Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 55 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 55 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3881-S3890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AMENDMENTS--MOTION TO PROCEED

The Senate continued with the consideration of the motion to proceed.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are now proceeding on the motion to
proceed to S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. First of all, I
wish to commend Senator DeWine, who is the chairman of the subcommittee
which very dexterously handled this bill in committee. I would also
like to thank Senator Ashcroft, the original author of the bill, who
has done so much to bring, not only the attention of Congress to the
problems we are addressing in the Family Friendly Workplace Act,

[[Page S3882]]

but also helped and assisted in bringing the attention of this body to
the problems that are created by the current law.
I am pleased to be on the floor of the Senate today for the opening
debate on the motion to proceed to S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace
Act. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of many other
colleagues and the effort that went into S. 4 by the committee who was
able to bring out a piece of legislation which I am confident will have
the support of the Senate.
I am extremely excited about this legislation because I believe it
will positively affect the lives of millions of Americans. Today, there
are more working single parents and dual-income families in America
than ever before. The Family Friendly Workplace Act represents an
important step in providing employees in the private sector greater
latitude to balance the conflicting demands of work and family. This
legislation provides men and women working in the private sector the
opportunity to voluntarily choose compensatory time off in lieu of
overtime pay as well as to voluntarily participate in biweekly and
flexible credit hour programs. It does so by giving employees the
opportunity to choose to take paid leave time instead of cash
compensation for overtime worked and to work out more flexible
schedules with their employers if it suits their needs. These same
options have been available to State, local and Federal employees for
some time and they have been enormously popular with these public
sector employees.

Mr. President, since this bill was first introduced, it has met with
opposition. I believe the opposition stems from the political positions
of big labor unions rather than the needs of working men and women. I
imagine that S. 4's opponents are concerned, in part, because it is the
first piece of legislation in nearly six decades that makes any
significant modification to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
While I understand the concern of S. 4's opponents, I believe that it
is misplaced. The Fair Labor Standards Act was, and still is, an
important piece of legislation because it provided much needed
protection to American workers at the time when their welfare was often
disregarded, in the horrible period of the Depression. While the
principles behind the Fair Labor Standards Act have not changed, its
stringent provisions make it difficult to accommodate the needs of
today's work force.
Since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, there
have been considerable changes in our Nation's economy, labor market
conditions and labor-management relations. One of the greatest
transformations has been in the composition of the U.S. labor force.
More women are working than ever before. According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, women now account for 46 percent of the labor force.
Between 1948 and 1995, women's labor participation rates almost doubled
from 33 percent to 59 percent.
The increase of women in the workplace has had a significant impact
on the day-to-day activities of the American family. The stay-at-home
mom is now the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, in 1995, only
5.2 percent of all American families mirrored the traditional ``Ozzie
and Harriet'' family structure of a wage-earning father, a nonworking
mother, and two children. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
62 percent of two-parent families with children have both parents
working outside the home.
The makeup of the American work force has changed dramatically, yet
few provisions of the FSLA have been updated to reflect these changes.
The needs of today's work force are different than the needs of the
work force of the 1930's. Although employees are demanding more
flexible work schedules and compensation packages, the FSLA and its
underlying regulations preclude employers from complying with employee
needs.
This need for a change in the existing law was exhibited in a recent
poll conducted by Penn & Schoen for the Employment Policy Foundation.
The poll indicates that 88 percent of all workers want more flexibility
through scheduling and/or the choice of compensatory time. Another
national poll revealed that 65 percent of Americans favored changes in
the labor law that would allow for more flexible work schedules. It is
not surprising that the private sector is demanding change. In a 1985
survey of Federal employees participating with flexible work schedules,
72 percent said that they had more flexibility to spend time with their
families, and 74 percent said that having a flexible schedule had
improved their morale.
Over the past several years, the committee has heard compelling
testimony from workers about the difficulty of balancing work and
family responsibilities. For example, Christine Korzendorfer, who works
for TRW Systems in Fairfax, VA, testified that she works a lot of
overtime hours. Her husband, who is self-employed, also works 7 days a
week making caring for their two children a constant struggle. Ms.
Korzendorfer said that while the overtime pay is important to her,
having extra time off to be with her family is more important. She
wants the choice to be able to take comp time off instead of overtime
when it best fits her needs and her family's needs.

In addition, the committee heard from Sallie Larsen, vice president,
Human Resources and Communication, TRW Systems Integration Group, about
TRW employees' frustration with the rigidity of the current law. Ms.
Larsen explained that it was important for her business unit to
understand their employees' work patterns because the work patterns
factored into how TRW bid for new work. To meet the needs of its
employees, TRW saw an opportunity to add flexibility for all of its
salaried employees and managers in its work scheduling. As a result,
TRW invented a program called the Professional Work Schedule which
gives salaried employees the ability to participate in 2-week flexing,
partial-day time off and additional time off. However, the restrictions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act prevented TRW from offering the program
to its hourly employees. Ms. Larsen testified that TRW's hourly
employees were amazed to learn that it is a 60-year-old law that is
substantially unchanged since it was passed that stands in their way of
becoming a full member of the team.
When the employees ask, ``Why am I treated as a second-class
citizen?'' TRW explains, ``It is the law, not the company's
unwillingness to offer the professional work schedule to them.''
As I mentioned earlier, employees in the public sector have had this
option since 1985, and it has been very popular. Unlike in the public
sector, however, S. 4 would prohibit employees from forcing workers to
accept comp-time off instead of being paid overtime as a condition of
employment. That is a change from the public law. In fact, under S. 4,
an employee's participation in any flexible work arrangement would be
totally voluntary. We have worked hard on the language since its
introduction to make this crystal clear and to provide strong penalties
against any employer who coerces, intimidates, or threatens a worker
into accepting such an agreement.
This is true flexibility for workers and not the heavy hand of the
employer. Providing families more flexibility in the workplace to help
meet family needs should be a bipartisan goal. In the last year,
President Clinton has acknowledged the importance of work force
flexibility. For instance, in his recent State of the Union Address the
President said, ``We should pass flextime so workers can choose to be
paid overtime in income, or trade it for time off to be with their
families.''
Because S. 4 will assist American workers to balance the needs of an
evolving work environment and quality family time, I urge all my
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think, since this is the Ashcroft
legislation, the Senator should be entitled to make the first statement
on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in
moving to consideration of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It
is an act which would help us accommodate the needs of families by
recognizing that there are competing stresses. Most families feel two
important stresses in their lives: One, the need to be with their
families and to do for their families what their families require; the

[[Page S3883]]

other is to provide resources, financial resources, for the family.
These two stresses have put us in a unique condition, in terms of the
way families operate. In the 1930's, when we enacted the Fair Labor
Standards Act, it was clear that very few families found both parents
as wage earners. As a matter of fact, in the 1930's, only one out of
every six women with school-aged children worked outside the home.
We have seen these two stresses--the requirement to spend time with
our family and the requirement to provide financial resources in order
to support our family--drive both parents in many situations into the
workplace so there is this tension that exists in the workplace. It is
a tension that relates to how we accommodate our families at the same
time we provide the financial resources for our families. That being
the case, the sponsors of S. 4 sought to find a way that we could say
to families: We understand how important it is to you to get the
financial resources to support your children. We understand how much
you need to spend time with your children. Finally, we want to say to
American families that we understand how important it is that you spend
time with your children without sacrificing the financial resources
that your family needs. The solution--we thought it best to provide a
way for people to be able to work flexible work schedules.
This is not a way for people to take a pay cut or to lose resources.
We already have the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows people
to take a pay cut in order to meet a family emergency. But public
policy in this country should not require American workers to take a
pay cut in order to be a good mom or dad in this country. Most people
have the understanding that they want to be able to both meet the
financial needs of their family and meet the social needs that are
attendant to being a mom or dad. That is what this bill would do.

