[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 65 (Friday, May 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4628-S4633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FAMILY FRIENDLY WORKPLACE ACT

  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, my good colleague from Missouri, 
Senator John Ashcroft, recently introduced legislation that would 
provide increased opportunities for working parents to spend more time 
with their families without losing 1 cent in compensation.
  It is popularly called flextime. It is legislation that allows a 
worker an opportunity to trade time-and-a-half for just time. I think 
it is a very, very important piece of legislation and very timely, 
because there have been so many changes in the workplace.
  This bill would allow employees to choose to work additional hours, 
more than 40, in one workweek and use those extra hours to fill in for 
a shorter workweek later. Or an employee could choose to take time off 
in lieu of overtime pay at a rate of 1\1/2\ hours for each hour of 
overtime. An employee could also choose to work 80 hours over a 2-week 
period in any combination.
  Here is the important point, Madam President, that all of these 
choices are voluntary. These flexible options can only be exercised if 
the employee and employer agree to the concept. None of these choices 
would result in lower pay, and, in the case of comptime off,

[[Page S4629]]

those hours not used, up to 240 could be cashed in at overtime rate 
pay.
  The point here is no one is being shortchanged. The point is that 
everybody has new flexibility, in terms of managing their workweek.
  One might have thought that President Clinton would have embraced 
this initiative wholeheartedly, but, no, President Clinton has 
threatened to veto these options, to strike down the opportunity for 
these workers to have these voluntary flexible options. He claims that 
the legislation will force employees to take time off in lieu of 
overtime pay. In other words, the employee would be forced to not 
receive the overtime pay but to take the time off.
  Some in the media have repeated this claim and then wrongly insisted 
that overtime would start only after an employee had worked 80 hours in 
2 weeks, instead of 40 hours in 1 week, which is the current law.
  There is one thing wrong about these claims that have been made by 
the President and by some in the media: They are not true. They are not 
just a little off base, but utterly false. The administration and these 
other opponents need to read the bill. I have taken particular notice 
that critics never actually quote from the bill.
  Madam President, here is what the bill actually says, and I am proud 
to be a cosponsor of it. The bill allows:

       Employers to offer compensatory time off, which employees 
     may voluntarily elect to receive, and to establish biweekly 
     work programs and flexible credit hour programs, in which 
     employees may voluntarily participate.

  Is that too hard for our critics to figure out? Just in case, here is 
what the bill has to say to employers who have other ideas. Employers,

       . . . may not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten 
     or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce, 
     any--

  Any--

       . . . employee for the purpose of interfering with the 
     rights of such employee under this section to elect or not to 
     elect to [participate in one of the programs offered in the 
     bill].

  Madam President, if they do coerce, threaten or intimidate their 
employees, they are subject to criminal and civil penalties.
  This is a bill that benefits working parents. The bill has been 
endorsed by Working Women and by Working Mothers magazines and, yes, 
the New York Times. It does not mandate anything. Some employees may 
like the new options, others may not. That is the whole point. 
Employees should be able to decide what is best for them. This 
legislation ought to be a slam dunk.
  So why, you might ask, is the legislation even necessary? Because 
current Federal law prohibits such voluntary arrangements for 
everybody, except for Federal employees who have enjoyed these choices 
since 1978.
  I am going to repeat that. If you are a Federal employee, the very 
options and flexibility that we are trying to make available for hourly 
wage workers are already enjoyed by Federal employees that surround 
this Capitol. But it isn't good enough for the hourly worker in the 
private sector.
  Who would support the status quo? Who wants to leave it the way it 
is? I have already alluded to the fact that the President has 
threatened to veto any legislation that would provide these 
opportunities and this flexibility. Labor leaders, the labor bosses 
oppose it. When you think about it, the kinds of issues that exist 
between an employee and employer boil down to just two categories: 
hours of employment and compensation, whether in the form of health 
care plans, time off, salary, or overtime. If employers and employees 
can work out these issues by themselves, I believe that these union 
leaders feel they will be out of business.
  President Clinton has, thus, obliged the unions by producing his own 
proposal, which naturally gives the Secretary of Labor the discretion 
to decide which workers would be extended the kinds of scheduling 
choices we support. This doesn't meet the laugh test. Perhaps someone 
should notify the administration the election is over. Ordinary hard-
working Americans, not labor bosses and leaders, reelected President 
Clinton and returned a Republican majority to Congress. They expect us 
to work together providing choices that allow families more time 
together, and that is a very good place to start working together.

