[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 64 (Thursday, May 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4508-S4515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FAMILY FRIENDLY WORKPLACE ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Chair lays before the 
Senate, S. 4, with debate equally divided until the hour of 10 a.m. The 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 4) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
     to provide to private sector employees the same opportunities 
     for time-and-a-half compensatory time off, biweekly work 
     programs, and flexible credit hour programs as Federal 
     employees currently enjoy to help balance the demands and 
     needs of work and family, to clarify the provisions relating 
     to exemptions of certain professionals from the minimum wage 
     and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from the State of 
Texas--I am not sure how much time she needs, 15 minutes?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That will be fine. I probably will not need all of 
that.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for up to 
15 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the chairman of 
the committee.
  We are going to vote in about an hour and a half to invoke cloture, 
which means we are going to vote on whether we can take up the Family 
Friendly Workplace Act. Mr. President, this act is long overdue. This 
is going to free the hourly employees of our country to have the same 
flexibility that Federal workers now have, that most State workers now 
have, that salaried employees now have. Only hourly employees are not 
able to walk into their employer and say, ``Could I take off at 3 
o'clock Friday afternoon to go to my child's soccer game and work 2 
extra hours on Monday?''
  The hourly employees of this country are not allowed to walk into 
their employer and say, ``You know, I don't ever work overtime, but I'd 
like to be able to work some extra hours and bank those so that when I 
am able to go on a camping trip with my child, I will have those hours 
to do it.''
  An hourly employee is not allowed to walk in to his or her employer's 
office and say, ``I would like to know if it would be possible for me 
to work maybe 9 hours everyday for 2 weeks and take every other Friday 
off.'' An hourly employee cannot do that. And yet this has worked so 
well for Federal employees and salaried employees who have dealt with 
the stresses of being a working mom or a working dad. They need to 
work, they need the extra income, but they do not have enough time with 
their children. Salaried employees can do this. Federal employees can 
do this. State employees can do this. But hourly workers cannot. Why? 
Because the Federal Government says they cannot, because the Federal 
Government discriminates against employees by a bill that was passed 
into law in 1938.
  Mr. President, in 1938, 10 percent of the women in this country with 
children worked--10 percent. So it was not exactly an issue on the 
front burner at the time that working moms had the kind of stresses 
they do today. The ones who were working did, no question about it, but 
there were not as many. Today, two-thirds of the working women in this 
country have school-age children--two-thirds.
  I was talking to my daughter last night. I was worried because I had 
not heard from her. I left a message for her Sunday. Ray and I were 
trying to reach her and we left a message for her Sunday and said call 
us back. She did not call back. She called me last night about 10:30, 
and she said, ``Oh, gosh, I'm really sorry, everything is fine, but I 
had just beem volunteering full time at the school and Travis' Little 
League directors meeting was tonight, I had just gotten home from the 
directors' meeting, and we have been working with our twin daughters 
having a pen pal program with another school and were planning a party 
for the children who were coming over to meet for the first time.''
  My gosh, I thought, how does she have enough hours in the day, and 
she is a full-time mom. What if she were working and trying to do those 
wonderful things that she is doing to support her son's Little League, 
or our twin granddaughters' activities in Brownies, which she hosts 
every week at her home? All the extra hours that she volunteers at 
school, reading to all the children in school at the library, I 
thought, what if she were a working mom? And I thought to myself, two-
thirds of the working women in this country have school-age children, 
and they would love to do what Brenda Maxon, our daughter, does 
volunteering at school to read to the children, being on the board of 
directors of the Little League, working with her twin daughters' pen 
pal class and having Brownie troop meetings every week. Those are such 
wonderful things, and I am so grateful that my grandchildren have such 
a wonderful mom.
  But, Mr. President, if she were working full time, she would have the 
stresses that would make it impossible. Impossible. Every mom would 
like to be able to do those things. We are trying to relieve some of 
that stress with this bill. We are going to try to give hourly 
employees the ability to say, ``I would like to host a Brownie troop 
every other Friday. Could I work 9 hours every other day of the week 
and take every other Friday off so I can host a Brownie troop for my 
daughter?'' That is what we want for the hourly employees of our 
country.
  What this bill does is allow the hourly employees to come in and say, 
``I'd like to work overtime and bank the hours to take a day off.'' Or, 
if an employer says, ``I need overtime work,'' the person can have 
their choice: Time-and-a-half pay or time-and-a-half hours, and, once 
again, bank those hours for when they are needed. Or to be able to walk 
in and say, ``Can I work 9 hours a day and take every other Friday 
off?'' Or ``Can I work 10 hours 4 days a week and take Fridays off?'' 
Because other people are able to do that. Maybe they do not have child 
care on Fridays. They have child care 4 days a week they feel really 
comfortable with, but not on Fridays.

  You see, the difference between 1938 laws and today is that I think 
employers realize how important it is that they have happy, productive 
employees. And when two-thirds of the working women in this country 
have school-aged children, they know there is stress in this life. What 
can we do to make these employees happier, to give them a release 
valve, to let them have that time to do something special with their 
children so that they do not worry that their children are going to 
grow up without their awareness of how much their moms and dads love 
them, cherish them, and want them to have solid values? So, Mr. 
President, that is what the bill is.
  I have heard the opposition. They say, ``Oh, but this will just allow 
employers to coerce employees. All the rights are with the employers.'' 
Well, of course the employer is running the business. Many times it is 
the small business man or woman that has gone out and borrowed the 
money, that works 80 hours a week trying to make it go, to contribute 
to our economy. It is not easy being in business in America with all of 
the taxes and regulations and litigation that a person in business must 
face.
  So, of course, they are running the operation. But that does not mean 
they are bad. It does not mean that they are going to say, to an 
employee, ``Oh, no. Of course you're not going to do that. I don't want 
to pay you overtime.'' That is not the way America is. This is not 
1938. It is not 1948. It is 1997.
  Welcome to the end of the 20th century. Employers want happy, 
productive employees. They are going to bend over backward. And they do 
bend over backwards to make life better for their employees. And if it 
is not going to disrupt the workplace, of course they are

