to our economy. It is not easy being in business in America with all of the taxes and regulations and litigation that a person in business must face. So, of course, they are running the operation. But that does not mean they are bad. It does not mean that they are going to say, to an employee, ``Oh, no. Of course you're not going to do that. I don't want to pay you overtime.'' That is not the way America is. This is not 1938. It is not 1948. It is 1997. Welcome to the end of the 20th century. Employers want happy, productive employees. They are going to bend over backward. And they do bend over backwards to make life better for their employees. And if it is not going to disrupt the workplace, of course they are going to say, yes, they would like the flexibility to do this. It has been stated on the floor, ``Oh, well, the only people supporting this are employers.'' That is not true. This morning in my office I met with three Federal workers. And I said, ``How do you like flextime?'' They said, ``Oh, it's wonderful, of course. We love it.'' And I said, ``Well, can you imagine why many of the Democrats are keeping this bill from coming up so that others would be able to have these same rights?'' And they looked at me sort of aghast--aghast--of course. What in the world could be wrong with adding one more option for the working moms and dads in this country that are hourly employees? We are taking away no rights. We are taking nothing away. In fact, the unions are opposed to this, but I do not understand it, because if there is a union contract, it does not apply. A union contract overrides the ability for this employee to go outside of the union contract to his or her employer. So the unions' rights are certainly protected. Why would the union not want other hourly employees, who do not have union contracts, why would they step in and say that we should not allow hourly employees in this country to have the same rights as salaried employees do, as Federal employees do? What could be their motivation? It is incomprehensible to me that adding another option to the hourly employees' ability to relieve the stress in their lives would be opposed by anyone, by unions, by members of the Democratic side of the Senate. It is incomprehensible because every single Republican is certainly going to vote for this bill. But we need 60 votes to move forward. And I do not know if we will have 60 votes. But I would like to have the explanation from someone who is going to vote against this bill, why they would not allow the hourly employees of this country to have another option to relieve the stress in their lives, to spend more time with their kids, paid rather than unpaid, which is what the President's plan would do. This is paid. What if the hourly employee cannot afford the Family and Medical Leave Act, which does not have pay, because they have a mortgage payment and they are barely making ends meet, they have a car payment, they have day care payments, they just cannot quite squeeze it out if they cannot get paid? That is why this is so important. They will continue to get paid at their regular rates. They know what their hourly compensation is. They know they can depend on it. They would just choose, if they wanted to, instead of getting extra pay, they would take extra time off. In a poll done by Money magazine, a survey found 64 percent of the public and 68 percent of the women would choose paid time off, which our bill would give them, for overtime work instead of added pay because it means that it is up to them to have the extra time with their kids without in any way giving up the ability to pay the car payment and the mortgage payment and the day care payment. So, Mr. President, this bill is so fair. It is so right. It is impossible to think--if you go out and do an interview on the street, talk to people who are not in Washington, DC. Talk to people who are in the real world, working hard to make ends meet, running a small business. Talk to people who are making this country tick. It is not the people in the U.S. Senate that are making this country tick; it is the people out there on the frontline, working to make ends meet as hourly employees or as small business owners or as salaried employees or Federal workers. They are out there trying to make ends meet. And we are giving them one more option to relieve the stress in their lives. If you ask a man on the street, would they like this as an option, not as a mandate, but as an option to be able to at some point attend a special football game, a special soccer game, a special Little League baseball game, or to be able to host the Brownie troop every Friday, would they like the option to go to their employer and say, ``Could I have flexible time? Could I have compensatory time?'' I will guarantee you, that 8 out of 10 people will say absolutely yes--probably 10 out of 10--but I know 8 out of 10 would, or 68 percent of the women or 65 percent of all people. An overwhelming majority would say, ``Hey, I didn't know they couldn't.'' That is what most people would say. ``Are you kidding me? You mean, there are people in this country who cannot walk into their employer's office and say, `Could I have time off Friday at 3 o'clock and work Monday until 7?' Well, gosh, yeah, I think they ought to have that right. I sure do.'' That is what we are trying to give them today. So, Mr. President, I hope people will ask themselves the question-- ask yourself the question, should hourly employees have the same rights as everybody else that works in this country? Should they? And if you think they should, then you should vote today for cloture so we can get on with this bill. I think the President would have a hard time not signing a flextime bill when he campaigned saying exactly that is what he wanted. He wanted flextime. We are going to give it to him, if the Democrats will let us move forward on this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think it is very important in this country that we have a national rail passenger system. Rail is a viable alternative transportation. We now have a bus system that is feeding into Amtrak stations so people can come from small communities on the bus, into the Amtrak station, and go anywhere in the country as long as we keep our national system. You can go from Marshall, TX, to Chicago, IL, or to San Antonio and then to Los Angeles or all the way to Florida. It is really an exciting opportunity. However, Mr. President, the national rail passenger service that we have now is really just an experiment. It really does not work very well, through no fault of the people who run it. Tom Downs is actually doing a terrific job. But we in Congress have put so many constraints and mandates on him that he cannot possibly compete to survive. So, in fact, it is time to get the railroad back on track. It is time to get this railroad right. We can do it if Congress will correct some of the