This bill would simply allow flexible work schedules to be arranged,
when the employee and the employer agree--when there is agreement on
both parties--it cannot be a coerced agreement. The bill provides
specifically, that if there is coercion--either direct or indirect
coercion--that there are enhanced, heightened, and substantial
penalties involved. Therefore, when there is a voluntary agreement
between the employer and employee, the employee in overtime situations
can opt to take time-and-a-half off instead of getting time-and-a-half
pay. And, where there is an employee who does not get overtime work
regularly, and that happens to be most of the hourly workers in the
country--the vast majority of citizens do not get overtime work. In
those settings, where an employee never has an opportunity to earn
overtime compensation, there should be an opportunity for people to say
to the boss, ``If I work an extra hour this week, calling that
flextime, can I take an hour off next week when my son or daughter is
going to get an award at the high school and I need to take an extended
lunch hour? Can I take some time off next week if I need to go take a
group of kids to the soccer game? I will work the hour this week.''
Americans really are not aware that that is against the law for
hourly workers right now. For an employer to trade with an employee an
hour in 1 week, and say you can make it up in the next week, if the
hour in the next week puts the person over 40 hours--it simply is
illegal to make that up on an hour-for-hour basis. If you want to take
the hour off this week and make it up next week, it is now a
responsibility of the employer to make it up at a time-and-a-half
basis. So you have to pay time and a half. Most employers cannot afford
that, so they do not have that kind of flexible working arrangement. It
is pretty clear to me that most Americans would like to have the
opportunity to swap an hour, sometimes, one week for an hour the next
week. Under this bill, if the employer asked, suggested, or even hinted
that he wanted an employee to work over 40 hours in a week, the
employee would be entitled to overtime pay. In order to bank hours on
an hour-for-hour basis, the employee ``initiate and request'' the
ability to work the additional hour.
So, there are a number of components of this bill, all of which are
designed to relieve the stress of working families, all of which are
designed to give Americans more time with their families. These
provisions are designed to do it without forcing you to take the time
off without pay. The real challenge we have in our culture is to
continue to sustain our families financially but also to continue to
sustain our families in their abilities to do the kinds of things they
need to do together. What is important to note is that, in addition to
the overtime provision, which can be compensated at time and a half,
there is also the flextime provision of the bill which attends to
workers who are not normally able to get overtime work.
The Census Bureau collects data on a regular basis. Out of their data
they collected in 1996, the data revealed that only 4 percent of
working women who work on an hourly basis reported that they get
regular overtime pay. It would be fine for those women if they could
take that overtime and convert it to time-and-a-half off. But let's be
serious. If we were only going to address the stresses and tensions
that exist in the families of that 4 percent of the work force, we are
not really going to do much to improve the lives of very many people.
We need to be able to address this tension and this stress that exists
in the work force generally. That is why it is important to offer the
flex-time parts of this bill, which allow a person to say, ``I will
work an extra hour this week in return if the boss will let me take
that hour off next week, or vice versa.''
Those are the kinds of provisions that have been available in the
public sector for the last 20 years. In 1978, sponsored by
Congresswoman Ferraro, of New York, and Congresswoman Schroeder, of
Colorado, we enacted the law in the Federal system which provided for
flexibility in employment for Federal workers. The same provisions,
which we now are offering before the Senate, ought to be extended to
workers around the country in the private sector. What is interesting
is that the system has worked so well at the Federal and local level.
As a matter of fact, the General Accounting Office wanted to see what
the impact of having these kind of work rules was on governmental
performance, on morale of workers. When the General Accounting Office
surveyed the workers they found out that workers approved or expressed
their appreciation for this kind of working arrangement at a 10-to-1
ratio. So, for every 1 worker here who said, ``I am not enthusiastic
about this, I do not really care for it,'' 10 workers said they
approved it.

Frankly, you cannot get that 10-to-1 ratio of workers to agree that
today is Thursday afternoon. That is an overwhelming endorsement. That
is a clear statement by workers, the workers themselves--union workers,
nonunion workers--that this system works.
One of the features that is allowed in the Federal Government system
that would be allowed and available in the private sector under this
bill would be the ability of workers and their employers, upon the
agreement and voluntary--voluntary consent of both parties, to schedule
work over a 2-week period to average 40 hours a week. This was
extremely popular in the Federal Government, because it allowed people
to work 9 days in the 2-week period instead of 10 days in the 2-week
period. Working 9 days in the 2-week period really meant that workers
had every other Friday off, so they would work 8 days at 9 hours a day
for 72 hours and then the ninth day they would work 8 hours. That took
them to 80 hours. Then, with that in mind, having worked 80 hours in
the 2-week period, 45 hours in the first 5 days and 35 hours in the
next 4 days, those 2 weeks together constituted 80 hours. And each
second week, Friday would be off.
The opportunity is apparent, here, in terms of the ability to spend
time with your children; the ability to tend to things that can only be
done during business hours. This is one of the reasons, when Federal
employees are asked about the program, they endorse it overwhelmingly.
It is one of the reasons why unions in the Federal arena insist on
these provisions, these capacities, these flexibilities. It is one of
the reasons why individuals in the work force ought to really have this
opportunity in the private sector.
Having worked flawlessly for the last 20 years, increased
productivity, built morale, and been endorsed by workers
overwhelmingly, it is time for us to say

