[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 131 (Monday, August 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11785-S11790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GORTON (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1127. A bill to establish the Vancouver National Reserve, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          the vancouver national historic reserve act of 1995

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Vancouver National Historic Reserve Act with my colleague from the 
State of Washington, Senator Murray.
  Vancouver, WA, has been described as the cradle of civilization in 
the Pacific Northwest, as the place at which the first English-speaking 
settlers put down their roots. Dating back to its role as the western 
outpost for U.S. military operations and for the early American 
explorers, led by Lewis and Clark, Vancouver has been the locale of 
significant events of American history.
  A few examples: Pearson Airpark, one of the oldest and most historic 
airports in our country. Pearson Airpark is the site of several 
aviation firsts, including the landing site of Valeri Chkalov, the 
``Soviet Lindberg,'' after his transpolar flight. The Vancouver area is 
also home to the original Vancouver Barracks, established to counter 
British influence in the region. Officer's Row, 21 historic homes that 
were part of the barracks, housed some of our Nation's greatest 
military leaders, including Generals Sheridan, Howard, Grant, and 
Marshall.
  Recognizing the potential significance for a National Reserve in 
Vancouver, WA, Congress established the Vancouver Historic Study 
Commission in 1990. The Commission was to develop a series of 
recommendations on how best to coordinate Vancouver's many historic 
resources. Not surprisingly, the Commission found that the city of 
Vancouver had an abundance of both historic sites and resources of 
national significance, and recommended the formation of a partnership 
between Federal, State, and local entities to coordinate and manage a 
historic reserve.
  Today, I introduce legislation that is based on the findings and 
recommendations of the Commission's report, and a memorandum of 
agreement signed by the city of Vancouver and the National Park 
Service. This legislation will ensure the preservation of the historic 
legacy of Vancouver for our Nation.
  Mr. President, the Vancouver National Historic Reserve is an example 
of the type of State, local, and Federal partnerships that make for 
sound public policy. This legislation represents a partnership among 
State, Federal, and local entities, working together toward one common 
goal: to preserve, enhance, and interpret significant components of the 
Pacific Northwest's history.
  The Vancouver National Historic Act creates a unique relationship 
among the National Park Service, U.S. Army, the State of Washington, 
and the city of Vancouver. We intend that this relationship, 
established to coordinate and manage the many historic resources in the 
Vancouver area, will keep the important legacy of this part of the 
Pacific Northwest alive for future generations to enjoy.
  The Vancouver National Historic Reserve consists of several sites: 
Fort Vancouver National Historic Site; Vancouver Barracks; O.O. Howard 
House; Pearson Airpark; Officer's Row; Old Apple Tree Park; Marine 
Park; and the Columbia River Waterfront. In its entirety, the reserve 
includes 366 acres of publicly owned land and extends from Officer's 
Row to the Columbia River.
  In addition, thanks to a significant investment by the M.J. Murdock 
Trust, 