problems that we have put on this rail passenger train and let them compete. We have told them, ``Run a good railroad,'' but we have tied one arm behind their back. So now it is time to let them compete, with the help of the bill I am introducing, most of which passed out of the Commerce Committee last year. I am chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. It is in my purview to reauthorize Amtrak, and I want to reauthorize it and reform it so that it can compete and, hopefully, by the year 2002, there will not have to be operational subsidies from the taxpayers of America. But there is no question this will fail unless we have these reforms that will allow Amtrak to operate more like a business. So, what are we trying to do? We are trying to have a system that is up and going without operational subsidies by the year 2002. Many of my friends say, ``I do not know why we should help Amtrak. Why should we have taxpayer subsidies of Amtrak when all the other transportation modes do not need taxpayer subsidies?'' Every transportation mode has taxpayer subsidies. Part of the reason we have mobility in our country is because we subsidize highways, we subsidize airports, we now also subsidize trains, and it does provide mobility. I want to try to get Amtrak back on track, get it to run right, and see if we can have a passenger rail system that is dependable, that provides good service and viable transportation options to all the people of our country, whether they are elderly and do not want to drive, whether they just cannot drive, whether they do not like to fly, whether they live in a small community that does not have any kind of passenger service. We want people to have this mobility. How are we going to do it? The Amtrak reform bill, first, will repeal two laws that have been very expensive. One is the 6-year termination provisions for anyone who is employed at Amtrak, if a line is shut down. Now, I am sure there are a lot of people in America that would like to have a 6-year termination agreement that says if you lose your job, you get 6 years full pay. That would be nice, but it is not realistic, and it certainly does not meet today's standards. Even many Amtrak employees tell me that they realize this is out of line. It is a congressional mandate that they have a 6-year termination agreement, but they know that Amtrak cannot compete with that kind of agreement in place. It is just much too expensive. They would rather keep their jobs. They love what they are doing. They want to keep their jobs rather than have a 6-year termination agreement. So we want to require Amtrak to have free and open bargaining with its unions in the absence of a Government mandate of a 6-year termination agreement. In fact, it would be free and open like every other union negotiation is in this country. That is fair, and I think most Amtrak employees agree that is fair. Let them sit at the bargaining table with open and fair negotiations, and they will be able to get the best that the market can bear while still having a good job, a viable job, and doing a service for the people of our country. This bill will also extinguish the prohibition on contracting out. One of the things that Tom Downs tells me they need is the ability to make the decision if they want to contract out in order to save costs, because if we are going to tell Mr. Downs that he has to run a tight ship, we cannot put mandates on him that are not anywhere else in any other competitive system in our country and expect him to do a good job. We have to take the shackles off. We also must give him the ability to have some liability reform. He says one of the most expensive things he has to deal with is liability and not being able to have the right of indemnification with the people that own the tracks Amtrak uses. We need to have liability reform, and, in fact, this was passed out of the Commerce Committee last year. Like last year's bill, the liability reform in my bill would have caps on punitive damages for two times compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. In fact, these kinds of liability limits, I think, are quite reasonable. Many States are enacting these kinds of liability limits, in particular for publicly assisted transportation services. It allows a person who has been wrongly injured to have compensation for that, but it puts some limitation so there will be a budget on it, so that there will be some reliability about how much you have to put in the budget for that kind of occurrence. It also confirms the right of passenger rail operators and owners of rights-of-way to contractually indemnify each other for liability arising out of an accident. In addition to the reforms, we have accountability. We have an independent audit of Amtrak that will commence as soon as the bill is passed and signed by the President that will provide a basis upon which to judge what we can do better in Amtrak. Like last year's bill, we also have an Amtrak reform council that is designed to monitor Amtrak's progress and viability and to make independent recommendations. We want overseers who are saying to Amtrak, is what you are doing what's best, and also to tell Congress that if we are not going to be able to make this work, we are not going to keep throwing money at Amtrak if it does not have a chance to survive. So we have told this independent council if you make a determination that Amtrak just cannot make it, even with the reforms that we are giving them, then tell us. We will pull the plug and we will say it was a great effort but it just did not work. Mr. President, what we are trying to do is give Amtrak a chance. We are trying to get it right. It is time to get this railroad right. In fact, it is time to get it back on track. We have had 26 years of experiments. We have not gotten it right yet. Most of that is at the feet of Congress. We have to give them a chance to compete if, in fact, we are going to have by the year 2002 a national rail passenger train opportunity--real mobility for people that live in small towns, people who are elderly, people who do not want to fly, and who can't fly or simply want more transportation options. We want mobility in our country. And we have made huge investments in infrastructure in our country in highways and airports. I think rail is a component part of that system. We want a passenger rail opportunity in this country. But we don't want taxpayers subsidizing the operations of trains for the passengers who do not choose to use this route. So we believe that this is the fairest way--reauthorize, reform, tell them to get their act together, and give them the tools to do it. That is the mandate of this bill. So, Mr. President, I thank you and ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Amtrak. I realize we have gone now from judges and we are going into other types of debate, but I want to introduce the Amtrak reauthorization and reform bill. