[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.
____________________