[[Page S4509]]

going to say, yes, they would like the flexibility to do this.
  It has been stated on the floor, ``Oh, well, the only people 
supporting this are employers.'' That is not true. This morning in my 
office I met with three Federal workers. And I said, ``How do you like 
flextime?''
  They said, ``Oh, it's wonderful, of course. We love it.''
  And I said, ``Well, can you imagine why many of the Democrats are 
keeping this bill from coming up so that others would be able to have 
these same rights?''
  And they looked at me sort of aghast--aghast--of course.
  What in the world could be wrong with adding one more option for the 
working moms and dads in this country that are hourly employees? We are 
taking away no rights. We are taking nothing away.
  In fact, the unions are opposed to this, but I do not understand it, 
because if there is a union contract, it does not apply. A union 
contract overrides the ability for this employee to go outside of the 
union contract to his or her employer. So the unions' rights are 
certainly protected.
  Why would the union not want other hourly employees, who do not have 
union contracts, why would they step in and say that we should not 
allow hourly employees in this country to have the same rights as 
salaried employees do, as Federal employees do? What could be their 
motivation?
  It is incomprehensible to me that adding another option to the hourly 
employees' ability to relieve the stress in their lives would be 
opposed by anyone, by unions, by members of the Democratic side of the 
Senate. It is incomprehensible because every single Republican is 
certainly going to vote for this bill.
  But we need 60 votes to move forward. And I do not know if we will 
have 60 votes. But I would like to have the explanation from someone 
who is going to vote against this bill, why they would not allow the 
hourly employees of this country to have another option to relieve the 
stress in their lives, to spend more time with their kids, paid rather 
than unpaid, which is what the President's plan would do.
  This is paid. What if the hourly employee cannot afford the Family 
and Medical Leave Act, which does not have pay, because they have a 
mortgage payment and they are barely making ends meet, they have a car 
payment, they have day care payments, they just cannot quite squeeze it 
out if they cannot get paid? That is why this is so important. They 
will continue to get paid at their regular rates. They know what their 
hourly compensation is. They know they can depend on it. They would 
just choose, if they wanted to, instead of getting extra pay, they 
would take extra time off.
  In a poll done by Money magazine, a survey found 64 percent of the 
public and 68 percent of the women would choose paid time off, which 
our bill would give them, for overtime work instead of added pay 
because it means that it is up to them to have the extra time with 
their kids without in any way giving up the ability to pay the car 
payment and the mortgage payment and the day care payment.
  So, Mr. President, this bill is so fair. It is so right. It is 
impossible to think--if you go out and do an interview on the street, 
talk to people who are not in Washington, DC. Talk to people who are in 
the real world, working hard to make ends meet, running a small 
business. Talk to people who are making this country tick. It is not 
the people in the U.S. Senate that are making this country tick; it is 
the people out there on the frontline, working to make ends meet as 
hourly employees or as small business owners or as salaried employees 
or Federal workers. They are out there trying to make ends meet. And we 
are giving them one more option to relieve the stress in their lives.

  If you ask a man on the street, would they like this as an option, 
not as a mandate, but as an option to be able to at some point attend a 
special football game, a special soccer game, a special Little League 
baseball game, or to be able to host the Brownie troop every Friday, 
would they like the option to go to their employer and say, ``Could I 
have flexible time? Could I have compensatory time?'' I will guarantee 
you, that 8 out of 10 people will say absolutely yes--probably 10 out 
of 10--but I know 8 out of 10 would, or 68 percent of the women or 65 
percent of all people. An overwhelming majority would say, ``Hey, I 
didn't know they couldn't.'' That is what most people would say. ``Are 
you kidding me? You mean, there are people in this country who cannot 
walk into their employer's office and say, `Could I have time off 
Friday at 3 o'clock and work Monday until 7?' Well, gosh, yeah, I think 
they ought to have that right. I sure do.'' That is what we are trying 
to give them today.
  So, Mr. President, I hope people will ask themselves the question--
ask yourself the question, should hourly employees have the same rights 
as everybody else that works in this country? Should they? And if you 
think they should, then you should vote today for cloture so we can get 
on with this bill.
  I think the President would have a hard time not signing a flextime 
bill when he campaigned saying exactly that is what he wanted. He 
wanted flextime. We are going to give it to him, if the Democrats will 
let us move forward on this bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 19 
minutes and 48 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. President, I listened to my good friend from Texas make a very 
eloquent statement and, of course, if that was the bill that we had 
before us, there would be an entirely different result than the vote 
that is going to take place at a little after 10 this morning. But that 
is not the bill we have before us.
  I'd like just to mention that on page 9 of the bill, the decision 
about whether an employee will be permitted to take the time off will 
be made, as line 18 says, by the employer, not by the employee.
  If, the good Senator from Texas said wants to change that, so that 
the employee makes the decision, instead of the employer, we have an 
entirely different bill here. If you want to give the choice to the 
workers, so that the employee can make that judgment and decision, you 
would have an entirely different outcome.
  But that is not what the legislation says. This bill says the 
employer will make the decision--the employer will make it. And as I 
have said, if the employer decides not to grant an employee's request 
to use comptime on a particular date, because the employer makes the 
decision that the employee has not given sufficient notice, or the use 
of the comptime would disrupt the employer's operations, the employee 
has no ability to appeal it. Even if the employer fails to adhere to 
this standard, the employee has no remedy. There is no remedy if the 
employer is being unreasonable or harsh.
  So that is really the difference. The difference between this bill 
and the Federal employee program is that the Federal employee makes the 
decision about when to take the time off. That is the difference 
between this bill and the Family and Medical Leave Act, too--the 
employee makes the decision. Under this bill, it is the employer that 
makes the decision. And that is the major difference between this bill 
and those existing programs.
  I would just mention to my friend again, who objects because the 
unions are opposed to this even though they are not affected by it. 
Sometimes we have groups in our country that fight for the rights of 
people who are not necessarily members of those groups. That is why 
just about every woman's group that has fought for economic justice has 
also opposed this legislation, because they believe it is a major step 
back, particularly for lower income workers. And they know that, while 
those lower income workers are primarily women, they are not all women.
  It is interesting that all the organizations that supported the 
increase in the minimum wage, all the ones who supported the Family and 
Medical Leave Act, all the ones who supported