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 738 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think it is very important in this country that we have a national rail passenger system. Rail is a viable alternative transportation. We now have a bus system that is feeding into Amtrak stations so people can come from small communities on the bus, into the Amtrak station, and go anywhere in the country as long as we keep our national system. You can go from Marshall, TX, to Chicago, IL, or to San Antonio and then to Los Angeles or all the way to Florida. It is really an exciting opportunity. However, Mr. President, the national rail passenger service that we have now is really just an experiment. It really does not work very well, through no fault of the people who run it. Tom Downs is actually doing a terrific job. But we in Congress have put so many constraints and mandates on him that he cannot possibly compete to survive. So, in fact, it is time to get the railroad back on track. It is time to get this railroad right. We can do it if Congress will correct some of the problems that we have put on this rail passenger train and let them compete. We have told them, ``Run a good railroad,'' but we have tied one arm behind their back. So now it is time to let them compete, with the help of the bill I am introducing, most of which passed out of the Commerce Committee last year. I am chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. It is in my purview to reauthorize Amtrak, and I want to reauthorize it and reform it so that it can compete and, hopefully, by the year 2002, there will not have to be operational subsidies from the taxpayers of America. But there is no question this will fail unless we have these reforms that will allow Amtrak to operate more like a business. So, what are we trying to do? We are trying to have a system that is up and going without operational subsidies by the year 2002. Many of my friends say, ``I do not know why we should help Amtrak. Why should we have taxpayer subsidies of Amtrak when all the other transportation modes do not need taxpayer subsidies?'' Every transportation mode has taxpayer subsidies. Part of the reason we have mobility in our country is because we subsidize highways, we subsidize airports, we now also subsidize trains, and it does provide mobility. I want to try to get Amtrak back on track, get it to run right, and see if we can have a passenger rail system that is dependable, that provides good service and viable transportation options to all the people of our country, whether they are elderly and do not want to drive, whether they just cannot drive, whether they do not like to fly, whether they live in a small community that does not have any kind of passenger service. We want people to have this mobility. How are we going to do it? The Amtrak reform bill, first, will repeal two laws that have been very expensive. One is the 6-year termination provisions for anyone who is employed at Amtrak, if a line is shut down. Now, I am sure there are a lot of people in America that would like to have a 6-year termination agreement that says if you lose your job, you get 6 years full pay. That would be nice, but it is not realistic, and it certainly does not meet today's standards. Even many Amtrak employees tell me that they realize this is out of line. It is a congressional mandate that they have a 6-year termination agreement, but they know that Amtrak cannot compete with that kind of agreement in place. It is just much too expensive. They would rather keep their jobs. They love what they are doing. They want to keep their jobs rather than have a 6-year termination agreement. So we want to require Amtrak to have free and open bargaining with its unions in the absence of a Government mandate of a 6-year termination agreement. In fact, it would be free and open like every other union negotiation is in this country. That is fair, and I think most Amtrak employees agree that is fair. Let them sit at the bargaining table with open and fair negotiations, and they will be able to get the best that the market can bear while still having a good job, a viable job, and doing a service for the people of our country. This bill will also extinguish the prohibition on contracting out. One of the things that Tom Downs tells me they need is the ability to make the decision if they want to contract out in order to save costs, because if we are going to tell Mr. Downs that he has to run a tight ship, we cannot put mandates on him that are not anywhere else in any other competitive system in our country and expect him to do a good job. We have to take the shackles off. We also must give him the ability to have some liability reform. He says one of the most expensive things he has to deal with is liability and not being able to have the right of indemnification with the people that own the tracks Amtrak uses. We need to have liability reform, and, in fact, this was passed out of the Commerce Committee last year. Like last year's bill, the liability reform in my bill would have caps on punitive damages for two times compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. In fact, these kinds of liability limits, I think, are quite reasonable. Many States are enacting these kinds of liability limits, in particular for publicly assisted transportation services. It allows a person who has been wrongly injured to have compensation for that, but it puts some limitation so there will be a budget on it, so that there will be some reliability about how much you have to put in the budget for that kind of occurrence. It also confirms the right of passenger rail operators and owners of rights-of-way to contractually indemnify each other for liability arising out of an accident. In addition to the reforms, we have accountability. We have an independent audit of Amtrak that will commence as soon as the bill is passed and signed by the President that will provide a basis upon which to judge what we can do better in Amtrak. Like last year's bill, we also have an Amtrak reform council that is designed to monitor Amtrak's progress and viability and to make independent recommendations. We want overseers who are saying to Amtrak, is what you are doing what's best, and also to tell Congress that if we are not going to be able to make this work, we are not going to keep throwing money at Amtrak if it does not have a chance to survive. So we have told this independent council if you make a determination that Amtrak just cannot make it, even with the reforms that we are giving them, then tell us. We will pull the plug and we will say it was a great effort but it just did not work. Mr. President, what we are trying to do is give Amtrak a chance. We are trying to get it right. It is time to get this railroad right. In fact, it is time to get it back on track. We have had 26 years of experiments. We have not gotten it right yet. Most of