[[Page S3884]]

to the work force generally: This is something you should have. Federal
workers have it. It is time that ordinary workers in the private sector
have it. I should not say ``ordinary'' because I do not want to suggest
that the other workers are extraordinary. The point is, salaried
workers have had flexibility for a long time. The boardroom has had
flexibility for a long time. The guys who run the company never seem to
have difficulty in being able to take time off to see their kids get an
award, or even to play a game, or a round of golf, or perhaps link up
with some of their friends at a predetermined time for a fishing trip
or outing, or to even be volunteers, when it is necessary, to help
their communities.
But the hourly individuals are the ones who have faced that
challenge. Of course, the people who have felt the squeeze the most, I
think, are the moms who have gone into the work force since the 1930's.
There are 28.8 million working women who work by the hour in this
country and it is time for us to say to them: You should be entitled to
some of the same flexibility that people in the boardroom or at the
head of the company or the salaried workers of America have had. It is
time for us to say to them you should be entitled to some of the same
opportunities to work with your family as the people who work for the
Federal Government have had. It is time for us to say to them it would
be appropriate for you to have the same capacity to volunteer and to
help your children in their athletic activities, or academic
activities, or extracurricular activities, as the people who work for
State and local governments have had.
It is time to give the average worker in the United States of
America, that individual who has served, working hard on an hourly
basis, these same benefits that have been enjoyed by individuals who
have worked on a salaried basis and have worked for the U.S.
Government, for State governments, or for local governments.
Some individuals have indicated that perhaps it is enough for us to
just address the issue of comptime. I would just suggest, because
comptime is available only to workers who work overtime regularly, that
we ought to think carefully about limiting the flexible working
arrangements that we think ought to be available to American workers to
those who are normally endowed with the right to work overtime.
Overtime is not the prerogative of most American workers. Estimates
run as high as a third of the workers get regular overtime. The census
clearly indicated only 4 percent of the hourly workers who were women
in 1996 said they got regular overtime.
What if you would triple that number from 4 percent to, say, 12
percent? You would still only have one woman working by the hour out of
eight who received regular overtime. If we are going to provide
flexibility to only one out of eight women, it seems to me we have
missed the boat; or only two out of eight men, because twice as many
men work in jobs that get overtime as women do.
If you take the universe of people who get overtime work, it is a 2-
to-1 population in favor of men who have worked in the jobs that
historically get overtime.
I do not think it is appropriate for us to try to limit what we do to
individuals who have had the good fortune to find themselves in jobs
where they would traditionally get overtime, especially when that means
that it would only result in maybe one out of eight women in the work
force working by the hour, having the flexible options, having the
capacity to have an adjustable schedule the way people do in the
boardroom, the way people do in State government, the way people do in
the Federal Government.
I think it is time for us to say to America generally, ``We
understand it's tough to balance the competing demands of the homeplace
and the workplace. We understand that when you take time off, you don't
want to lose money doing so, because you wouldn't be working in the
first place if you could afford to lose money by taking time off.''
We need to say, ``We understand you don't want to take a pay cut to
be a good mom or dad.''
We need to say, ``We understand that you want to be a volunteer and
you will need to have flexible working arrangements from time to
time.''
We want to build a framework that says to them, ``If, indeed, those
are your aspirations, here is the way you can accomplish them. At least
you and your employer can together agree voluntarily that these kinds
of things can be done.''
I emphasize the word ``voluntarily,'' because that is the way the
bill would work. If there is coercion, either direct or indirect
coercion, the bill provides for elevated, extraordinarily high
penalties. It says, ``If you are going to coerce workers, beware, you
are going to have a doubling of the penalties you previously had in
overtime settings.''
Second, in order to provide a further incentive for employers, who
are offering compensatory time off options, to not only allow employees
to take the time when they need it but also to not see it as a cost
savings, the bill provides that if an employee has chosen a comptime
option, if at any time the employee changes their mind, the employee
only has to say ``Nope, I've changed my mind. I would like to have the
money back instead of the time and a half off.''
So, if someone had originally said, ``I'll take time and a half
off,'' thinking that would please the employer in some way, they can
reverse that decision. In addition, if he believed he needed to accept
the comptime, in lieu of financial compensation, it would be coercion
and double current penalties could be assessed.
As an ultimate backup to make sure we don't have any abuse of the
workers here, we have a situation built right into the structure of the
bill so that at the end of the year, all the time and a half that is
there as comptime is automatically paid as time and a half and at time-
and-a-half rates.
So what we have here is a clear voluntary situation. You do not have
any incentives for any employer to distort the voluntarism. You have
employers who really understand that, if they can help employees be
good parents, they are going to be better employees and, together, with
a happier employer and happier employee, people are going to be able to
meet the needs of their family without taking pay cuts. That it is a
win-win situation. That is what we targeted. We built protections into
the bill and structurally designed the bill, so that compensatory time
can be converted quickly and efficiently. It is automatically converted
if it is not used by the end of the year and we have provided elevated
penalties in the event that there is a problem with any coercion,
direct or indirect.

I might add as well, in the event the employer and employee in this
measure do not agree to take time off as compensatory time, if there is
no agreement on it, we fall back under the 1930's Fair Labor Standards
Act. In other words, nothing is done to deprive any worker who wants to
live under the terms and conditions of the law as it now exists from
working under those conditions.
What we really have is an ability of the worker and the employer to
choose to be more flexible and, if either one is dissatisfied, that
choice is reflected in the continuation of the status quo: The 40-hour
week continues to be in existence; the required payment of overtime at
time and a half payment instead of time and a half off continues in
existence. So the ultimate security for any worker is that the worker
can choose to operate in the same framework of legal protection that
worker has at this very time.
This is an attempt to say to the work force, ``We know that you are
stressed. We know that the demands of your house and the demands of
your job are competing, and when they collide, if possible, we would
like to give you the option of being able to work it out with your
employer and to work it out in a framework of protections that are
likely to result in your being able to succeed.''
We are doing this, not with some program we have dreamed up, not with
some novel, untested, untried set of opportunities. We are doing this
with a program that has been in existence now since 1978, almost 20
years, in the Federal Government. We are doing this by proposing for
the private sector the kind of flexible working arrangements which have
been available in the public sector and which workers in the public
sector have endorsed at a 10-to-1 ratio, which workers in the public
sector, be

[[Page S3885]]