[[Page S 11786]]
a new air museum will be constructed on the reserve. The M.J. Murdock 
Aviation Museum at Pearson Airpark will be a living memorial to 
Vancouver resident Jack Murdock, in recognition of his innovative 
achievements and love of aviation. Along with original antique 
aircraft, the existing historic structures of a pre-World War II hanger 
will be rebuilt to honor one of the oldest U.S. Air Corps airfields, 
located at Pearson Airfield in the early 1920's.
  Representatives from the city of Vancouver have been working to 
ensure that the many historic sites in Vancouver are maintained and 
restored. I praise the people of Vancouver for their outstanding 
efforts in securing private grants for the historic reserve. The mayor 
of Vancouver, Bruce Hagensen, deserves special thanks for his support 
and continued dedication to the development of this legislation.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that the 
Vancouver National Historic Reserve becomes a reality.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague 
from the State of Washington, Senator Slade Gorton, in sponsoring the 
Vancouver National Historic Reserve Partnership Act of 1995.
  This legislation is the product of years of effort by many people 
representing public groups and all levels of government, but it would 
not be before Congress today were it not for the vision, leadership, 
and hard work of former Congresswoman Jolene Unsoeld, who took on a 
daunting challenge and came away with a broadly supported plan to 
preserve and promote several chapters in the colorful history of the 
Pacific Northwest.
  Briefly, the act would establish and coordinate the management of the 
Vancouver National Historic Reserve, which contains a number of 
contiguous historic sites located on the Columbia River. This area, 
situated in the heart of the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area, 
provides a rare opportunity to save and interpret, in one central 
location, several layers of history. Vancouver's historic area has been 
referred to as the ``birthplace of history in the Northwest'' since 
Lewis and Clark explored the areas in 1805-6.
  The historic reserve is located within an original 1848 military 
reserve and includes six principal elements: Fort Vancouver National 
Historic Site--National Park Service; Vancouver Barracks--U.S. Army; 
Pearson Airpark and museum--city of Vancouver--NPS/City, and Marine 
Park--City. These publicly-owned sites tell a story of Northwest 
history beginning with the rich native American culture that flourished 
along the river, early Euro-American settlement of the area, the 
American military presence in the Northwest, and more than 80 years of 
continuous aviation activity at Pearson Airfield, one of the original 
Army Corps fields and the site of several aviation milestones.
  In 1990, pursuant to Public Law 101-523, Congress created the 
Vancouver Historical Study Commission and charged the five-member group 
with developing a plan to preserve these historic assets and coordinate 
the management of the area. After careful study and much public 
involvement, the Commission submitted, through Secretary of Interior 
Bruce Babbitt, a report that is the basis for this act. It is a 
carefully crafted plan which provides historic protection, a 
partnership among the property owners, and an opportunity--with no 
additional financial obligation to the Federal Government--to highlight 
some of the most important and interesting history in the Pacific 
Northwest.
  I want to commend the city of Vancouver for demonstrating, through 
their outstanding restoration of Officers Row, that historic 
preservation can be economically self-sustaining and for working 
closely with the National Park Service, the U.S. Army, and the State 
Office of Historic Preservation to develop this plan.
  The Vancouver National Historic Reserve Partnership Act provides a 
new standard for historic preservation. It emphasizes a narrative or 
layered approach to history instead of the single-point-in-time 
approach, and it demonstrates how--at a time when the Federal 
Government cannot afford expensive new initiatives to acquire, restore, 
or maintain historic properties--we can form partnerships to preserve 
and highlight our heritage.
  I am proud to be the cosponsor of this act in the Senate and urge 
that it be given timely and favorable consideration by this body.
                                 ______

      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1128. A bill to amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States 
Code, to extend the civil service retirement provisions of such chapter 
which are applicable to law enforcement officers, to inspectors of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, inspectors and canine 
enforcement officers of the U.S. Customs Service, and revenue officers 
of the Internal Revenue Service; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


       the hazardous occupations retirement benefits act of 1995

 Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Hazardous 
Occupations Retirement Benefits Act of 1995.
  This legislation will grant an early retirement package for revenue 
officers of the Internal Revenue Service, customs inspectors of the 
U.S. Customs Service, and immigration inspectors of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service.
  Under current law, with the exception of the groups listed in this 
legislation, all Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters are 
eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal service. The 
legislation will amend the current law and finally grant the same 20-
year retirement to these members of the Internal Revenue Service, 
Customs Service, and Immigration and Naturalization Service. The 
employees under this bill have very hazardous, physically taxing 
occupations, and it is in the public's interest to tenure a young and 
competent work force in these jobs.
  The need for a 20-year retirement benefit for inspectors of the 
Customs Service is easily apparent. These employees are the country's 
first line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling of illegal 
drugs at our borders. They have the authority to apprehend those 
engaged in such activities and carry a firearm on the job. They are 
responsible for the majority of arrests performed by Customs Service 
employees. In 1994, inspectors of the Customs Service seized 204,000 
pounds of cocaine, 2,600 pounds of heroin, and 559,000 pounds of 
marijuana. They are required to undergo the same law enforcement 
training as all other law enforcement personnel. These employees face 
multiple challenges. They confront leading criminals in the drug war, 
organized crime figures, and increasingly sophisticated white-collar 
criminals.
  Revenue officers struggle with heavy workloads and a high rate of job 
stress, resulting in a variety of physical and mental symptoms. Many 
IRS employees must employ pseudonyms to hide their identity because of 
the great threat to their personal safety. The Internal Revenue Service 
recently put out a manual for their employees entitled: ``Assaults and 
Threats: A Guide to Your Personal Safety'' to help employees respond to 
hostile situations. The document advises IRS employees how to handle 
on-the-job assaults, abuse, threatening telephone calls, and other 
menacing situations.
  Mr. President, this legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is 
created by this act is more than offset by savings in training costs 
and increased revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these 
employees will reduce turnover, increase yield, decrease employee 
recruitment and development costs, and enhance the retention of a well-
trained and experienced work force.
  I urge my colleagues to join me again in this Congress in expressing 
support for this bill and finally getting it enacted. This bill will 
improve the effectiveness of our inspector and revenue officer work 
force to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper collection of 
the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                S. 1128