that is at the feet of Congress. We have to give them a chance to compete if, in fact, we are going to have by the year 2002 a national rail passenger train opportunity--real mobility for people that live in small towns, people who are elderly, people who do not want to fly, and who can't fly or simply want more transportation options. We want mobility in our country. And we have made huge investments in infrastructure in our country in highways and airports. I think rail is a component part of that system. We want a passenger rail opportunity in this country. But we don't want taxpayers subsidizing the operations of trains for the passengers who do not choose to use this route. So we believe that this is the fairest way--reauthorize, reform, tell them to get their act together, and give them the tools to do it. That is the mandate of this bill. So, Mr. President, I thank you and ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and, of course, the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina. Mr. President, there is no Senate responsibility I take more seriously than the obligation we have to advise and consent on treaties. We are discussing two treaties today that mark the past and the future of arms control. It is interesting to me that they have become linked in the manner before us today. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his vision in this effort. The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty is a pillar of post-cold-war security in Europe. That treaty, over a decade in negotiation and finished by President Bush in 1990, solidified NATO's victory in the cold war by dramatically reducing the size of the conventional forces arrayed against each other. That treaty also restricted the areas on the flanks of Europe where the Soviet Union or its successors could place troops and equipment. This particular provision was one of the most difficult to negotiate because it was one of the most meaningful. By restricting the size of forces on Europe's northern and southern flanks, we greatly reduced the likelihood that the Soviet Union or its successors could conduct an effective assault on western forces. Because of the importance of this provision, it is with great reluctance that I support the changes to the agreement before us today, which will relax these flank restrictions. It is true that over 50,000 pieces of equipment limited by the CFE Treaty have been destroyed or removed since the treaty went into effect. Nevertheless, with the changes in the agreement regarding the flanks of Europe, we will all have to be watchful that we not slide back too far from the high standard we set for ourselves and for Russia in the original treaty. Mr. President, I will also say that we will have to reevaluate our actions when we learn the full details of the NATO-Russia agreement just announced today. For example, I am hopeful that we did not place unilateral restrictions on our own ability to deploy troops in the potentially expanded area of NATO responsibility in exchange for Russia support for NATO expansion. I light of the changes we are making to the CFE Treaty--permitting Russia to deploy forces in areas that have been off-limits until now--such a unilateral restriction on our own ability to move troops around Europe would be shortsighted indeed. Even with these reservations, though, I am willing to support the treaty document before us today because of condition 9, which will require the President to submit to the Senate for ratification any substantive changes to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. My support for an effective, global ballistic missile defense system greatly outweighs the concerns I may have with changes to the CFE Treaty. Mr. President, if the CFE Treaty is a forward looking treaty that reflects the new realities of post-cold-war Europe, the ABM Treaty is an outdated document that harkens back to an era that is thankfully behind us. The ABM Treaty was with the USSR. Now that the cold war is over it is restricting the inexorable march of technology, a technology that I am convinced will make ballistic missiles obsolete. The Clinton administration wants to bring new countries into this outmoded agreement. If the United States was limited in its ability to deploy an effective missile defense when the treaty was with Russia alone, how much more restricted will we find ourselves when there are half-a-dozen or more new members in this treaty? The document before us today does not prejudice the Senate's action regarding the ABM Treaty. It only says that if the President wishes to permit other countries to join this treaty, then the Senate must fulfill its constitutional role to advise and consent on such a change to the treaty. Colleagues will have the opportunity at that time to debate the merits of bringing new countries into the treaty or simply letting this treaty fade into the history it represents. While I support the latter, we aren't deciding that matter today. Today, we're simply asserting our prerogative to advise and consent on treaties. No Member of this body should be comfortable that any administration would want to make major modifications to a treaty without Senate approval. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of ratification before us today and assert their rights as a Member of the U.S. Senate. I commend Senator Helms once again with the wisdom and leadership, a staunch defender always, of senatorial prerogatives and U.S. national security. I commend all of those who are going to stand for the rights of the Senate and therefore the people, to change any potential treaty that this country has committed itself to, because we will keep our treaty obligations and we must make sure that the people of our country are informed and support any changes in those treaties. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. After him, if I could have 8 to 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would you like to go next, Mr. Chairman?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I do not know what the time limitations are. At least 10 minutes, in your range, or I could cut it back.