they union workers or nonunion workers, are eager to continue, and when
contracts are negotiated, there is an insistence that these kinds of
provisions continue to be available.
I might just add one other thing about the President and his
involvement. The President, in his campaign, called for ``flexible work
arrangements'' for citizens. He used that very language. He used that
language again in his State of the Union Message. He talked about
``flexible working arrangements.'' When the President of the United
States, President Clinton, came into office, he noticed that there was
a small group of executive branch workers who didn't have the
privileges that were accorded to the rest of the Government workers
regarding flexible working arrangements and compensatory time. When the
President made that observation, he did the right thing. The President
said to the rest of the workers, ``I'm going to extend the benefits of
these kinds of working relationships by Executive order to you as
Federal workers, because these are the kinds of things which will help
you do a good job, they will help us get good work, and they will help
you resolve the tension between your family and your workplace.''
What was good for the President of the United States in his campaign,
what he remarked on favorably in his remarks to the Congress, what he
indicated was appropriate by way of Executive order, is good for the
American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican leadership is pushing its
so-called compensatory time bill, but a better name for it is the
Paycheck Reduction Act. The bill has four fatal flaws:
First, it is a pay cut for large numbers of workers who don't deserve
that harsh treatment from either Congress or their employers. The bill
eliminates the guarantee of pay for overtime work for 65 million
employees. The Republicans have openly admitted their pay-cut strategy.
When the National Federation of Independent Businesses testified at the
Senate Labor Committee hearing on the bill, they said ``Small
businesses can't afford to pay overtime.'' That's why they support this
legislation.
Vast numbers of today's workers depend on overtime pay to make ends
meet. Half of those who earn overtime take home $16,000 a year or less.
More than 80 percent earn under $28,000 a year. American workers cannot
afford this Republican pay cut.
Second, the bill cuts other benefits. Health and retirement benefits
are based on the number of hours worked by employees, and their
benefits would be slashed too. Comptime hours do not count as hours
worked, so employees will lost health coverage while they are working,
and much-needed pension benefits after they retire.
Third, the proposal abolishes the 40-hour week. Employers could
require employees to work up to 80 hours in a week without receiving
overtime pay. A company could schedule a worker for 60 hours in 1 week,
and 20 in the next, all without a penny of overtime pay. This isn't a
family-friendly bill--it's a family-enemy bill.
Fourth, the bill provides no employee choice. The employer chooses
who works overtime and when an employee can use comptime. The employer
can assign all overtime work to employees who will accept comptime
instead of overtime pay. Those who need overtime pay to make ends meet
will no longer receive it. The bill also lets the employer decide when
employees can use the comptime they have earned. If an employee wants
to use comptime to take a child to the dentist, or attend a school
play, the employer is free to deny the request.
If the Republicans are genuinely interested in helping working
Americans deal with family needs, they should support expansion of the
Family and Medical Leave Act. That law has been a resounding success
since its enactment in 1993. It gives employees up to 12 weeks of
unpaid leave a year to care for a newborn or newly-adopted child, or to
deal with a serious medical condition of the employee or close
relative.
Two proposals to expand the act are now under consideration in
Congress. Senator Dodd proposes to apply the law to all firms with 25
or more employees, instead of 50 or more employees under current law.
This step would enable 15 million more workers to receive this
important benefit. Senator Murray proposes to offer 24 hours of leave a
year for employees to attend parent-teacher conferences and other
school events.
Those who support genuine family-friendly policies know that the
Family and Medical Leave Act works well for working families. I urge my
colleagues to support its expansion and to reject the Republican
comptime Trojan horse.
I know there is significant interest in the idea of legislation that
would allow an employee to make a genuinely voluntary choice to be
compensated for overtime work in time off rather than in pay. But, this
is not that bill. Even those of you who support the concept of
voluntary comptime should oppose S. 4. S. 4 contains four major
provisions, each of which is designed not to help employees, but to
allow employers to reduce the amount of money they must pay their
workers.
This bill isn't meant to help employees juggle their work and family
obligations. Instead, it is designed to help employers cut workers'
wages. Forcing employees to accept time off instead of overtime pay is
a cut.
While the legislation purports to let employees make the choice
between overtime pay and comptime, it does not contain the protections
which are necessary to ensure that employees are free to choose and are
free from reprisal.
Under S. 4, it is the employer, not the employee, who decides what
forms of comptime and flextime will be available at the workplace.
There is no freedom of choice for the worker.
There is nothing in this bill which prevents an employer from
discriminating against a worker who refuses to take comptime instead of
overtime pay. Under S. 4, an employer could lawfully deny all overtime
work to those employees who want to be paid and give overtime
exclusively to workers who will accept comptime in lieu of pay. There
is no freedom of choice for the worker.
The employee may want a particular day off so that she can accompany
her child to a special school event or to a medical examination at the
pediatrician. However, nothing in this legislation requires the
employer to give the employee the day she requests. This bill gives the
employer virtually unreviewable discretion to determine when a worker
can use her accrued comptime. Here, too, there is no freedom of choice
for the worker.
S. 4 contains much more than a badly flawed comptime provision. It
contains a section entitled ``Biweekly work program'' which literally
eliminates the 40-hour workweek. The bill substitutes a provision which
would allow an employer to work his employees up to 80 hours in a
single week without paying a cent of overtime. The employees would not
even receive 1\1/2\ hours of comptime for each extra hour they worked.
The next new provision is entitled ``Flexible credit hours.'' Under
this provision, an employee who works hours that are in excess of the
basic work requirement would no longer be entitled to overtime.
Instead, the employee would get an equivalent amount of hours off at a
later unspecified time. Under existing law, the employee would be paid
time and a half for such excess hours. Under comptime, the employee
would at least receive 1\1/2\ hours of time off for every excess hour
worked. However, flexible credit hours purport to offer the employee a
new, innovative alternative--work the excess hours but receive only 1
hour off for each excess hour worked. I cannot imagine how any employee
could turn down an offer like that. Does anyone in this room honestly
believe an employee who was not being coerced would choose to
participate in such a plan?
The last feature of this bill appears on page 43. We haven't
discussed it and I would urge each of you to take a closer look at it.
It applies to salaried employees. Under current law, they do not
receive overtime when they work extra hours and their pay cannot be
deducted for an absence of less than a full day. S. 4 proposes to
change that rule. Salaried employees would still receive no overtime
but they could be subject to deductions in their pay if they were
absent. In other words, the fact that they could have pay deducted if
they missed 5 hours of work in a week can no longer be used to prove
that they are hourly

[[Page S3886]]

employees entitled to overtime if they work 5 hours extra another week.
Is that fair? Is that enhancing worker's freedom of choice.
When you analyze what S. 4 would really do for American workers, it
should be entitled ``The Pay Reduction Act of 1997.''
The essence of a genuine comptime bill is the creation of new options
for employees, not employers. As you know, President Clinton has
endorsed comptime legislation. However, even as a supporter of the
principle of comptime, he has stated that he would be compelled to veto
S. 4. A letter sent to this committee by the Acting Secretary of Labor
at the direction of the White House sets forth the failings of this
legislation clearly:

Any comptime legislation must effectively and
satisfactorily address three fundamental principles: real
choice for employees; real protection against employer abuse;
and preservation of basic worker rights, including the 40-
hour work week. President Clinton will veto any bill that
does not meet these fundamental principles.
While the President has called for and strongly supports
enactment of responsible comptime legislation, he will not
sign any bill--including S. 4--that obliterates the principle
of time-and-a-half for overtime or that destroys the 40-hour
workweek. Workers--not employers--must be able to decide how
best to meet the current needs of their family.

Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, my colleague from Minnesota indicated he
was ready to proceed. Let me see if he is ready. For the moment, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator DeWine,
for his courtesy.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anne
Wilson, who is interning with us, be granted the privilege of the floor
during this debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will actually be relatively brief for
now. We are going to have time for plenty of discussion and debate. In
its present form--and I appreciate the words of my colleague from
Missouri--this piece of legislation might better be called the Paycheck
Reduction Act. I will just go over some bullet points and marshal
evidence behind each.
Pay cut eliminates the guarantee of pay for overtime work for 65
million American workers. Mr. President, we passed the Fair Labor
Standards Act over half a century ago. It was an important piece of
legislation. It represented real progress for working families. The
idea was that if you worked over a 40-hour week, you would get paid
time and a half. That is an important principle. This piece of
legislation essentially turns the clock back over a half a century. In
a way it is a nonstarter for that reason alone.
Interestingly enough, we had an amendment when we were marking up the
bill in committee which essentially said, at least don't give the
employer all the power so that an employer is in a position to say to
someone, Look, we will not give you time and a half compensation for
overtime work. We will give you flextime. So the employer is in a
situation to say to a worker, OK, you worked an hour over; we'll give
you a flextime hour--that is hour to hour--but we won't offer flexible
compensation at time and a half. That was voted down.
Benefits cut. Health and retirement benefits based on hours worked
would be slashed.
Abolishes the 40-hour week. Employee could work up to 80 hours in a
week without receiving overtime pay. That is just unbelievable.
Everybody should understand this. This is a sacred principle. The
reason we passed the Fair Labor Standards Act is that many employees,
some the very employees Senator Ashcroft was discussing, do not have a
lot of clout vis-a-vis their employers.
The idea was to have some basic protection, so that if you were
working hard to support a family and you worked overtime, you would get
paid overtime. That assurance is abolished. Under this legislation, an
employee could be working 50 or 60 hours a week or more and not get
paid any overtime for that. To move away from the 40-hour week turns
the clock back about a half a century.
Finally, No employee choice. Employer chooses who and when. Employer
determines who works overtime and when an employee can use comp time.
This is, in many ways, one of the most troubling features of this
legislation. Please remember, and we had testimony in our subcommittee
on this, there are companies that really work well with employees. They
have good partnerships, and there are situations where an employee
works 4 days a week, 10 hours a day and takes off Friday. That can be
done now. You do not need to overturn the Fair Labor Standards Act. You
do not need to overturn the 40-hour week. That can be done now.
Or what people can do is work 9 hours a day as opposed to 8 hours and
then work half a day on a Friday or on a Monday. That can be done now
within the existing framework of labor law.
Or people can go in at 7 and come home at 3 or come in at 10 and go
home at 6. There are all sorts of flexible arrangements. Right now,
employers can give their employees this flexibility if they so desire.
The problem is, a lot of employers do not do that. But it has nothing
to do with the basic principle of the 40-hour week, and the principle
that if an employee works overtime, he or she should get time and a
half pay. This legislation undercuts that.
Mr. President, that hardly represents a step forward for working
people in this country. That is why, in its present form, this is the
Paycheck Reduction Act. And that is why we are adamantly opposed to it.
That is why most people in the country will be opposed to it when they
learn all the provisions in the legislation.
This is my last point for today. Mr. President, what is interesting
about this is it is all done in the name of choice. But you know, we
had some interesting amendments in committee that speak to this
question.
I offered an amendment which said we have a Family Medical Leave Act
right now which says that there are up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in
the case of sickness of a child or an adult, so why don't we say this:
If an employee has banked 10 hours of earned comp time, and she calls
her employer and says, ``Look, I need that time off because my child is
sick,'' she gets it automatically. The employer does not get to shut
her down and say no. If you want to give the employee choice, do not
give all the power to the employers. But, Mr. President, that amendment
was voted down.
We had another amendment which took some parts of the labor force--
for example, garment workers--and said, we have a lot of people right
now who, whatever the law of the land says, are not even getting paid
minimum wage or earned overtime. We have a lot of examples of forced
and unpaid overtime, and we have a whole backload of unfair labor
practices. So couldn't we at least exempt some sectors of the work
force where we know people are vulnerable and somewhat powerless and,
as a matter of fact, have been exploited by some employers? Thank
goodness most employers are not that way. But that amendment went down
as well.
Mr. President, one other example. We had discussion where we said,
wait a minute, we have this backload, we have all sorts of potential
for abuse. Can't we at least have a commitment of resources so we have
some enforcement?
You are going to need more people within the Department of Labor to
enforce this to make sure that people are not forced to work overtime
without overtime pay because no matter what you say in theory--about
this being voluntary--the vast majority of people who work can tell you
right now they do not always have a lot of choices. A whole lot of
people put up with really awful working conditions. They put up with
unsafe working conditions. They put up with situations that none of us
would want to be in. But they do it to put food on the table. So
couldn't we at least provide people with some protection? That is not
here either.
Mr. President, with all due respect, this bill is hardly giving
people more

[[Page S3887]]