[[Page S4510]]

the WARN Act, which requires an employer to give employees 60 days' 
notice before closing a factory--all are opposed to this bill. And all 
the organizations that opposed all those provisions that would have 
enhanced the rights of working families are for this bill. So we ought 
to look at the bill very closely.
  Those organizations that support this bill do so for a very 
fundamental reason.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on S. 4, which 
its supporters call the Family Friendly Workplace Act. This is a bill 
with an appealing title but appalling substance. We should not rush to 
final passage.
  This bill would make a fundamental change in the Fair Labor Standards 
Act, a law that has well served American workers and their families for 
60 years. The law requires that employees be paid no less than the 
minimum wage. Does that sound unreasonable to the American people? Have 
we changed so much in the 60 years since that Act was passed that we do 
not want to permit hard-working men and women to be paid the minimum 
wage? The law requires the payments of the minimum wage, currently at 
$4.75 an hour. And the law also requires that employees be paid at 
least time-and-a-half when they work more than 40 hours a week.

  Contrary to what the Senator from Texas said, if workers want to work 
10 hours a day for 4 days and have Friday off, they can do it under 
existing law. They can do that under the existing law. If the employer 
wants to juggle work schedules so that employees can work half a day on 
Friday, and work longer days in the earlier part of the week, they can 
do that under existing law. Only 10 percent of hourly employees are 
offered these or other flexible arrangements available under current 
law. Part of our complaint about this bill is, why don't employers 
first demonstrate that the existing law does not work for them? We do 
not believe the law should be changed until employers show that 
existing law does not provide adequate flexibility.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay the minimum 
wage, and to give employees time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 in 
a week. That principle is part of the fabric of the employer-employee 
relations in this Nation. It has been so since 1938. But this bill 
would radically change that principle.
  Under Senator Ashcroft's proposal, employees could be required--
listen to this, Mr. President--could be required to work up to 80 hours 
in a single week without being paid a penny of overtime.
  Under this bill, employers could require workers to work extra hours 
in one week, then give them an equal number of hours off at a later 
time without paying time-and-a-half.
  This is what it says, Mr. President. Right here on page 11: ``In 
general, notwithstanding any other provision of the law''--that 
eliminates the 40-hour workweek--``an employer may establish biweekly 
work programs that allow the use of biweekly work schedules that 
consist of a basic work requirement of not more than 80 hours over a 2-
week period in which more than 40 hours of the work requirement may 
occur in a week of the period.'' Well, that says it. ``More than 40 
hours of the work requirement may occur'' in 1 of the 2 weeks.

  Further: ``The employee shall be compensated for each hour in such 
biweekly work schedule at a rate not less than the regular rate at 
which the employee is employed.'' That is straight time. Do we all 
understand that? It is left to the employer to decide whether that 
employee will work not just 40 hours, but 50, 60, 70, or even 80 hours 
a week. And every single one of those hours will be paid at straight 
time. This is the abolition of the 40-hour workweek.
  We hear, ``Well, times have changed. We do not want to be restricted 
by the traditions of the past.'' I agree with that. We are not 
committed to unnecessary programs, but we are committed to values, the 
values that men and women ought to work 40 hours a week, and if they 
are going to work longer than 40 hours a week, they get paid time and a 
half. I think that concept is as real today as it ever was--but the 
Ashcroft proposal disagrees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 7 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 additional minutes.
  The Ashcroft proposal says that the idea of the 40-hour workweek is 
out; it can be 50, 60, 70 hours a week, all paid at straight time.
  I have discussed who makes the decision under this bill--it is the 
employer, not the employee. It is not the employee who says, ``My child 
has a school play,'' or ``I have a meeting with the child's teacher.'' 
Under this bill, the employee has no right to use comptime for these 
important purposes. The employee has no right to use any time for these 
purposes--paid or unpaid.
  That is the Murray amendment. That amendment provides employees just 
24 hours a year to attend school conferences and participate in family 
literacy programs. Those 24 hours are within the 12 weeks of family 
leave provided by the Family and Medical Leave Act. We will see how 
many votes we get from the other side of the aisle when we consider the 
Murray amendment. We will see how many votes we will get on that.
  I say to the Senator from Texas that I hope she makes that very 
eloquent statement when Senator Murray offers the amendment.
  Mr. President, we are talking about abolishing the 40-hour workweek 
and giving the employers the whip hand. The changes proposed by this 
bill go to the heart of our labor standards laws and would alter the 
basic rules covering 65 million Americans.
  But this has been debated on the floor for only a little over 2 
hours. We began debate on the bill 2 days ago and spent only a morning 
discussing it before the Republicans filed this petition--2 hours and 
they filed this petition. Since that time, we have not had a moment of 
debate on the bill on the floor of the Senate. This issue deserves much 
fuller consideration than that. We should not be contemplating such 
significant changes with so little discussion.
  These changes are so powerful and the debate has been so short, I 
wonder why the bill's proponents are in such a rush? What do they have 
to fear from developing or talking about or debating these issues? 
Those who support this legislation must recognize the bill cannot 
withstand close scrutiny. They know that full and fair consideration of 
the legislation will reveal fatal flaws. Serious defects are built into 
the bill, and the proponents know it. That is why they want to ram this 
legislation through without adequate opportunity for discussion.
  That is exactly why we should oppose this petition. This bill cries 
out for a closer look. The 65 million American workers deserve no less.
  A careful review of the bill demonstrates that it is nothing more 
than a pay cut for those hard-working Americans. In truth, the bill 
should be called the Paycheck Reduction Act. The bill is not designed 
to help employees juggle their work and family obligations. Instead, it 
is designed to help employers cut wages.

