Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It will be delayed if there is a Government shutdown, but not with a 2-percent cut.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. We are not having a budget fight. We are talking about responsible Government.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to talk today about welfare reform. Now you may say, ``My goodness, why are you talking about welfare reform? We passed that last year.'' It is true, Congress passed welfare reform last year. We said to the States, ``We want you to run your own programs. We're going to send you less money so that you will have the ability to be more efficient and make up for the dollars that we are not sending you from the Federal Government by efficiencies in your State programs.'' We said to the States, ``We're going to cut the strings. You're not going to have to come to Washington every time you turn around. And that will give you the ability to enact the programs that your States need to operate in a more efficient way.'' Mr. President, you would have thought that everyone would have said, ``Hallelujah, we are going full steam ahead.'' Well, Mr. President, the States said, ``Hallelujah, we're going full steam ahead.'' The problem is, this administration is thwarting the attempts of State after State to do the job we asked them to do. Mr. President, today the State of Texas has been waiting for 170 days, 5 months, for a clearance to run its welfare program in a more efficient way. The Governor of Texas has said it is costing our State $10 million a month because they are waiting for Federal approval so that they can go out and get bids. Public sector, private sector, whoever gives the best bid for the taxpayers of Texas and America, would be able to bid on consolidating the administrative offices for welfare services so that a welfare recipient would be able to go in to one place and get whatever they needed for their particular needs at that particular time. They may be able to get food stamps, AFDC, Medicaid, disaster assistance, community care, in-home and family support. All of these things would be in one place. The State of Texas is looking for public-private partnerships. They are looking to the public sector and the private sector to say, come in and bid on these programs. The State of Texas believes they can save 10 to 40 percent of the $550 million they now spend to administer these programs. That is $200 million a year for the taxpayers of Texas and the taxpayers of America. Mr. President, I talked to the Secretary of HHS. I said, ``What more can Texas do?'' She was very forthright. She said, ``Texas has done everything it was supposed to do. Everything is set. It is on the President's desk.'' Mr. President, why is the President making this decision in the first place? I am afraid it is because a political aspect to this has emerged. And that is, some of the unions do not want the ability for our State to go out and get bids on public-private partnerships. Mr. President, I am all for unions being able to have free market access and free ability to go out and get jobs. But when a union says, ``We don't want you to be able to do things more efficiently because we might not be able to compete,'' I am saying that is wrong. It is time for the President of the United States to do what Congress said was the law of the land and which he signed into law, which he agreed to do, and that is let the States run the welfare programs. Part of the way welfare reform is going to work is for the States to be able to do the job more efficiently without strings from Washington. It saves taxpayer dollars for all Americans and for the States that are trying to do their job better. Mr. President, we have a dilemma here. Congress has acted, and the President has signed the bill. He has agreed with Congress that it is in everyone's best interest for the States to run their own programs. The proposal of the State of Texas is along the lines of what many other States are looking at. Wisconsin, Arizona, and other States are looking at these kinds of efficiencies. Mr. President, I hope they will be able to do this. I hope so, because Congress has spoken and the President has spoken, and we have said the same thing: ``Be more efficient. Use taxpayer dollars more wisely.'' What is the holdup? I ask President Clinton, what is the holdup? We have a reasonable proposal. It is innovative. It meets the needs of Texans. Why not approve it? Five months and Texas has lost $10 million for every month this has not been able to go forward. Mr. President, this is an emergency for my State. Our legislature has 1 more month of its session. We must act if the President is not willing to do the job. So I am announcing that I am going to try to do this congressionally if the President does not act or if the President turns down the reasonable request by the State of Texas. Because, Mr. President, the President of the United States cannot thwart the will of Congress when he has signed a bill. When it is the law of the land, he cannot go around it with regulations, with Executive orders, thumbing his nose at what the law is. He was a Governor. The President of the United States understands how important it is for States to be able to have the ability to run their own programs. I am going to ask today the President of the United States to approve the waiver request for the State of Texas which has been sitting on his desk for 5 months. If he is unwilling to do that, I am serving notice that I will do everything in my power to congressionally require this approval. The second choice is not the best. I would rather work with the President to do what is right