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if I were just a person sitting out there watching this debate, I think my first question would be, ``Well, why can't an employee go to his or her employer and say, `I'd like to take time off at 3 o'clock on Friday, and could I work extra next week?' '' I am sure people are scratching their heads and saying, ``What would prevent them from doing that?'' The law prevents them from doing that if they are hourly employees. The great Big Brother Federal Government says ``No, no, Mrs. Smith, you cannot go to your employer and ask for time off at 3 o'clock to attend John's soccer game on Friday afternoon and suggest making it up next week. You can't do it if you are an hourly employee,'' because the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was passed in 1938 when fewer than 10 percent of families had both spouses in the workplace, prohibits Dorothy Smith from being able to go in and say, ``I'd like to go to John's soccer game on Friday afternoon, and could I work an extra hour on Monday and Tuesday?'' So now Dorothy, who is one of two-thirds of the working women in America who have school-age children, is being subject to a law that was passed in 1938 that does not even relate to the workplace today. Mr. President, with the Family Friendly Workplace Act we are trying to bring our labor laws into the 21st century to reflect the changing face of working America and to meet the growing demands of work and family. We realize that two-thirds of the working women in this country have school-age children, and that what they need most is a little relief from the stress caused by being both the provider at work and the caretaker at home. When their child comes up to them and says, ``Mommy, can't you come to my tennis game,'' ``Can't you come to my baseball game this afternoon,'' mommy will no longer have to say, ``No, I'm sorry, there is just no way because Federal law won't allow me to do it. I have to say, Senator Ashcroft has provided great leadership on this issue, because until he proposed this bill, I was not fully aware of the restrictions the Fair Labor Standards Act was placing on the hourly working men and women of this country. I, like most Americans, thought it common sense that an hourly employee would have the ability to work a few extra hours 1 week in order to take a few hours off in another week. In fact, as the need for this bill demonstrates, the hourly employee in America has fewer hours than virtually every other class of workers. A salaried employee can work out flexible work arrangements with his or her employer. A Federal employee at any level can do this, but not an hourly employee in the private sector. Mr. President, I don't see the logic. In fact, when the bill was passed in 1978 to allow hourly Federal workers to have this right, this very important flextime/comptime right, Senator Kennedy, who is now opposing comptime/flextime for private sector workers, cosponsored that very legislation. I heard the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts say that our legislation could allow coercion of employers into taking or not taking time off in lieu of overtime pay. In fact, the bill that he cosponsored to extend comptime and flextime to Federal workers allows Federal agencies to make acceptance of comptime in lieu of overtime a condition of employment. Mr. President, I suggest it is the legislation that the Senator from Massachusetts supported, not the present bill, that allows for coercion. Far from allowing employers to make comptime or flextime a condition of employment, S. 4 gives employees the absolute right to refuse any of these new options, and provides for severe penalties for employers who might pressure employees one way or the other. In fact, neither the employee or the employer has the ability to dictate whether the other chooses to participate in a comptime or flextime option. Either side can say, ``No thank you.'' If the employer says on Friday, ``I need you to work 2 extra hours today,'' the employee then has the right to say, ``That's fine, and I will take that in overtime pay,'' or ``That's fine, and I would like to bank that at a time-and-a-half rate to take later on as free time.'' Likewise, if an employee goes to the employer and says, ``I would like to work 2 overtime hours this Friday and take those off with pay next Monday,'' the employer has the right to say, ``I'm sorry, but it doesn't work into the schedule this week.'' But Mr. President, let me make one point clear. Once an employee has accrued either comptime or flextime, the employee would have the legal right to take that time, with pay, with reasonable notice to the employer, so long as taking the time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the business. If the standard were otherwise, Mr. President, scant few employers would even want to offer comptime or flextime, for fear that it might shut down their business if too many employees left at some critical time. A florist simply could not afford to lose his or her employees around Valentine's or Mother's Day, for example. For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to argue that employees should have the absolute, unfettered right to take time off whenever they choose for other than serious health or family needs is disingenuous. They know that doing so is unreasonable and would prevent workers from having any flexibility because most employers would not be able to offer a comptime or flextime program. In fact, in the bill that was sponsored by Senators Kennedy, Dodd and others that extended comptime and flextime to Federal workers recognized this. The bill they supported also allows Federal workers to take comptime only within a reasonable period after the employee makes the request and only if the use does not unduly disrupt the operations of the Government agency. That is exactly the same standard in our bill today. By the way, Mr. President, it is also the exact same standard that provides for non-emergency leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, again supported by my many if not most of my colleagues who now oppose this bill. But Mr. President, I think the essence of this bill is not whether the employer or the employee have the upper hand legally speaking, because this bill puts them on an even playing field. Rather, it is a matter of the employee and the employer coming together. The only reason an employee would want to take comptime or flextime is so that they can restore some measure of control and sanity to their workweek. The only reason an employer would want to offer comptime or flextime is so that his or her employees will be more engaged, fulfilled, and ultimately more productive at their jobs. This bill truly will create millions of win-win arrangements throughout this country, where both employer and employee walk away happy. The employer might say, ``Gosh, we've got a big order that has to go out on Friday. Could we, instead, have you work overtime Friday rather than Monday,'' assuming that wasn't the time the employee asked for time off, say it was Thursday. So, of course, the employer can say, ``Well, could you do it at this time?'' I think reasonable people will be able to work this out. I thought it was very interesting that the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin said, ``Gosh, what if you have biweekly schedules and a person works 60 hours in 1 week and 20 hours the next week? That may make it harder to find child care.'' What if the person is having a hard time finding child care in the Monday and Tuesday of the following week and would like to go to her employer and say, ``I would like to work extra hours this week when I