  Madam President, I was reading a piece in a recent magazine, and the 
article is entitled, ``Work and Family Integration.'' I will just quote 
a couple paragraphs:

       Economic changes have direct consequences on work and 
     family life. It is increasingly common for all adult family 
     members to spend a greater number of hours at work in order 
     to make up for declining median family incomes . . .

  I might point out that that decline has a lot to do with increasing 
tax burdens on these families.
  It goes on to say:

       to fulfill personal career goals, or to cater to growing 
     workplace demands. Married women with children have entered 
     the labor force in record numbers; they therefore have less 
     time for care-giving in the home. Many parents, both mothers 
     and fathers, feel conflicted and torn between spending time 
     with their families and meeting workplace demands. Work and 
     family life should not be in opposition, but should enrich 
     each other.

  That is exactly what this legislation attempts to do. It attempts to 
make the workplace adjustable so that families who have these new and 
added pressures can make changes voluntarily to suit the requirements 
and needs of their families.
  When I first arrived here, there was a great hue and cry that the 
Congress operated under a different set of laws than American families 
and businesses. The new majority changed that. The Congress now lives 
under the same laws as the rest of the land. It is time that the hourly 
wage workers in America received the same breaks as the Federal workers 
in their Capital City, and this is the legislation that ought not to be 
filibustered and ought to be passed and sent to the workplace as a new 
option and opportunity for American workers.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Georgia 
will yield for a question.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Absolutely.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I want to thank, first of all, the Senator from 
Georgia. I appreciate his work. Incidentally, I ask unanimous consent 
that his time be charged against the time under my control from 10:30 
to 11 o'clock, and other reservation of time be restored.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. The opponents of this bill, who don't want to let us 
even have a chance to vote on it, voted to stop us from even voting, to 
keep us from getting cloture and moving to a vote, have indicated that 
they have an alternative. They want to increase the amount of family 
and medical leave, and they call our bill the Paycheck Reduction Act.
  Will the Senator clarify for me, now, under family and medical leave, 
what kind of time off is that and do you get paid when you take that 
time off?
  Mr. COVERDELL. You absolutely don't, but I would make an even greater 
distinction. Your legislation, which I have been proud to coauthor, and 
I commend the work of the Senator from Missouri, as I did before the 
Senator arrived, leaves the decision about what families need and don't 
need to the families, the workers themselves.

  The alternatives proposed--and there are several. One is to turn the 
decision over to Secretary Shalala. I think that is a pretty big job to 
try to figure out what the millions of working families need and don't 
need. I think she might not be up to that. Or to try to construct 
Federal law that manages time off, which may or may not deal with the 
circumstances of a family, and, no, it would not be pay.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. So their proposal is, if you want to take time off with 
your family, you have to take a pay cut to do it?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Correct, and the Senator's proposal doesn't cost them 
one penny.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. So you could make up the time under the flextime or 
comptime provisions, take time with your family and not take the pay 
cut.
  Mr. COVERDELL. That is absolutely correct.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator from Georgia started to make the point, 
though, that is also important, which is this flextime and comptime 
opportunity isn't just for specific things with your family. If you 
wanted to