here. But we are beginning to see a pattern: Wisconsin coming in, asking for legislative relief; Oregon coming in, asking for legislative relief. That is not the way to do it. But the buck stops here. Congress passed the law. If the administration is going to thwart the law of the land, Congress must act. We must take these waivers one at a time and make these decisions. I would prefer that the President and the administration do what is right and do what is their responsibility to do and grant these waivers. If they do not, however, it is the responsibility of Congress to step in and say, this was our intent and it is the law of the land. Mr. President, Texas is losing $10 million a month; $50 million to date. It is not right. We are doing in Texas what Congress told us to do. There should be no barrier to doing that. I ask the President today, grant the waiver. That is the proper way to work with Congress and with the States and it is in everyone's best interest. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 minutes in morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to have 5 minutes in morning business rather than taking from Senator Coverdell's time. So if the Senator wants to finish on his bill for a minute, then I would like to ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank, you Mr. President. Mr. President, I want to talk today about something that I think will be coming up next week, and that is the supplemental appropriations bill. This will be the first appropriations bill that has come to the floor this year. So I think it is wise for us to set the policy for how we are going to handle appropriations for the full year. All of us remember 1995 and the time that Government shut down, putting Government employees in a situation of not being quite sure if they would get paid, not being able to work even if they wanted to. We had people who had planned for family vacations who were not able to get into the Washington Monument or the Smithsonian or many of our national parks. As we begin to set the policy for how Congress is going to handle appropriations this year, I think it is most important we set the ground rules to have a functioning Government at a reasonable level so there will not be any fears of a Government shutdown; So that agencies can plan in case some of the appropriations bills are not passed by September 30. Now, many people know that we have 13 different appropriations bills. Each appropriations bill goes forward for its particular agency or group of agencies. Many times we face the end of the fiscal year when six appropriations bills are passed and signed by the President and maybe seven are not yet finished because there are still negotiations between the President and Congress. There is no question that there are different priorities between the President and Congress in many areas. The defense bill, for instance, is one that usually is the last to pass because there will be a difference on how we prioritize our defense expenditures. It could also happen in the case of other agencies and other appropriations bills. I think that it is just time that we set the policy. Senator John McCain and I have introduced a bill called the Government Shutdown Prevention Act. We are going to offer this bill to the upcoming supplemental appropriations bill because we think this is the appropriate time and the appropriate place to say this is how we will handle it this year. This is good government. It is responsible government. We have some very important supplemental appropriations. We are going to, hopefully, be helping the flood victims of North Dakota and other disaster victims that have met with tragedies during the first part of this year. We are going to be making sure that our troops in Bosnia have the funding that they need, without taking so much from our defense budget that our other young men and women are not able to be trained. So these are important supplemental appropriations. I think it is most important that we also take care of the business of governing, and that we say, right now, there is not going to be a Government shutdown. There is not going to be a disruption in services. We will fund Government at 98 percent of the 1997 spending levels. That 2 percent leaves Congress the ability to do what it is going to do in the negotiations that might occur after September 30 and not spend money that has not actually been appropriated. I think that is most important if we are going to have all the options that Congress should have regardless of whether it has reached an agreement with the President. Now, all of us hope that we will have an agreement. But we believe it is not in anyone's interest to be up against a September 30 deadline when all of a sudden you have the hammer over people and lives being disrupted all over America. So you do things that are not based on the merits of the argument between spending in one area or spending in another. You do things because you have this artificial hammer hanging over your head, saying people's lives are going to be disrupted. They are not going to be able to get passports, they will not be able to take their vacations. They will not be able to assure that veterans benefits will be paid. Federal employees will not know for sure that they will get paid, although in my wildest imagination I cannot imagine any Congress not paying our Government employees. That is what we are trying to do with the Government Shutdown Prevention Act. I think it is important we start talking about it now because this will be part of the debate next week. I would like to see this amendment put on in a bipartisan way, unanimously. I would like to see that