have child care and take off 2 days next week when I don't have child care?'' The point, Mr. President, is that we are trying to give more options to the hourly employee of this country. I ask the labor unions, what are you afraid of? Why wouldn't you want hourly employees to have this right, because, in fact, you know we have protected labor union contracts in this bill. If employees are under a labor union contract, then this law simply does not apply. If the labor union doesn't allow them to, this bill would not extend to them the right to take comptime or flextime. Labor contracts will not in any way be violated. So why is labor so afraid of this bill? Why would they not allow the hourly employees of our country who don't have labor contracts to have the right to have some added flexibility and manageability in their schedules. Mr. President, I think it is very important for us to put in perspective that we are adding another option for the hourly employees of this country, because we know that what moms need most if they are working is relief from stress. They need the option of time. This doesn't say they have to take comptime instead of overtime; but it gives them the option. Recent polls show that these are options that working Americans are overwhelmingly demanding. More and more people in the workplace are saying, ``I'd rather have the time. I would rather have the ability to go home and spend more time with my children, without losing any money in my paycheck.'' A recent Money magazine survey found 64 percent of the public and 68 percent of women would choose time off over cash for overtime work. So, why would we not give the option to those working women to get that time--without wrecking their budgets, I might add? The Family and Medical Leave Act, as some have called for expanding, gives them time off, but it is not paid time off. We are talking about paid time off in this bill, so that working parents do not have to worry about making the mortgage payment or making the car payment if they take that 2 hours off for their child's soccer game. If their budget is a little tight this month because they had an extra visit to the dentist or the car breaks down, then the employee always has the right to take the cash for the hours he or she has banked. But if they have a secure budget and would rather have a little extra paid time to go to the soccer game, to go to the PTA meeting, to go to the baseball game, the Family Friendly Workplace Act gives them that option. It is an added advantage. It takes nothing away. That is what is important for all of us to remember. When the labor unions say, ``We think this is a bad bill,'' what are they afraid of? The Federal employees who have this right now love it. The polls show they love it. A recent Government Accounting Office survey found that Federal employees are pleased with their comptime and flextime options, 10 to 1. They love being able to work flexible schedules, like the very popular 9-hour days for 8 days, 8 hours the next day, then taking every other Friday off. They love that option to get to go on a camping trip on Friday or participate in a child's school activity. One parent here in the Washington, DC, area even talked about how wonderful it was that she and so many other parents at her child's school who were Federal employees are able to attend plays, football games, and other school activities on Fridays. She talked about the pride she felt at being able to see her son play football at so many Friday games. I think it is high time that every hourly worker in America have that same ability and right. Mr. President, we will apparently have a long time to talk about this bill because Senator Wellstone and others have signaled they may try and filibuster this bill. He is going to try to avoid a vote on the floor of the Senate on whether we are going to give the 60 million hourly working men and women in this country the same opportunity for flexible scheduling that the rest of the country enjoys. They want to avoid a vote to be able to tell that working mother that ``Yes, you can take Friday afternoon off, with pay, in order to see your child in a school play or to take your child to the doctor. I think for them to filibuster this bill and not give that added right to hourly employees begs--begs--for an explanation. Mr. President, I see our distinguished majority leader has come to the floor. I am happy to yield the floor and just say, in closing, that we will not give up this bill. If they are going to filibuster it, they will know we are going to fight for the hourly working moms in this country to spend more time with their children and at the same time be able to make the home mortgage payment and the car payment. Thank you, Mr. President, and I again want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, as well as the distinguished committee and subcommittee chairmen, Senator Jeffords and Senator DeWine, for their leadership and hard work on this most important bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will not appeal the ruling of the Chair, but I believe that Congress has to step up to the line and do what is right by the States. We have asked them to do more; they are trying to comply. Texas will not be the last one to come forward. I am going to pursue this legislatively if the President of the United States does not grant this request for offers, which meets all of the standards Congress has put forward. I will be back, Senator Gramm will be back, and there will be other States that will be affected by this. I hope that the Senate will be able to help us when we are able to put a germane amendment on a bill. Thank you.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, 6 months ago, the State of Texas started the process of asking for a request for offers, permission from the Federal Government to consolidate services in its welfare system. It would allow a welfare recipient to come into one place to get AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid, or disaster assistance. It would allow the State of Texas to run its own welfare system. Now, Mr. President, that is exactly what Congress asked the States to do. We said we are going to give you block grants, we want you to be more efficient, we want you to save money. The State of Texas is complying. In fact, Mr. President, Massachusetts is doing much the same as the State of Texas is now trying to do. Wisconsin is doing it, and Arizona is looking at it. It really is the beginning of what we have asked the States to do, and that is to become more efficient and do a better job for the recipients of welfare. The State of Texas has been waiting for 6 months and has gotten no answer from this administration. My amendment would grant the request for offers that Texas has put forward so that they can, in fact, consolidate their services and go out for bids to do it more efficiently. Our Governor has said he