  The bill's proponents have admitted that small businesses cannot 
afford to pay their employees overtime. That is why they support this 
bill. This statement was made by the witness from the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses who testified in support of S. 4 
before the Labor Committee in February.
  The bill has four major flaws. First, it makes good on the NFIB's 
characterization. It cuts workers' wages. Under the bill, an employer 
could force an employee to take an hour off in the future for every 
hour of overtime they work. Current law requires employers to pay time 
and a half for overtime hours. Substituting time off at a straight time 
rate is a pay cut, pure and simple.
  The bill also lets employers discriminate against workers who refuse 
to take comptime instead of overtime pay. Under S. 4, the employer is 
free to assign overtime work only to those workers who accept comptime. 
Workers who need the money the most, who cannot afford to take the time 
off, would be hurt the most. Their paychecks would be smaller. Giving 
the employer that power eliminates the worker's freedom of choice. We 
offered an amendment to address that issue. It was defeated in the 
Labor Committee--on a party line vote.
  Second, the bill cuts employees' benefits. Many industries link the 
size of

[[Page S4511]]

employees' pension and health benefits to the number of hours they 
work. Under S. 4, when an employee uses comptime hours, they would not 
count towards pension and health benefits. The result is a reduction in 
employees' income after retirement and a cut in their health benefits 
while they are working. Once again, we offered an amendment on that 
issue in committee, and we were defeated along strict party lines.
  The bill also permits a perverse outcome. The way the bill is 
drafted, an employee would not be assured an increase in time off. If 
an employee takes 8 hours of comptime on Monday in order to spend time 
with his or her family, the employer is free to force the employee to 
work on Saturday to make up for lost time. The employer does not even 
have to pay time and a half for the hours worked on Saturday. That is 
really family friendly. The comptime hours used on Monday do not count 
toward the 40-hour workweek. Is this family friendly? We offered an 
amendment on this issue, too, and it was defeated along party lines in 
the committee.
  Third, as I mentioned, the bill abolishes the 40-hour week. The so-
called biweekly work program allows employers to work employees up to 
80 hours in a single week, without paying a penny of overtime. Or, the 
employer could impose a work schedule of 60 hours one week and 20 hours 
the next--again, without paying any overtime premium. Making child care 
arrangements for such shifting and irregular schedules wouldn't be 
family-friendly--it would be a nightmare.
  Finally, and most importantly, the bill does not give employees the 
choice about when to take comp hours that they have earned. Supporters 
of S. 4 claim that their bill is meant to give employees the option to 
use comptime to attend a child's graduation, take an elderly parent to 
the doctor, or deal with other family obligations. But nothing in this 
bill requires the employer to give the employee the day that he or she 
wants or needs. Instead, the bill gives the employer virtually 
unreviewable discretion to decide when the employee takes the time off.
  If the employer gets to choose when employees can take comptime, this 
bill provides no benefit. It does not help workers to give up overtime 
pay if the employer can deny their request to use comptime when they 
need it. Instead, the system becomes nothing more than a pay cut.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture. 
Give us the opportunity to explore and discuss what this bill does to--
not for--65 million working Americans. The hard-working families who 
depend on overtime pay to make ends meet deserve no less.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 23 seconds.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I was allocated 22\1/2\ minutes. I have used 15. I ask 
unanimous consent the Senator from Maine be allowed to speak for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will not object if we can have the same 5 minutes on 
our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There is an additional allocation of 5 minutes on each side. The 
Senator from Maine is recognized for a period of 5 minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor 
of the Family Friendly Workplace Act, which will permit employers to 
offer more flexible work schedules to their employees.
  The lifestyles of today's employees do not always match the 
traditional 9 to 5, 5-day-a-week schedules of their parents. This 
legislation is intended to give families greater flexibility in order 
to better balance the often competing demands of work and family.
  The legislation will allow private sector employers to offer more 
flexible work schedules to their employees by providing additional 
options like comptime, flextime, and biweekly schedules. The 
legislation doesn't change to amount of compensation--simply the form 
of compensation.
  For instance, the legislation allows employers to give their 
employees the option of receiving overtime in the form of compensatory 
time off instead of cash wages at a rate of not less than one and one-
half hours for each hour of overtime worked.
  The legislation also allows employers and employees--by mutual 
agreement--to set up a biweekly schedule consisting of any combination 
of 80 hours over a 2-week period. For example, an employee could work 
45 hours in week one and 35 hours in week two, which would allow them 
to work nine hours a day and take every other Friday off.
  In response to the concerns expressed by my Democratic colleagues, I 
also want to emphasize that participation in these programs is strictly 
voluntary on the part of both the employee and the employer. No one can 
be forced to participate, nor can participation be a ``condition of 
employment.'' In fact, employers are expressly prohibited from 
coercing, threatening, or intimidating their employees into 
participating against their will, and violators face a range of 
sanctions.
  Mr. President, for many families, time is more valuable than money, 
and this bill simply extends options that have been widely available--
and extremely popular among employees--in the public sector to the 
private sector.
  I have been a manager in the public sector, and I know firsthand how 
popular and effective these options can be. As former Representative 
Geraldine Ferraro said during the House debate on the bill allowing 
Federal agencies to offer flextime and biweekly work schedules, 
``Flexible schedules have helped reduce the conflicts between work and 
personal needs, particularly for working women and others with 
household responsibilities.'' I certainly agree with former 
Representative Ferraro on this issue.
  Finally, Mr. President, I bring to my colleagues' attention a very 
recent study of over 1,100 women conducted by the Princeton Survey 
Research. Of the mothers surveyed, 91 percent--91 percent--of those 
surveyed said that a flexible work schedule was important to them. In 
fact, the ability to work a flexible work schedule was more important 
to these working women than the availability of workplace child care or 
the ability to work part time.
  Mr. President, we should listen to the women of America. We should 
listen to the mothers of America. I urge all of my colleagues to join 
me in supporting S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It is 
prowomen, it is profamily, and it is proemployee.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor today 
to talk about the comptime bill or the so-called Family Friendly 
Workplace Act. I have listened very carefully to this bill. I serve in 
the committee that it went through, the Labor Committee, and we went 
through the amendments. The Senator from Massachusetts, Senator 
Kennedy, has really outlined the true effects of this bill.
  Now, I, like everyone, like the stated purpose of this bill. As a 
mother with a daughter who is in school, working full time, I know the 
pressures that every single parent faces in this country in trying to 
manage their job and making sure that they pay the right attention to 
their young children as well. All of us are in that time crunch where 
we are trying to figure out how we can do the best job possible for our 
employer and we can do the best job possible for our children.
  Unfortunately, the comptime bill that has been presented to us does 
not offer that flexibility for families. In fact, it will take that 
flexibility away. Can you imagine a young mother with two young 
children who has them in preschool or day care, who is told by her 
employer on Friday that next week you will work 60 hours? Now, how is 
she going to go to her day care provider and say, excuse me, I need 20 
additional hours for my two young children in preschool next week or in 
day care. Day care facilities are very controlled in the amount of 
children they can have and the amount of hours they can have. They do 
not have flextime to allow additional children just whenever an 
employer says you need to work 60 hours next week.
  It is critical that we look at this bill from the eyes of those who 
are the receivers, the employees, the people who