everyone agrees that this is a reasonable approach. We have talked to many people about it in Congress, on both sides of the rotunda, trying to come up with the right percentage. Many people wanted to go lower than 98 percent of previous year's funding. Many people were concerned about not having enough of an incentive to continue to negotiate. But I felt that 75 percent was not reasonable. I think we want to make sure that the Government that is going to keep running can run on a reasonable basis. If anyone doesn't think 98 percent is reasonable, welcome to the real world. Is there a family in America that hasn't had to make do with 2 percent less to spend? Is there a small business in America that hasn't made a 2-percent cut in their budget? So if a Government employee tells me that the agency can't run at the 98-percent level, I would say that they are not qualified to manage their agency. We can save money to make sure that we are planning for the future. And that is another reason why I think we ought to pass this legislation right now. I think we should let our Government agencies know that if there is a disagreement in October, plan now to know that you are going to be able to operate at a 98-percent level. So, you can plan ahead, and if you need to make provisions, you can do it now. I think that is another good reason for us to do it early, rather than waiting until some other appropriations bill comes up to the floor, which might be in June or July. That is not as much planning time. So we are talking about good government. We are talking about responsible governing and trying to handle the issues for which we are responsible as a U.S. Congress in a responsible way. Now, I think this is something that the Democrats would probably welcome because they have said, on the occasions where the potential for a Government shutdown has come, that they think this is not a responsible way to run a railroad. They have said that in many heated debates. I hope that they will come along and work with us--and I think they will, frankly. I think there are some Democrats who want to support this. Nobody has focused on it a whole lot because we have had the chemical weapons treaty for this week. But as people start to focus on it next week, I hope they will look at this and support it. So what we are talking about is a safety net, a funding mechanism for fiscal year 1998 that would trigger on October 1, 1997, if any of the 13 appropriations bills have not been agreed to by the President and Congress. This is good government. This is responsible government, and I hope that we can do it in a bipartisan way. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes in morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I respect everyone who is going to vote today for the position that they are taking because I know that it is sincere. I respect the people who have come out for this convention treaty--the former Presidents--and I respect the people who have come out against the treaty, the former Secretaries of Defense. It comes down, for me, to a basic question, and that is: Do we believe that international conventions and conferences keep us safe at night? Or do we believe a strong national defense is what keeps us safe at night and what has served us so well for this century? Mr. President, I think it is a commitment to a strong national defense, and I have decided, reluctantly, to vote against this convention treaty because I believe this does more to harm our strength and our national defense than it does to help it. Mr. President, we have seen our allies transfer nuclear technology that can be made into weapons to rogue nations. So now we have a treaty that will allow people to come into our chemical plants--not chemical plants that make weapons, because we are not going to make weapons, but into our chemical plants that might be doing research on how to defend against chemical weapons. That technology can then be transferred to the nations who would use the chemical weapons. It seems to me that we are unilaterally disarming ourselves, Mr. President, with a treaty that would say we must allow international groups to come into plants that use chemicals, whether it is to make fertilizer or disinfectant, or defenses to chemical weapons, any of those things. An international group will be able to come in and, I think, violate our constitutional right against search and seizure. I am concerned that we are hurting our ability to defend our country. So, Mr. President, I think we have a choice here between America being the leader and undercutting our defenses, or standing on principle and protecting our security. Mr. President, I just don't think there is a choice. We must stand on principle. So that if our young men and women in the field are attacked by chemical weapons by those who will not sign this treaty, we will surely have the defenses to protect them; and so that we will keep the ability in our country to have the strength to fight the chemical weapons that will be produced, that we know are being produced right now, by nations who will not abide by this treaty. So I do not buy the argument that we are better off with this treaty than without it. In fact, I think we are hurting our ability to combat the rogue nations, the terrorist nations with whom we are dealing all over the world, and I could not vote in good conscience to do that. Thank you.