flexibility. That is the way it sounds at first blush. But what really
is at issue here is you essentially overturn portions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, you overturn the 40-hour week, you put people in the
situation where the employer--and in most situations the employer has
the power--is going to say to people, ``Hey, we're pleased to give you
flextime,'' or, ``We're pleased to give you an hour off, but it's hour
for hour, even if you worked overtime. Even if you've banked hours,
we're not going to give you time and a half compensation when you want
and need it.''
Let me tell you, the reason people work is because they need that pay
to put food on the table. The reason you have so many families where
both people work, both husband and wife, is because they need the
income.
I do not think people are interested in seeing their paycheck cut. I
do not think people are interested in being put in a situation where
they no longer receive time-and-a-half overtime compensation. I do not
think people are going to be pleased with a piece of legislation that
abolishes the 40-hour week. And I do not think people are going to be
pleased with a piece of legislation which sounds great in theory about
employee choice, but does not have any of the provisions in it which
would really guarantee that that would be a reality.
So, Mr. President, I have a budget meeting, and I apologize, because
I like to debate with my colleague from Missouri. I promise him I will
be on the floor whenever we get back to this, to hear what he says and
go back and forth--and with my good friend from Ohio. These two are my
good friends. We do not always agree, but they are two Senators I
really do like and respect. I feel badly about speaking and leaving,
but only because we have this budget meeting right now. In any case,
Mr. President, what I said was so compelling, what I said is
irrefutable and irreducible, and I do not think they could possibly
respond to it anyway.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for the kind
comments. I am sorry he is leaving, but he has an important mission on
the Budget Committee. I have debated this issue on a number of
different occasions in committee. But I must say that he is
particularly eloquent today, because I do not even recognize this bill
after he finished describing it. It is an entirely different bill than
the bill I thought we passed out of committee. And I am sure many of
the points that he raised today are going to be points of contention as
this debate continues over the next few weeks.
Mr. President, let me first congratulate Senator Ashcroft and Senator
Kay Bailey Hutchison for the great work that they have done to bring
this bill to the floor today. In the House, my colleague from Ohio,
Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, has done tremendous work on this bill.
This is a bill that I am particularly proud to have been involved in
to help bring to the floor today, because I think it will help bring
the American workplace into the 21st century and, more importantly,
bring the underlying labor law into the 21st century and make both more
conducive, more understanding, to the changing nature of American
society and of the American workplace, particularly of the American
family and how people really live today.
In the hearings that we held in the Senate Labor and Human Resources
Committee on this bill several months ago, we heard facts that
substantiate the monumental changes that have taken place in American
society in this century, particularly in the last 20 to 25 years,
changes that make it absolutely essential that we pass this
legislation.
Mr. President, today more than 60 percent of married women work
outside their home; 75 percent of married women with school-aged
children work outside the home; 75 percent of married couples with
children have both spouses working.
We compare these statistics, Mr. President, to the situation in 1950:
11 percent in 1950--11 percent--of married mothers with children under
the age of 6 worked outside the home. Today, almost 50 percent do--47
percent.
In less than half a century--in my lifetime--we have gone from around
10 percent of these mothers working outside the home to nearly half of
them. This is truly a historic social change. I believe the sponsors of
this bill in both the House and the Senate believe that it would be a
good idea for the dynamics of the American workplace to finally catch
up with the dynamics of our society.
It would be a good idea, Mr. President, for our laws to reflect the
reality of how people live today. Put simply, Mr. President, there are
more single parents and dual income families in our work force today
than ever before, and their numbers are growing. In today's society,
employees are faced with a difficult task of balancing their
obligations to family, to spouse, to children, to work, school, other
important things.
Mr. President, it is significant--it is significant--that for many
years Federal, State, and local governments have enjoyed the statutory
ability to offer their employees a flexible work schedule, thus
allowing them an opportunity to spend more time with their families or
more time to continue their education.
Mr. President, as our colleagues consider this bill, I ask them to
consider how many times they have had a Federal employee, when they
have been back to their State, come up to them and say, ``I don't like
this. I don't like the comptime. I don't like the flexibility that the
law gives me today.'' They have had this, Federal workers have, for
several decades. State employees have.
I was Lieutenant Governor of Ohio for 4 years. I do not recall one
State employee ever coming up to me and saying, ``I don't like the
flexibility that we have.'' In fact, just the contrary. Everyone who
has ever talked to me about it has said, ``I enjoy it. I like it. It
helps my family.''
Mr. President, there are actually antiquated Federal laws which are
still on the books that are preventing some of the necessary changes in
the non-Government workplace. This is what this bill does. It sweeps
away some of these old laws that prohibit workers from doing what they
want to do.
Let us say, for example, a mother wants to take her daughter to a
doctor's appointment. She wants to make up the working hours she missed
by stacking them into other work days. Today, Federal law, written by
Congress in 1938, says the employer cannot do that. The employer has to
say to her, ``No. I am prohibited by law from doing this. I want to do
it. You want to do it. We are prohibited by law from doing it.''
Mr. President, that simply does not make sense as we approach the
next century. Workers in this country need more flexibility.
Mr. President, earlier this month the Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee passed this bill, a bill that would reduce some of
the stress on America's working families by making the American
workplace more family friendly.
As chairman of the Employment and Training Subcommittee, I handled
this bill and we held several hearings. The hearings strengthened my
conviction that this bill is long overdue.
Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the committee, was on the floor a
few minutes ago and talked about Christine Korzendorfer, a woman, a
mother of several children, who works at TRW. This is what she said,
and I quote. She is talking about overtime pay. ``Pay is important to
me.'' That is important. ``However, the time with my family is more
important. If I had the choice,''--if I had the choice--``there are
times when I would prefer to take comp time in lieu of overtime. What
makes this idea appealing is that I would be able to choose what option
best suits my situation.''
Mr. President, that pretty well sums it up. Individual choice is
really what this is all about. It is the Christine Korzendorfers of
this country, the hard-working Americans, who know best what kind of
work schedule fits their needs. Giving these workers the freedom of
choice is the purpose of this legislation. The bill before us today, S.
4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, will amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act to finally provide employers and employees in the private
sector with

[[Page S3888]]

the same benefits public-sector employees have enjoyed for many, many
years.
The bill contains three options for making the workplace more
flexible--compensatory time off in lieu of monetary overtime pay,
biweekly work schedules, and flexible credit hours.
Participation, Mr. President, is voluntary. Let me stress this again
and again. You are going to hear this word from me throughout this
debate. It is voluntary. No one has to do it. If the employee does not
want to do it, the status quo prevails. The employer has to want to do
it, the employee has to want to do it before this law really even kicks
in.
Mr. President, I think that most people would be shocked if they knew
that current law prohibits, absolutely prohibits, employees and
employers from making the types of arrangements and agreements that
people in the public sector can do today.
If that law was not in effect today, if that law did not prohibit
that type of arrangement, do you think, Mr. President, Members of the
Senate, that anyone would come to the Senate floor and offer a bill to
do that? Would anyone come to the Senate floor and offer a bill that
said the Federal Government is going to step in and tell employees and
tell workers in this country that, if you want to make an arrangement
with the employer that allows you more flexibility in your life, that
allows you to better decide when you are going to work, how you are
going to work--does anybody think that bill would pass?

Does anybody think that the Federal Government, if it did not have
that law in effect today, that we would want to put that law into
effect? The answer obviously is no. I think it tells us something when
we look at that answer and look at the question in that way. Such a
bill obviously would never pass.
Mr. President, the Fair Labor Standards Act and its underlying
regulations simply do not allow private-sector employers to meet the
demands of their employees for more flexibility in various forms of
compensation. As a result, working families are faced with tremendously
difficult decisions.
For example, will a mother sacrifice hard-earned vacation time off to
take her child to the doctor or to the hospital? Should she forgo the
compensation to make sure her sick child is properly cared for? Should
she try to run home for an hour here or 20 minutes there? Can a single
parent afford to leave work early to attend a teacher conference, to
help chaperone a class trip? Will a single parent ever find the time to
pursue greatly needed continued education? These are the options that
this bill will give.