believes the State of Texas is losing $10 million a month while this request is pending. There is precedent in Congress to grant waivers such as this. Washington State and New York State were granted child support waivers. Mr. President, Congress has spoken. We have asked the States to do a job. The State of Texas is trying to comply, and others States are following along, and I am sorry to say that this administration is impeding the progress. They are thwarting the will of Congress. Mr. President, we must take action. We must take action so that the will of Congress can be done, which is to save welfare dollars and give the best service possible to welfare recipients. The will of Congress must go forward. I hope the President is not playing a game with the State of Texas. I hope the President is not waiting until this bill is finished and on his desk to turn down this request, because, in fact, Texas has met all of the requirements of the Federal Government. I have spoken to Secretary Donna Shalala about this, and I have talked to other people in the White House. I have done everything I can do to speed up this process. My colleague, Senator Gramm, who cosponsors this amendment, has also made the calls and written the letters to ask that this request be granted. Mr. President, this is the wave of the future. Texas is trying to save the taxpayer dollars of our States and, at the same time, save the taxpayer dollars of all Americans. This will not cost anything; this will save money. I know that everyone is ready to vote on this bill. It is very important to my State that we grant this request for offers so that Texas can fulfill its mission, which is to give the best service in the most efficient way, and that is exactly what we asked them to do. I urge adoption of my amendment.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Five minutes is all right. Amendment No. 62 (Purpose: To provide for enrollment flexibility)

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I have spoken approximately 2 minutes. So I will finish in approximately 3 minutes. Let me just say that the President doesn't have to veto this bill. This is the President's bill. It is a supplemental appropriation. It is going to renew the coffers of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Let's make no mistake, the money is going into North Dakota right now. The victims are getting all of the money to which they are entitled under Federal law right now. There is no delay. We are talking about refilling the coffers for future disasters that have not yet occurred. So there is no emergency here. The money is going out and we want to refill it. It is the same for the people serving in Bosnia. The money is going in there. They are having all the equipment and they are having all of their needs being met. But the fact is, we need to replenish the Department of Defense. So that is what we are talking about today. The President has asked for more money for Bosnia. The President has asked for more money for FEMA, and we are going to give it to him. Now, he has a choice to sign the bill or to veto it on a process issue. I don't know why, if the President says he doesn't want to shut down the Government, he would even consider vetoing this bill. Why would the President veto the bill? It is his choice, his bill. We are giving him everything he has asked for in this supplemental bill. So why would he veto it, especially when he says he doesn't want to shut down Government? So when we hear people say the President is going to veto this bill and it is going to hold up aid, that is not the case. First, the President has a choice. He can sign the bill, which is giving him everything he asked for, or the President can choose to veto the bill on the process. But that is his choice. If he wants to delay putting the money back into the Federal Emergency Management Agency, if he wants to delay putting money back into the Department of Defense, then that is his choice. I think it is the wrong choice. I hope the President will sign the bill because we have, in good faith, given him all of the money that he has asked for, and we want to do that. Why should he worry about our setting the process so that we will know how we are going to deal with appropriations bills as we go through the end of the year? Mr. President, I think it is very clear that we are doing the responsible Government operation here. We are going to make sure that the people in North Dakota get the help they need. We are going to make sure that our troops in Bosnia get the help they need. We are going to make sure that the Department of Defense can put the money back into buying spare parts for airplanes and retraining the people who are coming out of Bosnia. All of those needs will be met. The question is, will the President really veto the bill because he doesn't want to assure that we will not shut down Government? That is the only issue here. I can't imagine that the President would veto a bill because we are providing for an orderly transition into the next fiscal year. In case we have disagreement, we will be able to negotiate those agreements without a hammer over the President's head or Congress' head. Mr. President, the issue is responsible Government. I hope we can defeat the amendment by Mr. Byrd and stay with our program to keep the prerogatives of Congress for a more orderly transition into the next fiscal year. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Just 5 minutes, or less if the Senator would like.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have heard the debate and I think the debate has really been good today. I think that everyone has made their points, and I think everyone has stood on the principle that they believe is the correct one, and I think the lines are very clear. I think it is very important that people understand exactly what we are doing. What we are doing in the first appropriations bill that has come to the floor in this session of Congress is we are setting the process by which we will move appropriations bills before September 30 of this year. And in stating what the process is, we are saying, right now, for all planning purposes, that if there is not an agreement by September 30, at the beginning of the fiscal year, we will make sure that we have a way to continue to fund the Government, a seamless transition into the next fiscal year so that there will be no disruption--no disruption in people's lives who work for the Federal Government, no disruption in people's lives who depend on the Federal Government for their veterans' payments, no disruption in people's lives who might have saved for family vacations. There will not be a disruption because we are going to continue Government, as we are saying right now, in a responsible way, which is what the people expect. So we are laying the framework for how we are going to appropriate this year, and we are going to have an orderly process that assures the people of this country that there is not going to be a stop in Government. We are going to fund at present levels all the way through, even if we don't have an agreement on an appropriations bill. Of course, we are going to try to come to an agreement. But we believe the best way to do that is in the light of day, no hammers over anyone's head, no hammers over Congress, no hammers over the President. Everybody will be able to talk about the priorities and determine how much we will spend in Pell grants, how much we will spend for Meals on Wheels, and how much we will spend for education priorities. You see, I have heard talk on the floor about cutting Pell grants. Well, we are not cutting anything. We haven't passed one appropriations bill yet. So nothing has been set for the 1998 year.