[[Page S4630]]

take this time off once you have earned it--
  Mr. COVERDELL. You could go fishing.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. You can do what?
  Mr. COVERDELL. You could go fishing.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I can go fishing. I believe I might.
  Mr. COVERDELL. You can go camping. You might have an emergency you 
are dealing with. You might have a graduation. Again, the point I am 
making is the principal distinction, and it appears so often between 
our two sides, is that the legislation of the Senator from Missouri 
leaves the choice to the worker and his or her family, the choice about 
time-and-a-half or trading the time-and-a-half.
  Their view is that it has to be managed by the Government or by 
Secretary Shalala. I just don't think they can figure out what the 
requirements and needs are of each one of those workers all across the 
land from Missouri to Georgia to Nome, AK.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator pointed out that the Federal Government 
workers have had this full range of options now for almost 20 years. 
Has the Senator from Georgia had a lot of Federal Government workers 
streaming into his office to say, ``Please, take us out from under this 
system, it's a problem to us''?
  Mr. COVERDELL. To the contrary. Imagine the hue and cry if the way we 
were to equalize this was to remove that option from Federal employees 
so that they would be treated like these other hourly workers. Talk 
about a hailstorm. They have enjoyed the benefit, and no one that I 
know of has issued the first complaint about those flexible options 
that are enjoyed by Federal employees.
  I mentioned a moment ago that when we came here, the Congress 
functioned under a different set of laws than American businesses. Now 
we have the Congressional Accountability Act, and we have put Congress 
under the same confines. It is time to let the private hourly workers 
enjoy the same benefits as Federal employees.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. It is not just Federal employees.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Salaried, and those in the boardrooms.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. All the corporate presidents, all the salaried workers, 
and the Government workers have comp or flextime, but the hourly 
workers, who are a minority of the workers in this country; less than 
half of the workers, do not have this. The other folks all have it.
  I thank the Senator for coming to the floor to talk about this.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Missouri. He is a very 
eloquent spokesperson on this issue. I do think anything we can do that 
makes it easier for families to be in the workplace--we know they are 
under enormous duress today, with both parents working--anything we can 
do to make it more manageable for them we ought to do. Your bill, our 
bill, lowering their taxes, all of these things need to happen in 
working America.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his contribution 
to this debate and his insight. In fact, the insight which is most 
valuable is that families have the capacity intellectually, and ought 
to have the capacity legally, to make decisions about their own family 
and not to have Government trying, from 1,000 miles away, to tell you 
whether or not you should be able to do something or not with your kids 
or whether or not you should be able to take time off to meet your own 
personal needs.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Absolutely. Thank you.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Georgia.
  I inquire how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has until 11:30.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I want to talk about benefits that people enjoy as 
workers in America, benefits which are enjoyed by Federal workers, 
benefits which are enjoyed by State workers, benefits which are enjoyed 
by executives, by supervisors, by managers, benefits which are enjoyed 
by all salaried workers, but benefits which do not inure to the 
advantage of individuals who work by the hour.
  There are about 59 million people in this country who work by the 
hour; 28.9 million women who work by the hour. These are the 
individuals who do not have the flexibility to adjust their schedules. 
They do not have the capacity to say, ``I'm going to take Friday 
morning off and work a little extra Monday afternoon.'' They do not 
have the ability to say, ``I need to quickly take a few minutes away 
here. I need to go to the school and pick up my child who needs to be 
taken to the doctor's office.'' They do not have that capacity.
  The majority of Americans do have that benefit. Far more, millions 
more, people have that benefit than those who do not. But the hourly 
paid workers do not.
  If you work for the Federal Government, you can schedule your 
workweek to get an extra day off every other week while keeping a full 
paycheck. If you took Friday off every other week in the same way and 
you are not in the Federal Government, you are going to find yourself 
short on cash. If you are an hourly worker in the private sector, you 
just cannot do it; you do not have that benefit.
  If you work for the Federal Government, you can choose compensatory 
time; in other words, take time off with pay later on instead of being 
paid time and a half when you have been asked to work overtime. You do 
not have that choice, you cannot make that choice if you are an hourly 
worker in the private sector. It is against the law for your employer 
to say to you, ``Well, if you'd really rather have time and a half off 
later with pay instead of taking paid time and a half for your overtime 
now, I'll do that for you.'' Then the employer is in violation, the 
employer suffers the penalty, the heavy hand of law enforcement, and 
the Government comes down on him if he does that.
  It simply is something that cannot be done for people in the hourly 
category in the private sector. The boardroom, yes. If the boardroom 
boys want to go play golf, they want to have Friday off, they have 
flexibility. The salaried workers have the flexibility. Government 
workers have that kind of flexibility. But private, hourly paid 
employees, whether they be men or women, they do not have it. It is not 
fair.
  If you work for the Federal Government, you can bank hours 1 week, 
you can work a couple hours extra this week in order to take a couple 
hours off next week. That sounds reasonable. It is something that 
people could do to adjust to the needs of their families.
  If there is an awards assembly at the school, if there are PTA 
conferences, if you need to get your driver's license renewed, you have 
to retake the test, or just have to have your eyes checked and you have 
to do it during the hours when government offices are open, the 
department of motor vehicles, you need to do that, if you are a 
Government worker, you can put a couple hours in comptime this week and 
take the time off next week. Or, of course, if you are a manager or 
boardroom executive or a salaried worker, that is something that can be 
done.