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership on this issue, for talking about this treaty so that all of America is beginning to see what the issues are. I hope to be able to support the Chemical Weapons Convention as strengthened by the resolution of ratification introduced by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Before I address this resolution, I want to draw our attention to the remarkable events in Lima, Peru. The Peruvian Armed Forces and police conducted a bold, daytime raid and rescued 71 of the 72 hostages being held by a terrorist group for 4 months. As part of the operation, the Peruvian Army used riot control agents to stun the terrorists and rescue the hostages. I would caution my colleagues, regardless of where they come out on this treaty, that the actions of the Peruvian Armed Forces that resulted in minimal loss of life among the hostages were quite possibly a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which expressly forbids the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare. I make this point because this treaty has many things in it that we must think about very carefully. I believe the proposals the distinguished Senator from North Carolina has offered in the resolution before us will turn a flawed treaty into an effective, verifiable tool of American foreign policy. We are talking about safeguards that ensure the treaty will be something that America can support, knowing that we are protected, both in our constitutional rights and in the security of our country. One of the amendments before us today would take away one of the very important elements of protection about which I speak. The amendment I am referring to does not require that the Director of the CIA certify that the countries which have been determined to have offensive chemical weapons, like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China-- have ratified the convention. We want to make sure that those countries are going to come under the auspices of this convention. I think it is important that we have those safeguards. So, I hope my colleagues will support the resolution, the underlying resolution, rather than the amendments that are being put forward. I am glad the Senate is taking the opportunity to improve this treaty. Our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on treaties is one of the most important that we have. Unfortunately, we have gotten into the bad habit of all consent and no advice. When it comes to that, we cannot let that happen. That is why we are here. That is why the Constitution requires two-thirds of our body to ratify any treaty that America would participate in. Mr. President, international treaties extend the full faith and credit of the United States, and they become the law of our land when they are ratified. So the United States cedes a little sovereignty with every treaty the Senate ratifies. That is why the framers of our Constitution wanted to be very careful that two-thirds of the Senate would be needed to ratify any treaty that would become the law of our land. Like no other treaty before it, the Chemical Weapons Convention will make this loss of sovereignty apparent to thousands of Americans at thousands of companies who will be faced with new Government regulations or be subject to searches and seizures of their property by teams of international inspectors. These are the practical effects this treaty will have on ordinary Americans. As many as 670 companies in my home State of Texas will be directly affected by this treaty. Only a handful of these companies are actually in the chemical industry. Many others use small amounts of chemicals for legal, nonmilitary purposes. But according to this treaty, they will be required to submit business information to a new United Nations-style international organization that will monitor this treaty, or they will have to open their property to inspections by teams of international inspectors. Because of the way this treaty will affect ordinary Americans, it is a profound departure from previous arms control treaties which were really limited to military contractors and installations. That is why we must look so carefully at this treaty. If we are going to impose this burden on ordinary Americans, then we must make sure that the benefits outweigh the costs. First, let me say, without qualification, that chemical warfare is reprehensible and it deserves uniform condemnation. I am proud that the United States has already decided to destroy any chemical weapons that we might have with or without this treaty. But, Mr. President, it is also our responsibility to make sure that we have defenses against any country that might use chemical weapons in order to be sure that we are not unilaterally disarming ourselves. I support the 1989 and 1990 agreements between the United States and Russia that ban the production of chemical weapons and require both countries to destroy their stockpiles. Those two agreements were backed up by tough onsite inspections in which each side can watch the other destroy the weapons. Unfortunately, neither the Geneva Protocol against chemical weapons use nor the two agreements that we have signed with Russia are actually being enforced. When the Government of Iraq used chemical weapons against its own citizens in the 1980's, the United Nations could not even agree upon a resolution condemning Iraq. The two Russian agreements are dead, too. The Russian Prime Minister told Vice President Gore in July 1996 that both agreements have outlived their usefulness. It appears that the Russians do not intend to honor these agreements. I remind my colleagues that Russia has the world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons, and this is not a trivial matter. So, Mr. President, we have three good, tough, supposedly enforceable international agreements to restrict the use of and destroy chemical weapons. But those agreements have failed. So now we are here