[[Page S4512]]

go to work every day, the people who are really trying to raise their 
kids and manage their jobs at the same time. This bill does not give 
them the flexibility. It will, instead, take that away from them and 
really cause a lot more family stress than is already needed.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote against cloture so we can have the 
opportunity to offer amendments to this bill to really make it do what 
the proponents want it to do, and that is to give employees time to 
participate with their children. I will have an amendment called the 
``time for schools'' amendment that we will offer on this bill if we 
are allowed, if cloture is defeated, so we can really give that 
flexibility back to families.
  I have spent a great deal of time going around my State talking to 
parents who are working. Inevitably they say to me, ``You know, I could 
not get to my child's school conference last week, I could not go 
participate with my young child. I feel guilty about that. But I went 
to my employer and I could not take time off.'' When you talk to young 
children today, far too often they say, ``My parent does not care about 
my education. They did not come to my school conference last week. They 
did not participate with me. They do not care whether or not I get a 
good education. They are never here.''
  Kids want their parents at school with them for those teacher 
conferences and those important dates. Mothers and fathers want to be 
with their kids on those important dates.
  My amendment, if I am allowed to offer it, will give employees 24 
hours a year. That is 2 hours a month--simply 2 hours a month--of the 
current family medical leave time; time off to go back and forth to 
school conferences; to participate with their child in importance 
activities.
  What an incredible message that will give to young children across 
this country--all of us saying to them that we feel it is so important 
that parents participate with their children that we are willing to 
give them time off from their jobs to go participate with those kids.
  I want every young person in this country to say, ``My parents care 
about my education. They came with me to school last week for an hour 
to talk with the teachers.'' I want that child to say, ``My education 
is important. I know because my mother was here yesterday. She took off 
from her job to be here.''
  That is what my amendment does. That is what this bill is all about--
giving parents the ability to participate with their young children 
when it is vitally important.
  Let's do the right thing with this bill. Let's stop cloture today and 
move on to a mandatory process that really does what all of us want to 
do--deal with that time that every parent feels today, and let their 
children know that as adults we will care for them. Let's pass the time 
for schools amendment. Let's put some flexibility in the bill that 
really allows employees the ability to care for their families and do 
their jobs right, and let's do it right.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture today, and then help us 
pass amendments that really make this a Family Friendly Workplace Act.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The amendment that has been described by the Senator from Washington 
was offered in our committee, and was defeated. If we allow cloture on 
this, she will be denied offering that amendment on this particular 
program. It is an additional reason that we should not have cloture.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, my good friend, and a 
strong supporter of families and working families.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank Senator Kennedy very much.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I would like to join many of my colleagues in opposing 
S. 4.
  People across the country are working hard to realize the American 
Dream of economic security for their families. At the same time, it is 
increasingly apparent that parents are having to struggle to balance 
the competing interests of work and family. Parents are being forced to 
choose between paying for health care and education for their children, 
for instance, and spending quality time with them so they can be happy 
and succeed. The Federal Government's policies need to support efforts 
to strengthen families as well as efforts to realize the American 
Dream.
  I do not believe, however, that S. 4, the so-called ``Family Friendly 
Workplace Act,'' is an appropriate response to the problems facing 
working families. While the title of the bill sounds benign enough, the 
consequences will be detrimental to all working people and to working 
parents in particular. Parents could end up with less control over 
their work schedule and less money to pay for raising their families. 
The paycheck reduction act might be a more appropriate name.
  This legislation purports to allow working people the flexibility to 
choose between overtime pay and compensatory time off or flexible 
credit hours and replaces the 40-hour work week with an 80-hour 2 week 
work period, with hours to be agreed upon by the employers and the 
employees. Each of these provisions will have serious adverse 
consequences for working families.
  The most serious concern is that employees would not, in fact, be 
given a choice. Employers would favor an employee who consistently 
chose comptime over overtime when assigning overtime hours. The 
atmosphere in the workplace might lead employees to believe that their 
jobs depended on their choosing comptime instead of overtime, or to 
work 60 hours in a busy week and 20 hours in a slow week regardless of 
the needs of the family.
  Overtime pay is a significant source of income for many American 
families. Thousands of families pay for food, shelter, education and 
retirement by earning overtime at time-and-a-half. With the growing 
income gap between the rich and poor, and with the middle class working 
harder than ever working Americans have little room to give on wages. 
If S. 4 results in the end of overtime, it will mark the end of many 
people's ability to provide for their children and to remain part of 
the American middle class.
  The 40-hour work week is a basic protection for workers. We talk 
about wanting to strengthen the family unit, eliminate single parent 
families, and provide important parental supports so that parents can 
care for their children.
  If an employee has to work 65 hours one week and 15 hours the next, 
their schedule is going to dictate chaos for the whole family. Imagine 
if your mom was home early one week and then not home for dinner at all 
the next. Obtaining decent child care, already difficult for many 
parents, could become even harder due to the erratic work schedule and 
odd hours of a mother or father working 80 hours in two weeks. Without 
real employee choice, the 80-hour work week could spell disaster for a 
family.
  While there are some provisions in the legislation to prevent 
employers from forcing employees to choose compensatory time instead of 
overtime or to work excessive hours one week, these provisions are weak 
and insufficient to protect employees. I and my staff have met with 
many employers from Illinois who are good employers, just trying to 
make their businesses work better and their employee's lives better. I 
point out, however, that while Illinois may have many ideal employers, 
there are currently overtime abuses across the country. Abuses that the 
Labor Department is unable to enforce due to the sheer number of them 
and the lack of resources in the Department.
  A Wall Street Journal article from June of last year cites as 
conservative a study that estimates workers are cheated out of $19 
billion a year in overtime pay. If employers are not paying their 
workers earned overtime, why should we believe that they will allow 
them to freely choose between comptime and overtime. Expanding the 
opportunities for abuse does not seem prudent.
  There are additional concerns that even where comptime is freely 
chosen, employees will be able to take their compensatory time off when 
they need it. Under the current language, a company who found it 
inconvenient to give comptime when a parent requested