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     
[[Page S 11787]]


     SECTION 1. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 8331 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (25);
       (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (26) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(27) `revenue officer' means an employee of the Internal 
     Revenue Service, the duties of whose position are primarily 
     the collection of delinquent taxes and the securing of 
     delinquent returns, including an employee engaged in this 
     activity who is transferred to a supervisory or 
     administrative position;
       ``(28) `customs inspector' means an employee of the United 
     States Customs Service, the duties of whose position are 
     primarily to--
       ``(A) enforce laws and regulations governing the importing 
     and exporting of merchandise;
       ``(B) process and control passengers and baggage;
       ``(C) interdict smuggled merchandise and contraband; and
       ``(D) apprehend (if warranted) persons involved in 
     violations of customs laws,
     including an employee engaged in this activity who is 
     transferred to a supervisory or administrative position;
       ``(29) `customs canine enforcement officer' means an 
     employee of the United States Customs Service, the duties of 
     whose position are primarily to work directly with a dog in 
     an effort to--
       ``(A) enforce laws and regulations governing the importing 
     and exporting of merchandise;
       ``(B) process and control passengers and baggage;
       ``(C) interdict smuggled merchandise and contraband; and
       ``(D) apprehend (if warranted) persons involved in 
     violations of customs laws,
     including an employee engaged in this activity who is 
     transferred to a supervisory or administrative position; and
       ``(30) `Immigration and Naturalization inspector' means an 
     employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the 
     duties of whose position are primarily the controlling and 
     guarding of the boundaries and borders of the United States 
     against the illegal entry of aliens, including an employee 
     engaged in this activity who is transferred to a supervisory 
     or administrative position.''.
       (b) Deductions, Contributions, and Deposits.--Section 8334 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking out ``a law 
     enforcement officer,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``a law 
     enforcement officer, a revenue officer, a customs inspector, 
     a customs canine enforcement officer, an Immigration and 
     Naturalization inspector,''; and
       (2) in the table in subsection (c), by striking out ``and 
     firefighter for firefighter service.'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``, firefighter for firefighter service, revenue 
     officer for revenue officer service, customs inspector for 
     customs inspector service, customs canine enforcement officer 
     for customs canine enforcement officer service, and 
     Immigration and Naturalization inspector for Immigration and 
     Naturalization inspector service''.
       (c) Mandatory Separation.--Section 8335(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended in the second sentence by 
     striking out ``law enforcement officer'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``law enforcement officer, a revenue officer, a 
     customs inspector, a customs canine enforcement officer, or 
     an Immigration and Naturalization inspector''.
       (d) Immediate Retirement.--Section 8336(c)(1) of such title 
     is amended by striking out ``law enforcement officer or 
     firefighter,'' and inserting ``law enforcement officer, a 
     firefighter, a revenue officer, a customs inspector, a 
     customs canine enforcement officer, or an Immigration and 
     Naturalization inspector,''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 8401 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (31);
       (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (32) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(33) `revenue officer' means an employee of the Internal 
     Revenue Service, the duties of whose position are primarily 
     the collection of delinquent taxes and the securing of 
     delinquent returns, including an employee engaged in this 
     activity who is transferred to a supervisory or 
     administrative position;
       ``(34) `customs inspector' means an employee of the United 
     States Customs Service, the duties of whose position are 
     primarily to--
       ``(A) enforce laws and regulations governing the importing 
     and exporting of merchandise;
       ``(B) process and control passengers and baggage;
       ``(C) interdict smuggled merchandise and contraband; and
       ``(D) apprehend (if warranted) persons involved in 
     violations of customs laws,
     including an employee engaged in this activity who is 
     transferred to a supervisory or administrative position;
       ``(35) `customs canine enforcement officer' means an 
     employee of the United States Customs Service, the duties of 
     whose position are primarily to work directly with a dog in 
     an effort to--
       ``(A) enforce laws and regulations governing the importing 
     and exporting of merchandise;
       ``(B) process and control passengers and baggage;
       ``(C) interdict smuggled merchandise and contraband; and
       ``(D) apprehend (if warranted) persons involved in 
     violations of customs laws,
     including an employee engaged in this activity who is 
     transferred to a supervisory or administrative position; and
       ``(36) `Immigration and Naturalization inspector' means an 
     employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the 
     duties of whose position are primarily the controlling and 
     guarding of the boundaries and borders of the United States 
     against the illegal entry of aliens, including an employee 
     engaged in this activity who is transferred to a supervisory 
     or administrative position.''.
       (b) Immediate Retirement.--Section 8412(d) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking out ``or firefighter,'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``firefighter, revenue officer, 
     customs inspector, customs canine enforcement officer, or 
     Immigration and Naturalization inspector,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking out ``or firefighter,'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``firefighter, revenue officer, 
     customs inspector, customs canine enforcement officer, or 
     Immigration and Naturalization inspector,''.
       (c) Computation of Basic Annuity.--Section 8415(g)(2) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended in the matter 
     following subparagraph (B) by inserting ``revenue officer, 
     customs inspector, customs canine enforcement officer, 
     Immigration and Naturalization inspector,'' after 
     ``firefighter,''.
       (d) Deductions.--Section 8422(a)(2) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``revenue officer, 
     customs inspector, customs canine enforcement officer, 
     Immigration and Naturalization inspector,'' after ``air 
     traffic controller,''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``revenue officer, 
     customs inspector, customs canine enforcement officer, 
     Immigration and Naturalization inspector,'' after ``air 
     traffic controller,''.
       (e) Government Contributions.--Section 8423(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i) by inserting ``revenue officers, 
     customs inspectors, customs canine enforcement officers, 
     Immigration and Naturalization inspectors,'' after ``law 
     enforcement officers,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A) by inserting ``revenue officers, 
     customs inspectors, customs canine enforcement officers, 
     Immigration and Naturalization inspectors,'' after ``law 
     enforcement officers,''.
       (f) Mandatory Separation.--Section 8425(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended in the second sentence by 
     inserting ``, revenue officer, customs inspector, customs 
     canine enforcement officer, or Immigration and Naturalization 
     inspector'' after ``law enforcement officer''.

     SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Employee Contributions.--Any individual who has served 
     as a revenue officer, customs inspector, customs canine 
     enforcement officer, or Immigration and Naturalization 
     inspector before the effective date of this Act, shall have 
     such service credited and annuities determined in accordance 
     with the amendments made by sections 1 and 2 of this Act, if 
     such individual makes payment into the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund of an amount, determined by 
     the Office of Personnel Management, which would have been 
     deducted and withheld from the basic pay of such individual 
     (including interest thereon) under chapters 83 and 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, as if such amendments had been 
     in effect during the periods of such service.
       (b) Agency Contributions.--No later than 90 days after a 
     payment made by an individual under subsection (a), the 
     Department of the Treasury or the Department of Justice (as 
     the case may be) shall make a payment into the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund of an amount, determined by 
     the Office of Personnel Management, which would have been 
     contributed as a Government contribution (including interest 
     thereon) under chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States 
     Code, for the service credited and annuities determined for 
     such individual, as if the amendments made by sections 1 and 
     2 of this Act had been in effect during the applicable 
     periods of service.
       (c) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management shall 
     determine the amount of interest to be paid under this 
     section and may promulgate regulations to carry out the 
     provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of this Act and amendments made by this Act 
     shall take effect on the date occurring 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 1129. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
permit employers to provide for flexible and compressed schedules, to 
permit employers to give priority treatment in hiring decisions to 
former employees 