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank both the distinguished leader of this effort, Senator Stevens, and Senator Byrd, for working with us to try to get this bill through because it is very important. And that has been mentioned this morning. We want to make sure that we get the disaster relief fund replenished. But I think there are a couple of points that need to be made. I want to respond to my colleague from California, to say we are, indeed, friends and we do work on many issues together. I think it is very important that we be able to have debates between friends and know that we disagree on principle and that is exactly what we should do, is disagree on principle without being disagreeable. I think that is very important for all of us to remember. I want to refute a few points that have been made. First, my colleague from North Dakota talks about the people needing help, and he is absolutely right. It is very important that everyone understand that the people are getting help. They are getting all of the disaster relief to which they are entitled under the law right now. In fact, they are getting more than other disaster victims in our country have received because we have seen the terrible pictures. The President made a commitment that they would get 100 percent relief, and they are getting that right now. You see, Mr. President, this bill is not about helping the people who are in need right now; they are being helped. This bill is to replenish the coffers for future disasters, and that is what we are talking about. So there is no money being held up at this point, or in a week. What we are talking about is replenishing the coffers for future disasters that have not yet occurred. But when we talk about the difference between a natural disaster, which has occurred in North Dakota, and a manmade disaster, which occurred in 1995 and which we are now trying to avoid, they are both deeply moving disasters that need to be addressed, because people who cannot go to work or people who have planned for a family vacation that they can no longer take, or people who are worried about getting their veterans' benefits because the Government is shut down are in just as much distress as someone who has been a victim of a natural disaster. So I do not think it is in any way fair not to equate the impact on people's lives if they do not think they are going to be paid or if they do not think they are going to get their veterans' benefits. Second, I think it is important when we talk about cuts--and I heard discussion this morning about cuts that we would provide in this continuing resolution. There are no cuts. There has not been a budget agreement that has gone through this Congress. We have not talked about the specific appropriations that would go for Meals on Wheels or Pell grants. This Congress has not acted at all on any appropriations for the 1998 year, so there are no cuts. There are no cuts to Meals on Wheels; there are no cuts to Pell grants. In fact, what we are saying is that we are setting the process--and that is why it is so important that we do this now rather than later--we are setting the process for how we will appropriate. This is the first appropriations bill that has come out of the committee in the process and on to the floor. So we are trying to set the process that says how we will respond if all of the appropriations bills are not finished by September 30, which is the end of the fiscal year. What we are saying is that funding will go forward just as it has for all of this year. There is not one dime of a cut. It will go forward at the present spending levels. Then, as Congress decides the priorities, along with the President in an agreement, which is exactly how we do things around here, then that appropriations bill will go into effect. But if there is not an agreement between Congress and the President, then we will keep Government functioning just as it has been this year until the priorities are set by Congress and the President. No one will have a hammer over anyone's head. The appropriators will have their full rights, Members of Congress will have their full rights, the President will have his full rights, and everyone will be able to go forward in an orderly process from which they can plan. That is why we are doing this now. Why would we wait until an appropriations bill that might come forward in June or July? Why would we wait? Why would we not plan for the future? All of us admit that the shutting down of Government does not work; it disrupts people's lives. We are trying to prevent that now, while keeping the prerogatives of Congress and keeping the prerogatives of the President to negotiate in good faith on principle about what the priorities in spending will be. Yes, there is a budget resolution that will come to Congress that will set the general guidelines, but even after that is set, we do not know what the priorities are yet. We do not know how much money will be spent on Pell grants. We do not know how much money will be spent for Meals on Wheels because Congress has not spoken. So what we are trying to do is have an orderly transfer from the end of the fiscal year to the beginning of the next fiscal year without disruption, without people worrying about whether they are going to be paid or whether they are going to receive their veterans' benefits. But make no mistake--there are two very important points --people needing help in North Dakota are getting help; the people who are on cots are there because the help is there and they are going to get the help in rebuilding their homes and businesses, just as the law allows. Make no mistake that that is the case. And if you believe Government should not shut down, then you should vote against the amendment put forward by the Senator from West Virginia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I request 5 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, Mr. President. I would just say, unless the other Senator from North Dakota was seeking time right after his colleague, I will yield. Otherwise I will take 2 or 3 minutes.