[[Page S4513]]

time off, could refuse the comptime request. There is also concern that 
for the purposes of unemployment and pension compensation, comptime 
will not be counted in the same manner as overtime pay, thus leaving 
the employee with less lifetime benefits. This means that as parents 
and grandparents retire, they are less likely to be self sufficient and 
more likely to rely on their families.
  There are many options available to employers wishing to create 
family friendly flexibility in their workplaces, including the 
flexibility to create both flextime and compressed work schedules 
programs that allow workers and employers to create family friendly 
schedules. There are many legislative options as well, including 
expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act. These are initiatives 
that provide flexibility without opening the door to abuses.
  The 40-hour work week and the right to overtime were not instituted 
at the whim of Congress. These are rights that the working people of 
America fought for for over 100 years. Blood was shed and people died 
in the struggle to create a work week in which people could see 
daylight, see their children, and build their communities. We should 
not take lightly efforts to eradicate the victories of America's 
working men and women, victories that have strengthened America's 
families. I urge my colleagues to support America's working families by 
voting no on S. 4 and no on cloture.
  Mr. President, this legislation reduces pay, cuts benefits, and 
eliminates worker options all under the guise of flexibility.
  If you think about it for a minute, when you have a choice that only 
goes in one direction, that is not flexibility. That is coercion. And 
that is what this legislation allows.
  Employees will not be able to freely choose whether or not they want 
to take overtime, or to take comptime. That will be up to the employer.
  Under this legislation, the employer gets to choose not only when an 
employee can use comptime but who gets to use comptime. So an employer 
could theoretically choose to give favored employees the benefits of 
the flexibility they need and not offer the same options to someone 
they didn't like quite as much.
  Add to that the fact that the benefits that employees receive with 
regard to their pensions and other retirement benefits are calculated 
based on hours worked and it is possible that under this legislation 
retirement benefits would wind up being cut. This is another flaw of 
this legislation that is hidden under the guise of flexibility.
  Add to that also the fact that S. 4 is the Paycheck Reduction Act. 
Clearly an employer could decide that an employee will not have 
overtime, and many people--15 percent of manufacturing workers in this 
country for instance--right now depend on overtime in order to meet the 
family bills, in order to provide for their children. That option would 
be gone for many working families under this legislation. Employees 
could wind up having their overtime pay cut in favor of what is called 
comptime or flexible credit hours.
  Again, choice going in one direction is coercion.
  Finally, Mr. President, this legislation fails, I think, the test of 
good legislation because it does not give employees the ability to 
plan. The sponsors say this legislation is intended to give workers the 
flexibility to plan their lives, and the like.
  In fact, under this legislation the employer could say to a given 
worker, ``This week you work 50 hours, and next week you work 30 hours. 
And that makes up the 80 hours, and I don't have to do anything else 
for you.'' If that person has a child in day care, or if that person 
doesn't want to split up their work week so they can plan their 
activities they are out of luck. If they wind up putting in 50 or 60 
hours in 1 week and only 20 or 30 the next, if an individual is 
disrupted by this schedule, if their personal life is disrupted, this 
legislation does not provide any protections for them. It only provides 
for protections against disruption for the employer.
  So, if this legislation wants to be called the Family Friendly 
Workplace Act, I would actually suggest it be amended to be called the 
Adams Family Friendly Workplace Act because that is the only family 
that this legislation is friendly to.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I oppose 
cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today because yesterday I 
introduced the Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu substitute amendment to the 
comptime bill. This amendment will give working men and women the 
choice between earning overtime pay or taking that time off to spend 
with their families.
  As I travel around my State, I get the chance to meet with a lot of 
decent, hard-working people. In Montana, we know how to put in an 
honest day's work. And in exchange for that work, we ask only for an 
honest day's pay.
  But lately, that pay isn't stretching as far as it used to. That 
means working longer hours, and sometimes holding down two jobs. 
Whether it is a single-parent household, or a home where both parents 
have to work, people are finding less and less time for their families.
  Mothers and fathers are finding themselves caught in a costly 
juggling act, where they are trying to balance the demands of their 
work with the needs of their families.
  I believe that this trend has very serious consequences on our 
families and our society as a whole. I know most of the Senators in 
this body agree with me.
  As our society changes, so must our labor laws. They must reflect the 
needs of our current work force.
  And that is why I offered this amendment. Because America's working 
men and women need flexibility in their jobs--so they can spend more 
time with their families.
  And that is what S. 4, in its current form, proposes to do. 
Regrettably, I believe this legislation takes the wrong approach.
  Under the current bill, mothers and fathers do not have the final say 
in how their overtime will be used. Their hands are tied by the 
decisions of their employer.
  Under my amendment, if a worker puts in overtime, he or she can be 
paid time and a half, just as the law stands now. Or if that person 
wants, he or she can take that payment in the form of vacation--an hour 
and a half for every hour of overtime. Quite simply, workers can choose 
money or time, and not be penalized for their choice.
  This choice would allow a parent the flexibility to attend their 
child's soccer game. Or it would let that worker earn a little extra 
money for Christmas presents.
  Under the changes proposed in Senator Ashcroft's bill, the employer 
has the last word. Mothers and fathers could find their employer 
deciding whether they get time off or whether they get overtime pay. 
And I believe that is wrong.
  It is our duty to protect America's workers. When it comes to the 
choice between comptime and time off, we need to make sure the employee 
has the last choice.
  We have a tremendous opportunity to do something great for America's 
working men and women. We have a chance to give our families a powerful 
tool in the struggle to find balance between work and family.
  They're not asking for much. They simply want an honest day's pay for 
an honest day's work. They also want a little time to spend with their 
families.
  The American people have made it clear to us that flexibility and 
choice are what they need. Under my amendment, that flexibility, and 
that choice, are what they will get.
  I urge my colleagues to join me, and vote in favor of this amendment 
when it comes to the Senate floor.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am voting for cloture for the Family-
Friendly Workplace Act because I believe that it has the potential to 
allow workers around the country the flexibility to spend more time 
with their families. This legislation will give employees the 
flexibility of taking time-and-a-half off in lieu of receiving time-
and-a-half pay for any overtime hours worked. In addition, the employee 
will also have the option of working out a biweekly work program with 
his or her employer or using flexible credit hours. All of these 
options are currently available to Federal employees and receive high 
praise from the employees who choose to participate.
  While I think the principles behind this bill are sound and important 
for