[[Page S 11788]]
after periods of family care responsibility, to maintain the minimum 
wage and overtime exemption for employees subject to certain leave 
policies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                  the work and family integration act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in 1938 American movies like ``Mr. Smith 
Goes to Washington'' and ``The Wizard of Oz'' were still in production; 
U.S. involvement in World War II was 3 years away; the American labor 
force was almost entirely made up of industrial and agricultural 
workers; the right to collective bargaining was not yet 3 years old; 
less than 16 percent of married women were working outside their homes; 
and the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] of 1938 was enacted.
  Now, nearly 60 years later, ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' and 
``The Wizard of Oz'' are American movie classics; World War II secured 
America's ascendency to superpower status; service sector jobs dominate 
the economy; the right to collectively bargain is deeply embedded in 
our labor laws; more than 75 percent of women with school-age children 
work; and as absurd as it may seem, our rules governing the workplace 
and working hours still are largely governed by the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938.
  Mr. President, America's working families and working conditions are 
undergoing major transformations today, yet the rules Americans must 
work under do not reflect changes in the structure and needs of 
society. Hopelessly outdated, our workplace laws reflect the needs of a 
bygone era that faced different challenges than we do today. It is 
incomprehensible that workplace law in this country is predominated by 
a workplace statute that was passed almost 60 years ago.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted at the request of President 
Roosevelt, who charged the 75th Congress with passing a law to help 
those ``who toil in factory and on farm to obtain a fair day's work.'' 
The law was enacted to protect unskilled, low-pay workers--those unable 
to protect themselves. In the context of today's two-parent and 
service-oriented workplace; however, the law has unintended and 
unexpected consequences. In today's fast-paced, information-based 
society, its rigid and inflexible provisions have paralyzed those it 
was meant to help. The FLSA now deprives employees of the right to 
order their daily lives on and off the job to meet the responsibilities 
of work and home.
  For example, under the FLSA a worker who wants to work 45 hours one 
week in exchange for working only 35 the following week so he or she 
can attend their child's baseball game, parent-teacher conference, or 
doctor's appointment, must first have an employer willing to pay him or 
her five hours of overtime pay for the 45 hour week. Since most 
employers cannot afford this additional expense, an employee is left 
with just two choices. He or she can forgo five hours of pay to be with 
their child, or miss the event their child needs them to attend. It is 
not an employer who places employees in this catch-22 regarding their 
families, it is the Federal Government. It is inside-the-beltway 
elitists who are depriving employees of the right to make decisions 
best suited for their circumstances.
  Ironically, even though the Fair Labor Standards Act ostensibly 
exempts salaried employees from the catch-22 faced by the Nation's 
hourly workers regarding flexibility in workday and workweek lengths, 
the truth is that they are not exempt as a practical matter. Under 
recent FSLA interpretations, whenever an employer allows a salaried 
worker to sway extra work for time off in increments which are less 
than a full day, the salaried worker is then converted to an hourly 
worker. This opens employers up to huge overtime pay liability if they 
let their salaried workers swap a few hours off for a few hours of 
additional work before or after the time off.
  Let me give an example, Mr. President. Pierce Processing was a 
professional engineering firm with 20 employees in Cincinnati, OH. 
William Pierce updated his personnel policies to provide his salaried 
employees with the maximum flexibility possible in their work schedules 
in order to meet the needs of their families and an attempt to increase 
their flexibility between work and family. Mr. Pierce had only one 
requirement, that the employees work 80 hours in a 2-week period. Even 
though the employees were salaried, Pierce agreed to pay them an 
additional straight time for hours worked over 80 or to subtract the 
time from an
 employees' pay if they did not work a full 80 hours. Through this 
arrangement, he hoped these employees could tailor their work 
schedules--and even income if necessary--to meet their family needs. 
This gave his salaried employees a great deal of control over their 
daily lives and schedules. The Department of Labor, however, learned of 
this progressive personnel policy, barged in and reclassified the 
professional employees as hourly workers. The Feds also required the 
company to pay the salaried employees 3 years of back overtime pay. To 
maintain any sort of flexibility for his workers, Pierce had to adopt a 
policy that required everyone to work a full day extra or take a full 
day off--to satisfy the Federal Government--so very little flexibility 
could be provided. Ultimately, however, Mr. Pierce was forced, due to 
the enormous litigation expenses, to declare bankruptcy and 20 people 
lost their jobs--all because he paid his employees well and provided 
them with the maximum flexibility he could in scheduling.