today to consider another agreement, even tougher, that involves more countries, and we hope it will work where others have failed. Mr. President, I think we have to address three key questions when we are talking about not only destroying our chemical weapons but sharing the technology that we have for defending against them. My first question: Will this treaty achieve the desired objective, an objective we all want, and that is to rid the world of chemical weapons? I do not think so. Even the most ardent supporter of the treaty knows that this is not going to rid the world of chemical weapons. We know that there are outlaw regimes producing chemical weapons as we speak that have no intention of signing or ratifying this treaty. Iraq is one example. Iraq makes a mockery of international agreements. The Government of Iraq has used chemical weapons against its own people, for Heaven's sake. Who among us believes that a government that would do this would honor an agreement when it has already used these weapons on its own people? Even worse, this treaty as written actually encourages the spread of chemical weapons technology among the countries that are parties to it because articles X and XI require treaty participants to share their chemical weapons defense technologies and prohibits countries from placing restrictions on commerce in chemicals that can be used for weapons purposes. Mr. President, I think what we see here is good-intentioned, but we are talking about restricting ourselves from producing chemical weapons, which we want to do, and we are talking about sharing our defenses against chemical weapons with countries that may be represented in international inspection groups that would come into our businesses and could easily give this information back to the countries who are not signatories. That is why these amendments are so important, so that every one of these countries that has chemical weapons will be a party to this agreement, so that at least we would know that we have some ability to sanction these countries when they are not able to show us that they are complying. Mr. President, my second question is: Can we determine with reasonable accuracy that the other countries that have signed the treaty will honor it, as we certainly will? We all remember President Reagan's words, ``trust but verify.'' We need the ability to verify. This is a treaty that I am afraid there is no way we could really verify. In fact, even the supporters admit that you cannot really verify it. We are trying to strengthen it so that we will have at least some ability. But then it comes into question, are we going to exercise those abilities? I think one of the concerns that I have is that we know that countries with whom we trade, countries with whom we have good relations, are actually selling the equipment to make nuclear weapons to these countries that are rogue nations, that are terrorist states, right now as we speak. Germany is. Russia is. China is. What are we doing about it? What are we doing? We are not standing up and saying, there are consequences to that action, because we do not want to rock the boat in some other area of foreign policy. Mr. President, if we are not going to stand up when countries with whom we are trading and with whom we have friendly relations are this very day selling nuclear weapons or nuclear capabilities to rogue nations, like Iran and Iraq, how could we ever say that this treaty would be verifiable and that all of the signatories would comply with this treaty and that we would in fact do anything if they were not? Mr. President, my third question is: Can we protect the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans affected by the treaty who are engaged in activities that have nothing to do with the production of chemical weapons? I think this is one of the most important issues-- the constitutional right against an unreasonable search or seizure. The protections offered by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Helms, is a first step. But we are going to have to hold on to the protections that have been put in the bill by the committee because the fourth amendment to the Constitution is a pillar of the Bill of Rights. It protects the rights of our people against unreasonable searches and seizures. Yet this agreement, the chemical weapons treaty, would allow people to come in, international groups, to inspect our companies, not companies that are making chemical weapons-- we do not do that--but companies that use chemicals for any other myriad of purposes, to get their trade secrets or our defense mechanisms against the chemical weapons that we may have to face one day. Mr. President, I am just very worried that we would disarm ourselves and lose the ability to protect ourselves against a rogue nation that will not sign and ratify this treaty. The amendments offered today would take away the protections that are now in the resolution against that happening because the resolution says all of these rogue nations must be a party to the agreement so that at least we would have the mechanisms to go in and try to find these chemical weapons. Yet, you know even the best effort that we have been able to make in finding chemical weapons in Iraq have failed. Right now our international agreements allow us to look in Iraq for chemical weapons. We have not found any. And yet all of the inspectors in the international group that are trying to find those weapons have not been able to do it, but they say they know they are there. They are sure that they are there. So the verifiability becomes a real issue. Mr. President, I think that the committee has done an excellent job of protecting