[[Page S4514]]

the American worker, I also believe it is important to ensure that the 
choice to participate in the program is left to the employee. Without 
this assurance, the employee will have gained nothing.
  For this reason, I have expressed my concern that the coercion 
language contained in this bill be strong enough to deter potential 
abuses of the law. I am supportive of the managers' amendment which 
establishes a similar level of penalties for employers who coerce 
employees to accept the compensatory time, biweekly work program, or 
flexible credit hours. This amendment, would essentially double the 
penalties for an employer who coerced an employee to take any of these 
options.
  In addition to this change, I have filed two amendments Nos. 254 and 
255, that would establish additional penalties for employers who 
continue to abuse the intent of this law. If an employer is found 
guilty of a second offense of coercion, my amendment would triple the 
penalties for that employer. While I believe that most employers will 
work with their employees to establish mutually beneficial work 
programs, I believe it is important to establish strong penalties for 
those employers who may abuse the system.
  With appropriate protections for the employee, I believe the Family-
Friendly Workplace Act will benefit hundreds of workers and families 
around the country.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains? We are prepared to 
yield back. I think we have had excellent statements that have been 
made by our two colleagues and friends.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes and ten seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will withhold the time, if the proponents of 
legislation want to yield back.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I think I have the right to close.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will very brief.
  All of the arguments that have been given here against the Family 
Friendly Workplace Act are based on one fact: that an employer who is a 
real SOB is not going to give his or her employees the rights created 
in this bill.
  Why deny the 99.9 percent of the employees in this Nation who have 
good employers the ability to work these things out with their 
employers?
  So all of the arguments against S. 4 are based on one thing; that 
employers will not follow the provisions contained in the bill. The 
point is, Mr. President, that S. 4 contains provisions that will 
protect American workers. Since the bill does contain these 
protections, and 99.9 percent of employees work for good employers, it 
is completely unfair to deny all of the rest of the employees in the 
country the ability to participate in comptime, flex-time and bi-weekly 
work schedules.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the committee 
     amendment to Calendar No. 32, S. 4, the Family Friendly 
     Workplace Act of 1997:
         Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Susan M. Collins, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison, Mike DeWine, Judd Gregg, Paul Coverdell, 
           Gordon Smith, John W. Warner, Thad Cochran, Conrad 
           Burns, Fred Thompson, Don Nickles, Wayne Allard, Jeff 
           Sessions, and Dirk Kempthorne.


                                  vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the committee substitute, as modified, on S. 4. shall be 
brought to a close? The yeas and nays are required. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). On this vote, the yeas 
are 53, the nays are 47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, might we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If I can have the attention of the Senators in 
the Chamber, if will they take their conversations outside, I would 
appreciate it. The Senator from Georgia has the floor. He is due your 
attention.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I make the 
following remarks.
  The people of America want flextime. Working women, mothers and 
fathers need the same flexible work schedules and comptime choices that 
Government workers, salaried workers, bosses and boardroom executives 
have enjoyed for decades. I am particularly struck that, since 1978, 
Government workers have enjoyed what this legislation would provide 
other workers in the private sector.
  I remember when I came here it was important that there be 
congressional accountability, that the Congress operate under the same 
laws as the businesses and people of the country. I think that is 
applicable here, too. If Government workers can enjoy these benefits, 
then private sector employees ought to as well.
  The Family Friendly Workplace Act is a matter of fairness to the 
workers of America. It is a high priority of the Republican leadership, 
and we intend to continue to press this case both here in the Senate 
and before the American people. A number of people on the other side, 
including the White House, have said both publicly and privately they 
want to get a bill. An op-ed, or editorial, in today's Wall Street 
Journal by the executive director of the Democratic Leadership Council 
urges passage of the bill. That appeared Thursday, May 15, 1997: 
``Comptime's Time Has Come.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 15, 1997]

                       Comp Time's Time Has Come

                           (By Chuck Alston)