  Malcolm Pirnie, an engineering firm with offices throughout the 
United States and over 400 employees, suffered the same fate at the 
hands of the Department of Labor because the firm allowed salaried 
employees to take a partial day of unpaid leave to attend parent-
teacher conferences, to visit the doctor, or to further their 
education. This action cost Malcolm Pirnie $875,000 in back pay for 
overtime and his employees lost their flexibility to schedule their 
work day to meet their individual needs.
  More recently, the Department of Labor has alleged that the Boeing 
Co. misclassified professional employees earning an average of $54,000 
a year because, in addition to their salaries, they also were paid 
straight time plus $6.50 an hour for all hours worked over 40 per week. 
With the tools provided by our Government under the FLSA, there now is 
a plaintiff's attorney currently soliciting 20,000 employees to join a 
class action suit againt Boeing. I have the solicitation letter here, 
where the attorney informs potential litigants of their rights and 
specifies that he can help only if the employees salary averages at 
least $13 an hour for a 40-hour week. As a result, Boeing's workers now 
will be entitled to their salaries only no matter how many hours they 
work--extra hours will not be additionally compensated any longer.
  Mr. President, FSLA's straightjacket on work schedules is not limited 
to the private sector, it also affects State and local government 
workers. In Philadelphia, one FLSA court case will cost the city $60 
million because the Federal Government says the city misclassified 
police officers as salaried workers. New York City's liability for the 
alleged misclassification will be $16 million and California 
anticipates over $565 million in liability due to five pending FLSA 
cases. In almost every case, some of the most highly paid workers in 
the labor force are collecting a windfall through this technical 
provision in the law, thus costing taxpayers millions of dollars--
simply because State and local governments tried to provide their 
employees with workplace flexibility to meet personal and family needs.
  Mr. President, I do not believe these are the kind of results 
Congress intended in passing the Fair Labor Standards Act. I know this 
is a result this Congress should no longer tolerate.
  Today, I am pleased to introduce the Work and Family Integration Act 
in an effort to make the Fair Labor Standards Act conform to the 
realities of the current workplace. This legislation will put work 
schedule decisionmaking back in the hands of employees. It is designed 
to recognize that Washington does not know best, and that the millions 
of workers' individual circumstances cannot even begin to be addressed 
by this 60-year-old law, inflexible law. Today, flexibility is 
important and Americans deserve the benefit of setting their own 
schedules--not to be forced into the straightjacket demanded by the 
Department of Labor.
  Flexible schedules were first introduced in Germany in 1967. Shortly 

[[Page S 11789]]
  thereafter, many American institutions began realizing the benefits of 
these schedules for their salaried workers--in both productivity in the 
workplace and quality of life at home. In 1978, Congress recognized the 
benefit of these work
 arrangements and passed the Federal Employees Flexible & Compressed 
Work Schedules Act. This act authorized a 3-year experimental period of 
alternative work schedules for Federal employees. The experiment was so 
successful, it was extended again in 1982 and made permanent in 1985. 
Sixty-six Senators as Members of either the House or the Senate, either 
voted in favor of these laws, or were Members in 1985 when the 
permanent authorization passed the House and the Senate by voice vote.

  Flexible work schedules give employees more control over their lives 
by allowing them to balance family and work obligations better. In 
addition, employees may attend to family needs without using limited 
sick leave allowances. Under compressed work schedules, day care 
expenses can be reduced by as much as 20 percent. Time lost to 
commuting would decline for employees able to travel during nonpeak 
hours.
  Employers also would win. By having such family-friendly work 
arrangements, they would enjoy increased employee productivity and 
loyalty. These benefits are essential for employers to compete in 
today's international, service-oriented economies.
  It is uncontested that flexible work schedules are advantageous to 
both employees and employers. Even President Clinton recognized the 
benefits of flexible work schedules when he extended the FEFCWS to 
executive branch employees. On July 11, 1994, he said ``[b]road use of 
flexible work arrangements to enable Federal employees to better 
balance their work and family responsibilities can increase employee 
effectiveness and job satisfaction, while decreasing turnover rates and 
absenteeism.'' However, private sector employers remain unable to offer 
this benefit to their hourly workers--even when both employers and 
employees agree--due to the Congress' failure to update Federal 
workplace laws. If such flexibility has been good for Federal 
Government employees over the last decade and a half, why are such 
benefits being denied private sector employees and the employees of 
State and local governments?
  Mr. President, the Work and Family Integration Act I am introducing 
is modeled after the Federal Employee Flexible and Compressed Work 
Schedules Act. It would allow private sector employees, specifically 
hourly employees, the same flexible work schedules that Federal workers 
have enjoyed for almost twenty years. I emphasize that this bill is 
meant to drag the Fair Labor Standards Act into the work and family 
realities of the 1990's--instead of the 1930's--by doing three things:
  First, the bill would alter the FLSA's rigid 40-hour maximum workweek 
provision. It would allow employees to work 160 hours in any 
combination, over a 4-week period before employers would have to pay 
overtime compensation. In addition, when time is more valuable than 
money, employees would be able to request--and employers could 
provide--compensatory time-and-a-half off in lieu of compensatory 
overtime pay. Such flexibility in scheduling would enable employees to 
meet better their family, community, and personal needs. Employees, not 
the FSLA, will have control over their work lives.
  As a safeguard against abuse, this legislation would require that any 
flexible work arrangement be agreed upon by both the employee and the 
employer and coercion into such an arrangement is prohibited. An 
employer who ahead of time schedules hours over 40 per week, without 
the prior request of the employee, would continue to be obligated to 
pay time-and-a-half. Employers also would be obligated to pay overtime 
compensation for all hours worked over 160 in a 4-week period. Finally, 
collective bargaining agreements would remain unaffected and would be 
free to set whatever hours are reached in such agreements.
  A second area in which my bill would update the FLSA is to correct 
the Department of Labor concerns the salaried employee overtime 
exemption interpretation. In 1938, when the FLSA was written, employees 
generally were not paid unless they worked. Paid sick time, vacation 
time, holiday or compensatory time off were virtually unknown. 
Employees were either paid on an hourly basis
 for hours they actually worked or were paid a weekly salary. 
Therefore, the definition of salary was simple and easily understood.