the interests of Americans in this treaty. I hope that we can keep the safeguards so that all of us can vote for this treaty. I would like to because I respect the people who are for the treaty. I have the greatest regard for President Bush. I think he is a wonderful man. He would never leave the United States of America defenseless. But you know, if Senator Kyl and Senator Helms had not stood up, one of the safeguards that President Bush put in the treaty would have been taken out, and that is the use of tear gas by our forces in wartime, because President Bush made sure that we said right up front, yes, we will use tear gas because we would rather use tear gas than bullets. President Clinton disagreed with that. He said, no, we would not use tear gas. But because of the efforts of Senator Helms and Senator Kyl, we have been able to agree on that issue. So, Mr. President, I hope to be able to support this treaty. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for allowing me to speak and for his leadership. I would like to be able to support it, but I will not support this treaty without the safeguards to the security of America. That is my first responsibility. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, today we honor our Nation's first Mexican-American Federal judge, Judge Reynaldo G. Garza. I am proud to cosponsor legislation with Senator Gramm to name the new Federal courthouse in Brownsville for Judge Garza. In this way, we will record for generations to come Judge Garza's selfless service to the city of Brownsville, to Texas and to our Nation. Traditionally, we reserve this honor for judges who no longer walk the courthouse halls. However, we wish to grant an exception for this exceptional man. Born of immigrant parents, Reynaldo Garza has paved a hopeful path for other immigrant sons. After distinguishing himself as a lawyer, he served on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District until his appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1979 by President Carter. As the first Mexican- American to achieve these distinctions, Judge Garza truly personifies the pioneer spirit of this great Nation. I would like Judge Garza to be remembered as well for his gracious response to this action. Upon learning that the courthouse might be named for him, Judge Garza said simply, ``I'm humbled by the fact that somebody would even think I'm worthy of it.'' Indeed, no one is worthier than Judge Garza of this small token of our respect and admiration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Dallas Public School System in my State of Texas, and North Dallas High School in particular. Today the school is holding a celebration of cultural unity to recognize a wonderfully diverse student body made up of young Americans with family heritage from 33 different cultures around the world. To celebrate the day, the students of North Dallas High School have painted a mural titled ``Unity Among Cultures,'' which will be unveiled today. The Dallas Public School System, which administers North Dallas High School, covers over 300 square miles and 208 schools. Over 60 different cultural and linguistic groups are represented, from Amharic to Vietnamese. Within this school system, and most notably at the newly designated First International School of America, these diverse cultures come together as they always have in this country to form the great American culture. Since its very beginnings as an independent republic, Texas has been a place to which people come to build their lives while helping build the land. No State in this great Nation represents a more diverse and exciting mix of cultures than Texas. The First International School of America represents this great Texas heritage in a truly unique way, and gives life to the very foundation of these United States, engraved on the wall above me: E Pluribus Unum--From Many, One. Mr. President, the future of my State and our country passes through the schoolhouse doors of Texas and schools around the country every day. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending North Dallas High School--the First International School of America--for leadership and wisdom in celebrating the cultural unity that makes America great.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary would like to request unanimous consent to hold an executive business meeting on Thursday, April 17, 1997, at 10 a.m., in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, April 17, 1997, at 9:15 a.m. for a hearing on public education improvement opportunities for the District of Columbia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 17, 1997, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, April 17, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 17, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A to receive testimony regarding crop and revenue insurance oversight.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee of Readiness of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, April 17, 1997, in open session, to receive testimony on the status of the operational readiness of the U.S. Military Forces in review of S. 450, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 and 1999.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services to meet on Thursday, April 17, at 10:30 a.m. for a classified hearing on ``Proliferation: Chinese Case Studies.''