       For a fresh example of why voters think Washington doesn't 
     get it, look no further than the partisan standoff over 
     overtime compensation.
       Federal law now requires employers to pay most hourly 
     workers time-and-a-half for all work beyond 40 hours a week. 
     The Senate, following the House's lead, is now debating 
     legislation that would permit employers to give workers the 
     choice of taking so-called compensatory time off (at the 
     time-and-a-half rate) instead of overtime pay.
       The concept is enormously popular, and for good reason. The 
     Fair Labor Standards Act which must be amended to allow comp 
     time, was designed in 1938 for the male manufacturing work 
     force of the Depression era. Today, both parents generally 
     must work to keep their family in the middle class. Even with 
     squeezed family budgets, some workers would welcome extra 
     time off to take care of a sick child or parent, attend a 
     Little League game or just catch up with home life. According 
     to the independent Families and Work Institute, 40% of 
     workers say they can't get their chores done because of their 
     job; 35% complain of a lack of personal time; 24% complain 
     they lack time for their families. No wonder a 1995 Penn, 
     Schoen & Berland poll for the business-backed Labor Policy 
     Association found that three-fourths of all Americans favor 
     giving employees a choice between overtime pay and comp time.

[[Page S4515]]

       Unfortunately, politics as usual could kill this attempt to 
     help harried families. President Clinton has called for comp-
     time legislation, but has threatened to veto the bill the 
     House has passed, largely on the grounds that it does not go 
     far enough to protect workers' interests. Unions have made 
     opposition a litmus test for Democrats, making a yes vote 
     suicidal for members who want to protect their labor PAC 
     donations (a big reason only 13 House Democrats voted yes). 
     Democratic opponents have cast the House bill as the 
     ``paycheck reduction act.'' And Republicans have appeared 
     gleeful at the thought of jamming legislation down labor's 
     throat, a payback for unions $35 million soft money campaign 
     last year for Democrats. In sum, hardly the atmospherics for 
     compromise.
       Nonetheless, this effort to modernize labor law shouldn't 
     be allowed to run aground on partisan shoals. The tools and 
     protection workers need in the new economy are different from 
     those of the Industrial Era. Employers and employees alike 
     will benefit from public policy that supports two-parent 
     families by giving them the flexibility to balance family and 
     income needs.
       The legislation has won wide backing from business groups: 
     not only because it could lower labor costs by cutting cash 
     out the door for payroll and payroll taxes, but also because 
     smart companies understand how flexibility can help their 
     efforts to recruit and retain top-notch employees. As a 
     recent Working Woman article on workplace flexibility 
     programs at Xerox Corp. noted, ``In the end, researchers 
     found that work/life initiatives were not just a feelgood 
     answer to personal time conflicts, but a solution to business 
     problems--and one that could provide companies with a 
     competitive edge.'' A comp-time law would give companies yet 
     another flexibility option to offer employees, but without 
     mandating it.
       At the same time, we must also make sure workers' interests 
     are protected. In the real world, some companies will 
     certainly try to maneuver workers into taking comp time 
     instead of overtime, or start offering overtime work only to 
     people who will take comp time instead of pay. As a former 
     newspaper reporter, I'm well aware of the lengths to which 
     managers will go to avoid paying overtime. That is why any 
     legislation must ensure that comp time is truly voluntary. It 
     should bar employers from coercing employees to take comp 
     time, give employees reasonable latitude over when they can 
     take the time off or cash out their accumulated hours, 
     protect part-time, seasonal and other especially vulnerable 
     employees, and prevent employers from discriminating unfairly 
     in determining who gets comp time.
       The House bill's five-year sunset provision was a good 
     compromise. If employers aren't honoring these protections, 
     or the law proves so overly complex that employers don't take 
     advantage of it, we can always revise it or return to the 
     status quo ante.
       The president and House Republicans aren't that far apart 
     on comp-time legislation. The Senate could point the way 
     toward compromise, based on this foundation: Republicans must 
     understand that tinkering with one of the labor movement's 
     greatest accomplishments--the 40-hour work week--naturally 
     generates suspicion in Democratic quarters. And they 
     shouldn't automatically resist every attempt to bolster 
     worker protection. Meanwhile, Democrats who rightly seek to 
     protect workers must understand that they can, and may well, 
     doom comp time with overly complex conditions. In the end, 
     the last thing anyone should want is a law so complicated 
     that employers, especially in small businesses, choose not to 
     offer employees any option at all for fear of being sued.
       The irony of the debate is that the comp-time option has 
     been available in the public sector since 1985. To be sure, 
     it won't work everywhere in the private sector, but it's time 
     go give companies--and their workers--the choice.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, now is the time to get serious about 
this, but it is your move. I urge the White House to get with the 
sponsor of S. 4, and let us find out where the common ground is. 
Senators Jeffords, DeWine, and Ashcroft are ready to work with you, Mr. 
President, as they always have been. It is your move.
  I hope Senators who voted against cloture, cutting off debate, will 
think about whose side they are on. Are you on the side of those who 
already have flextime but want to deny others the same rights? Or are 
you on the side of the working women and men who do not have these 
options? The only workers who are denied flextime today are hourly 
workers: the secretaries, sales clerks, mechanics, factory workers in 
our country. They are the folks who get up early, punch in the time 
clock, and work hard to make ends meet. It is time that we were on the 
side of the millions of working class people in America who are denied 
these choices. I repeat these choices that Federal workers already 
have. Single moms, two-paycheck families need flextime. Just ask them 
and they will tell you. Let us give working parents a helping hand in 
the vital job they are doing.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that request 
for a moment?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I withhold my request for a moment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Parliamentary inquiry. What is the time situation 
between now and the time we go to the Feinstein amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have morning business until 11. We have 
already cut into that substantially. About half of it is remaining.
  Mr. BUMPERS. How much time remains and who is supposed to receive it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic side--the Democratic leader has 
12 minutes, the Senator from Wyoming has 8 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

                          ____________________