  Now that paid time-off policies have become so varied and 
sophisticated, the differences between salaried and hourly paid 
employees are often almost indistinguishable. Application of the FLSA's 
salaried exemption frequently is arbitrary, unpredictable, and contrary 
to good-faith efforts by employers to help--not abuse--employees. As a 
result, many employers who have provided progressive flexible schedules 
for their salaried employees--unintentionally turning these employees 
into hourly workers, according to the Department of Labor--have been 
held liable for massive amounts of overtime back pay. Once reclassified 
as an hourly employee rather a salaried one, not only is the employer 
liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars of allegedly unpaid 
overtime, but the employee also loses control over their daily and 
weekly work schedules--and thus their ability to meet their family 
responsibilities.
  By clarifying the FLSA's exemption for salaried employees, employers 
will then be free to offer flexible work schedules to employees without 
the fear of having to pay back overtime instead of having to consult an 
attorney for every personnel decision.
  Finally, the bill contains a provision allowing former employees a 
priority in rehiring if they quit in order to take care of family 
member. An individual would then be able to take time off from his or 
her place of employment for up to 5 years to raise a child or care for 
a parent, and upon return, could receive priority treatment in rehiring 
by the employer. The employer could not have such an employee's 
priority treatment used against it as evidence of, or an actual 
violation of, Federal equal protection laws.
  Mr. President, while the other institutions of society have updated 
the modes and means of their production and operation, the Nation's 
workplace laws have lagged far behind. Today, the most successful 
corporations in America reflect the new realities of American life--
they are decentralized, flexible, and nonhierachical. Meanwhile, our 
Federal workplace laws continue to function along the centralized, 
hierarchical, and one-size-fits-all principles that were the mandates 
of an age long past. For far too long Congress has largely ignored the 
changes in modern society's work and family realities. There is no need 
for the Federal Government to continue protecting employees from 
themselves in allegiance to an outdated law.
  In the November election, Americans spoke loud and clear. 
Unfortunately, the voters' roar was barely audible to those in 
Washington who are no longer attuned to reality of the American 
experience outside the beltway. On the other hand, for many of us, the 
frustrated cries of those outside of Washington still echo in our ears. 
The resounding mandate from the electorate is to drastically reduce 
Government spending, to shrink the size of the Federal Government, and 
to stop Government from interfering in making decisions for themselves, 
their property, and their lives. That means that the attitude of 
Washington-knows-best must come to an end.
  Unfortunately, this attitude has become so prevalent in the minds of 
this city's elite inside-the-beltway thinkers that they can no longer 
recognize it in themselves. Washington has become so obsessed with 
taking care of the American people that it is blind to the fact that 
such protection is often detrimental to the people's ability to order 
their activities and day-to-day lives as their desire.
  Amending the Fair Labor Standards Act is essential to allow all 
people--mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters--to work with their 
employers to arrange a schedule which suits their obligations in the 
home place as well as the workplace. This bill I am introducing would 
largely remove the Federal Government from the most important decisions 
Americans face each and every day, week, and month of the year.

[[Page S 11790]]

  And that, Mr. President, is precisely what voters sent us here to do.
  

                          ____________________