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a Employment and Training Subcommittee Hearing on Innovations in Youth Training, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 17, 1997, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 15, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I was going to proceed if there was no business in the Chamber, subject to the Senator from Arizona saying I would not encroach on his time. Apparently that is the case.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to say that I had quite an experience yesterday. I went back to my home territory near Texas City, TX, and helped commemorate the 50th anniversary of the worst industrial disaster in the history of America. That was the explosions in Texas City on April 16, 1947. I remember the incident personally because I was there as a 4-year- old. I remember the tremendous jolt that occurred at that time. I put a statement in the Record yesterday that talks about the incredible impact this had on the people of the area of Texas City. Just to put it in perspective, this was a town of 17,000 that lost 600 of its citizens in one 24-hour period. It lost the entire fire department that was on duty at the time. It lost people who were trying to help victims. It was an incredible impact. But the impact that I witnessed yesterday on the faces of the residents of Texas City highlighted for me the rejuvenation of this city, now of 50,000 people. Thanks to the leadership of its mayor, Chuck Doyle, there is a 3-day commemoration of this event, and it is having a strong, positive impact on the city. It is a city that has put itself back together and made itself stronger from the adversity. I am very proud of Texas City, TX, and the sister city of La Marque where I grew up for healing this devastating event in its history and for emerging stronger than ever. The area is today one of the petrochemical centers of the world and a place that I am proud to have grown up in and to have known the wonderful people who live there and who have made this city what it is. So I commend Mayor Doyle, the survivors of the Texas City explosion, the residents of Texas City, and the many other people who worked to make the commemoration of that disaster such a positive event for Texas City and for this Nation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Family Friendly Workplace Act of 1997. Mr. President, Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri is the key sponsor of this legislation. It is the Ashcroft-Hutchison legislation that I think is so important for the working people of our country. Senator Ashcroft talked about it earlier this morning. I am pleased to be able to talk about this incredible opportunity we have to bring hourly workers under the same laws that salaried, or exempt workers now have, and that all Federal employees now have. Mr. President, every hourly Federal employee today is given the benefit of flexible work scheduling--a benefit which is unavailable to their private sector counterparts. Federal hourly employees can today go to their manager and say, ``I would like to work 2 extra hours this week and get off at 3 o'clock next Friday to go to my child's soccer game,'' or to take off early on a camping trip, or for whatever reason they choose. Right now the hourly workers of America are not able to do this because of the inflexibility of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is unfortunate, because hourly workers, those who punch a time clock, are the most stressed of all American workers. They, more than any other sector of our workforce, would benefit from flexible work schedules. So the Family Friendly Workplace Act of 1997 is meant to give our hourly blue-collar workers the same opportunities that salaried workers and all Federal employees now have. So what we are trying to do, Mr. President, is to end the inequity in labor laws in this country that artificially place barriers around hourly employees and deny them the freedom to sit down with their employers and work out a flexible schedule that best meets their personal, family, and community needs, in order to relieve some of the stress in their lives caused by time pressures. Here is what the bill does. Where an employer requires an employee to work overtime, the bill would give that employee the option of choosing paid time and a half off in lieu of time-and-a-half pay. Now, if the employee says ``No, I want the time-and-a-half pay,'' they are absolutely entitled to the time-and-a-half pay. But if they know that they are going to want some time off in the future, they would be able to say, ``No, I would like an hour and a half of overtime that I can put in a bank to use when I need it to take my child to the doctor.'' So this is going to give them the option to earn paid time off for their overtime work. The second thing the bill does is provide an additional option for those employees who do not typically work overtime, which includes over 90 percent of the hourly wage women who work in this country. These employees would be allowed to voluntarily work more than 40 hours in one week in order to take the same amount of paid time off later on. This will give hourly workers, including working mothers and fathers in our country a better chance to plan for the future and to get the option to go to their employer and say, ``You know, I am working 40- hour weeks here but what I really need is flextime. What I need is the ability to start putting hours aside that would allow me to take time off later for a child's school event or some other purpose.'' For example, the employee could work 9-hour days and take every other Friday off, with pay, as many Federal employees now do. This is called flextime. Finally, the bill will give employees and employers the option of establishing regular 2-week schedules to allow an employee to work additional hours in week one in order to work fewer hours in week two. Again, this