I see, Mr. President, my colleague from Texas is on the floor. She
has worked long and hard to bring this bill to the floor. I
congratulate her for her great work. I yield to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, thank you.
I want to thank Senators Jeffords and DeWine and Senator Ashcroft for
their commitment to this bill. They have followed it through all the
way from the beginning--Senator Ashcroft, as the key sponsor, and
Senators DeWine and Jeffords, as the chairman of the subcommittee and
full committee that shepherded this bill through because they believed
so much in what this bill can do for the more than 60 million workers
in this country, including 28 million women, who are paid by the hour.
I was just listening to what Senator DeWine was saying, and I have to
say, step back a minute and think about the fact that the Federal
Government is saying to the hourly employees of this country, ``You
cannot go in and ask your employer to take off at 3 o'clock on Friday
and work until 7 o'clock on Monday.'' You cannot do that because the
Federal law says your employer cannot offer you that option. So if your
child is playing in a soccer game or a football game on Friday
afternoon at 3 o'clock, which many schools across our country do have
in their schedules, you cannot go in and get that opportunity to see
your child, because the Federal Government says you cannot do it.
Now, if you were a Federal employee you could do it because Federal
employees have that option. If you are a salaried employee, you could
do it. It is hourly employees who are not able to say, ``I want to work
two extra hours on Monday so I can take off at 3 o'clock on Friday.''
Mr. President, all this bill does is give the same option to hourly
employees that every Federal employee and every salaried employee has
in our country. It is just amazing to me we did not do this years ago.
It was only Senator Ashcroft who came in and said, ``Why have we not
done this?'' Many of us were not even fully aware of the impact our out
of date labor laws were having on Americans' modern lifestyles.
What are our modern lifestyles? Mr. President, over two-thirds of the
women who have school-age children in this country are working outside
the home. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, we had a lot of
moms that could and that chose to stay home. Today, there are 58.2
million women in the workforce, and roughly half--28 million--are paid
by the hour. The other half are salaried employees or self-employed.
The biggest stress factor they have in their lives is the inability to
find the time in the average day to do the things they need and want to
do for themselves and their families. Working mothers and their
children want to be able to share more of life's activities--to be able
to go to the PTA meeting, the soccer game, the football game, and still
be able to make a full-time salary and make ends meet at the end of the
month.
The Family Friendly Workplace Act will enable those working mothers
to do just that. Senator Ashcroft and I have made sure that these
people who are working hourly are not going to lose their salaries
because they do have budgets. They have to meet the mortgage payment.
They have to meet the car payment or the rent payment. They simply
cannot afford to take time off without pay, as the President and some
Members of Congress have called for.
That is the beauty of this bill. It allows the employee to be paid,
while adding flexibility to their work week.
Another aspect that Americans like so much about this bill is it
would allow an hourly employee to say, ``I would like to work 9 hour
days and take every other Friday off work, with pay.'' Federal
employees have this option. Salaried employees have this flexibility.

Mr. President, I think it is important to keep in mind that these
scheduling options are all voluntary. There is nothing that requires an
employer or an employee to choose any of these options. If any employee
is asked to work overtime, that employee keeps the right to say
``Great, I want time-and-a-half pay,'' end of story. But if the
employee says, ``I want to take time-and-a-half in paid time off and
not outright pay now,'' or ``I would like to go ahead and work the
extra hours and bank that time so that when my child's soccer game is
scheduled'' that employee will have that option, in cooperation with
the employer.
And because this added flexibility and free time for employees has
been proven to boost morale and improve productivity, giving hourly
employees these added freedoms becomes a win-win situation for employee
and employer alike. In short, this bill makes imminent sense. My only
surprise is that we did not update this antiquated labor law earlier.
I commend Senator Ashcroft, I commend Senator DeWine, and I commend
Senator Jeffords for helping us get this bill to the floor so that we
will be able to finally say to the 28 million women that are hourly
wage working women and the 30 million hourly wage working men in
America, ``You now have the same freedom to schedule time to spend with
your loved ones that the rest of the workforce enjoys.'' For the
Federal Government to stand in the way of those two individuals and
say, ``No, you cannot do this because Big Brother Federal Government in
Washington said 30 years ago when there were not very many working moms
in the workplace, in a whole different era, that you could not do it.''
Mr. President, we must enter in to the 1990's and update our labor laws
to address the needs of the struggling hourly wage families in this
country.'' We are going to let the marketplace work and we are going to
take one source of

[[Page S3889]]

stress off the hourly employee in this country who wants to spend time
at home with their children, time catching up on errands, or just time
relaxing with loved ones and friends.
That is what the Family Friendly Workplace Act does. That is why I am
happy to be a cosponsor with Senator Ashcroft, and give the 28 million
women and 60 million working Americans in this country the same
scheduling freedom that other employees in this country have had for
years. Those Americans who work so hard day in and day out at their
jobs, then have that extra burden of having to work when they come
home. Most do not come home from work and sit in a chair and rest. They
come home from work and they fix dinner for the kids, they fix lunch
for school tomorrow, and then they do homework with the kids or
whatever it is that has to be done. Their day is not over at 5 o'clock.
From time to time, they need to be able to take entire days or even
weeks off from work. The Family Friendly Workplace Act will allow them
to save up the hours to do that. Mr. President, we cannot give
America's hardworking families any more than 24 hours in the day, but
we can do the next best thing by enacting this important legislation.
I thank Senator DeWine for yielding the floor. I hope we will be able
to talk about this for a long time to come because if the Democrats are
indeed going to filibuster and keep the Senate from responding to the
needs of America's workers who overwhelming support this bill, then I
am ready to talk for a long time. This bill means a lot to me and it
will mean a lot to the families of our country. If we have to stand on
our feet and talk for 2 weeks, count me in.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague from
Texas for not only an excellent statement but for the tremendous work
she has done, not just on this bill, but on many pieces of legislation
that really reflect how American families live today.
Government, many times, has a hard time keeping up with changes in
society. She has worked, for example, on the homemaker IRA bill,
another bill that, again, tracks the changes in society and gives
families flexibility to allow them to make adjustments in their life,
to live their lives the way they want to live them. I congratulate her
for her great work and look forward to working on this bill and
continuing this debate in the future.