time is paid, and could be taken for any reason the employee wishes. Mr. President, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, both the mother and father work out of the home in two-thirds of the homes in our country. So, Mr. President, we know that mothers and fathers are stressed in two-thirds of the families in our country where both the mother and the father work outside the home. This has come about because many women would like to work outside the home. That is their choice. It has come about because many women need to work outside the home in order to help pay the bills. In many instances the mother is working just to pay taxes. Now, we are trying to do something about that. We are trying to lower the tax burden on the American family because we think working people should keep more of what they work so hard to earn. Until we are able to do that, to give mothers the choices they want--whether it is to work outside the home or not--we want to give the working mothers of this country every possibility to spend the time with their children that they need. A key element of our approach is that the time off employees would receive is paid time off. This is in contrast to other proposals, including an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act that the President and some others have advocated. They want to give American workers time off, but unpaid time off. Comptime and flextime are paid, because they have been earned by the workers themselves, not handed down from Washington as another unfunded mandate on employers and employees. We want people to be able to have flexible work schedules, without busting their budget. So, Mr. President, we are trying to expand the options of the hourly workers in our country. That is the key point of this bill. We are not trying to let employers in any way tell an employee or pressure an employee to take comptime instead of comp pay. In fact, there are very stiff penalties if the employer tries to do this. We want the employee to have the option, in cooperation with the employer. We want the employee to be able to say, ``It is the stress in my life that I need relief from, without busting my budget.'' That is what we want the employee to be able to say to the employer--``I am stressed. I want to be able to take 2 hours or 20 hours off next week, in exchange for working a little later this week, so that I can spend more time with my children.'' All the polls show, Mr. President, if an employee feels comfortable that he or she has the time with his or her children, that employee is a happier, more productive employee, and it is a win-win situation for both employer and employee. In fact, upward of 75 percent of Federal employees say that they like comptime and flextime, and that it has improved their morale and performance as employees. Mr. President, Congress cannot make more hours in the day. There are just 24, and there will always be just 24. But we can make those hours more productive and we can make lives less stressful if we give the hourly employees in our country the same opportunities that salaried workers have, that Federal employees have, that they say means a lot to them. So we want these options to be available to the hourly workers as well. This is our goal. The Family Friendly Workplace Act that is sponsored by Senator Ashcroft and myself is for the families of our country, it is for the blue-collar workers, the hourly employees that are working so hard, that need the stress relief more than any of us, that do not now have it, and we think they should. That is what we are working for. I hope we will be able to take this bill to the floor very quickly. It has passed through the committee. It is a good bill. I think we can work together in a bipartisan way if the other side will work with us. Until we in Congress can get around to giving American families the tax and regulatory relief they deserve, the least we can do is allow them a little more flexibility in their work week. America's hourly workers want and deserve to choose the hours they work so they can take their children to the doctor, to the soccer game, to the Little League baseball game, or to the camping trip, or whatever they would like to do with their own time. We think it should be their choice. Thank you, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Ashcroft and myself in supporting this most important legislation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to commend the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona for all of the efforts that he has made to educate Members of the Senate and members of the American public on the chemical weapons treaty that will be before the Senate at some point in the next week. He has shown so many of the problems with this treaty and some of the consequences that might occur if the treaty is put forward in the form that it is in. I think his bill would correct some of the real problems, such as the concern over the ability to use tear gas. To unilaterally say we would not use tear gas is unimaginable when we know what an important tool it is to safely extricate a pilot that is down or to safely be able to control a group of prisoners, which was done with Iraqi prisoners of war in Desert Storm. The last thing you want to do is have to shoot with real bullets when you have other options that are not permanently harmful. So, I thank the Senator from Arizona, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of his bill that I think would correct some of the problems in this treaty so that we would all be able to ratify it very happily and knowing that we have carried our responsibility to do what is right for our country.