Mr. President, I think one of the points that my colleague from Texas
made very well is that this bill--the current law discriminates against
hourly workers. We have a situation today where two people can be
working together, one is a salaried employee, the other is an hourly
employee, and the hourly employee, really because of the way the law is
written, because of a quirk of history, legislative history, the hourly
employee does not have the same flexibility today that a salaried
employee does. The salaried employee can make an arrangement with the
employer to shift time, to be gone a Friday afternoon, to work extra
some other time, that flexibility is not available to the hourly
employee. That is discrimination. That is wrong. That is what this bill
is aimed at rectifying.
Mr. President, it is also discrimination to say if you work for the
Federal Government or if you work for local government, you have to
follow one set of rules and you have many options as far as the time
you work. But if you work in the private sector, the Federal Government
says, ``Oh, no, you do not have that flexibility.'' That is
discrimination. Again, that is what this bill is designed to rectify,
change, and stop that discrimination.
S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, Mr. President, will finally
provide the flexibility that today's work force so desperately needs.
The act will allow employers and employees to mutually agree,
voluntarily, on whether an employee will receive overtime compensation
in the form of the traditional time and a half--money; or, that same
time and a half as compensatory time off. That choice this bill gives
to that employee and that employer.
Employers and employees will be able to mutually agree to biweekly
work schedules instead of the traditional workweek. Employers and
employees will be able to mutually agree on the use of flexible credit
hours. These choices will alleviate the pressures working women, single
parents, constantly face today, Mr. President, in their attempt to
balance the responsibilities at work with their obligations to their
children, their obligations to their family.
The cornerstone to each of these options is this foundation of
choice. It is voluntary. It is giving the employee one more tool. Mr.
President, I and my colleagues are not alone in recognizing that our
work force, our workplaces have changed.
We are not alone in understanding that the Fair Labor Standards Act
passed many, many years ago no longer in this respect totally meets
workers' needs. We are not alone in understanding that it is time for
change.
A 1994 study by the Department of Labor stated that the primary
concern of two-thirds of working women with children was the difficulty
in balancing work and family. No surprise. A poll taken by Money
magazine, just published in this May's issue, states, ``Sixty-four
percent of the public and 68 percent of women said that if they had a
choice between taking cash or time off for working overtime they would
definitely choose the time.'' Let me repeat that. Two-thirds said if
they had a choice they would choose the time. It is a question of
choice.
The point is, Mr. President, that current law does not give the
average American worker--the person who is working in the private
sector, the person who is working paid by the hour--does not give them
per law that choice, and, in fact, prohibits employers and employees
from making that choice; that determination. In that same poll, Mr.
President, 82 percent said they would support the Family Friendly
Workplace Act.
An article in the Cincinnati Enquirer read, ``A little flexibility
would be a godsend to good workers who also want to be good parents.''
The article went on to say, ``It could benefit employers, too, who find
it easier to recruit and retain productive workers.''
An article in the Akron Beacon Journal quoted Ann Morris as saying
very simply and for obvious reasons, ``In the long run, my time is more
important than the extra dollars.''
Mr. President, furthermore, the President of our country, President
Clinton, has stated on more than one occasion that he understands the
need for more flexibility in the workplace and that he favors
opportunities for workers, such as compensatory time in lieu of
traditional overtime pay, flexible credit hours, and biweekly work
schedules. This is what he said at the Democratic National Convention.
I quote President Clinton. ``We should pass a flextime law that allows
employees to take overtime pay and money, or time off, depending on
what is better for their family.''
In describing his own initiative, this is what President Clinton
said:

This legislative proposal is vital to American workers--
offering them a meaningful and flexible opportunity to
balance successfully their work and family responsibilities.
The legislation will offer workers more choice and
flexibility in finding ways to earn the wages they need to
support their families while also spending valuable time with
their families.

Mr. President, these options have been on trial in the public sector.
It is not as if we do not have a wealth of experience in this area. We
do have years and years of experience, and thousands and thousands of
employees who have benefited from this.
It is always instructive, I think, before Congress to act to look to
see what experience we have. I think this has shown, Mr. President,
that this is clearly what we need to do because the experience has been
in fact good.
This is what President Clinton has to say about this. Let me quote:

Broad 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.

That is the view our President expressed on July 11, 1994. The
President recognized that people sometimes have to struggle very hard
to balance the demands of work and families.
A couple of years after he made that earlier statement, the President
went even further calling on all Federal agencies to develop a plan of
action for better implementation of these flexible work schedules.
Again I quote:

[[Page S3890]]

I am directing all executive departments and agencies to
review their personnel practices and develop a plan of action
to utilize the flexible policies already in place . . .
flexible hours that will enable employees to schedule their
work and meet the needs of their families.

That is from a Presidential memorandum dated June 21, 1996.
Finally, in his State of the Union Address, this is what the
President said. ``We should pass flextime so workers can choose to be
paid overtime and income, or trade it in for time off to be with their
families.''
This is a quote the Democratic Leadership Council:

Public policy should support two-parent families by giving
them as much flexibility as possible to balance family and
income needs. The tools and protection workers need in the
information age are different from those required in the
industrial era. The Fair Labor Standards Act needs to be
modernized. Even with squeezed family budgets, for some
workers time off may be as valuable as extra money.

Mr. President, this type of bipartisan support I think provides us
with a remarkable opportunity. A Democratic President and Republican
and Democratic leaders in Congress are united on an important national
issue facing the American workplace. We may never have a better
opportunity to pass this legislation.
For the sake of those Americans who are faced daily with the
difficult challenge of deciding between their livelihood, their family,
their employers, and the American work force as a whole, I urge swift
passage of this bill.
I would like, Mr. President, to take just a moment--I am sorry my
colleague from Minnesota is not here. He indicated that he was looking
forward to continuing this debate. I know he will in the weeks ahead.
He had to leave to attend a budget hearing. But I would like to briefly
address several comments that he made when he talked about this bill. I
rather jokingly, as he was leaving the floor, said to him that the bill
he had described was not the bill that I thought we passed out of the
committee. Let me explain to my colleagues.
He cited four problems that he saw with this bill. The first was he
said it was a pay cut. He said that overtime should be sacred. Mr.
President, he is absolutely right. Overtime should be sacred. Overtime
is sacred in this bill.
What we are simply saying is that if an employee, because of his or
her family situation, or for whatever reason, decides that they would
rather take time and a half in time at some other date instead of
money, they have the option to do that providing both the employee and
employer want to do that. That is all it says. That is flexibility.
That is allowing workers who work by the hour to get paid by the hour,
to have the same rights Federal workers have, that State workers have,
and the same rights that salaried employees have today.
So it preserves the concept of overtime, and time and a half. In
fact, with that time and a half it gives it more flexibility. It gives
certainly more potential value for the employee because it allows the
employee to decide how to take that.
My colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, also said it cuts
benefits. It is simply not true. We will have the opportunity to talk
about this at length. There has been no evidence brought forward that
shows this at all. The facts simply aren't there.
He also said that it abolishes the 40-hour work week. That is not
true. It just isn't true. I ask what is wrong with an employee having
the option to design his or her biweekly time with the consent of the
employer, if they both want to do it? What is wrong with them designing
the work week that says the employee will have every second Friday off?
Maybe he or she wants to spend time with their family. Maybe they want
to volunteer. Maybe they want to go fishing. Maybe they want to go
hunting. It is not Government's business.
The current law prohibits employees and employers who do not work for
the Federal Government and who work by the hour from being able to make
that kind of an arrangement. Is that an attack on the 40-hour workweek?
I don't think so. And I don't think the American worker thinks so
either.
My colleague talked about enforcement. We listened to the testimony.
We listened to the complaints that were made and the criticisms of the
bill. And some of them, quite frankly, were justified. No bill is
perfect, as it is introduced. We took those criticisms, and altered the
bill to try to deal with the constructive criticism from the other side
of the aisle.
This is a better bill as it comes to the floor, quite frankly, than
it was when we started.
My colleague suggested that they certainly get credit for that. But
the enforcement is there. The enforcement is there. It relies on the
current enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act--enforcement that
has been in place. The mechanism is there. And it provides very, very
specific and tough penalties if, in fact, an employer in any way tries
to coerce an employee, if they in any way try to abuse the privileges
that are given employees and employers in this bill.
So I look forward, Mr. President, to having the opportunity to
discuss this bill in the future.
I yield to my colleague from New York.

____________________