  But your employer cannot trade 2 hours this week for 2 hours next 
week if you are an hourly worker. That is a benefit that people in the 
governmental system enjoy. It is a benefit to be able to bank some 
hours this week and take them off next week. It is a benefit to be able 
to use time off and take compensatory time off with pay instead of 
being paid the time-and-a-half overtime, take compensatory time and a 
half off without losing pay.
  It is a benefit to be able to schedule your workweek so that you can 
take Friday off every other week the way Federal employees can. These 
are benefits which belong to the majority of the members of the work 
force in our culture which do not belong to hourly workers.
  What S. 4 is all about is providing an opportunity for hourly workers 
to have some of the same benefits that have been available to 
individuals in other quadrants of the culture. Private-sector workers 
have fewer benefits than Government workers.
  I think a lot of folks, when they have worked in the private sector--
certainly I knew that--they work just as hard. Private-sector families 
need moms and dads just as much as public-sector families do. Private-
sector kids play soccer. Private-sector kids get in trouble and need 
the folks to show up at the

[[Page S4631]]

school to get them out of trouble and help straighten them out. My mom 
came to school occasionally when I did not want her to, but it helped 
me, and I am glad she was able to. Private-sector workers need the 
benefit of being able to do those kinds of things.
  Now, I do not understand how Senators can be for flextime and 
comptime for public-sector workers and not be for flextime and comptime 
for private-sector workers. S. 4 is just trying to give to people in 
the private sector the same benefit that these Senators have provided 
for their public-sector employees--the same choices.
  I have not had a single Government worker come to me and say, ``Wow, 
these choices are terrible. I wish we didn't have choices like flexible 
scheduling. I sure wish I didn't have the capacity to bank an hour this 
week and take it off next week. I really wish I didn't have the 
opportunity to schedule so that I had every other Friday off. And, man, 
I hate this concept of being able myself to choose whether I wanted the 
money from overtime work or I wanted to take time and a half off with 
pay at some other time.''
  I have been here now for--well, I am in my third year, and have not 
had the first Federal worker knock on my door and say, ``It's terrible 
to have this kind of flexibility,'' and I don't think I ever will. As a 
matter of fact, when people were interviewed in the system by the 
General Accounting Office, at a 10-to-1 ratio they said this was the 
best thing since sliced bread. This is what people need. This is a way 
for people to accommodate the demands of their families.
  Incidentally, people all need to take time off. Everybody knows there 
are going to be demands that will require you to take some time off. 
The question is, are you going to be able to be paid for it? You know, 
most of the time when you have to take time off to be with your family, 
that is when you need the money.
  Folks on the other side of the aisle say we should have more family 
and medical leave. That is leave without pay. I ask a simple question 
to my colleagues, and it should be easy--this is what we call a ``no 
brainer''--when you take your kid to the doctor, do you need more money 
or less money than if you are not taking your kid to the doctor?
  In my experience, if I have to take my child to the doctor or to the 
dentist, I have a need for additional resources, not fewer resources. 
If all I get offered by Government is a plan that says you can take a 
pay cut if you want to take your kid to the doctor--wait a second, it 
relieves the tension I feel within me, I do need to be able to take my 
child to the doctor, but if I have to take a pay cut to do it, how am I 
going to pay the doctor?
  We have a system that is in place where the benefits are available to 
the Federal worker, the benefits are available to the boardroom, the 
benefits are available to those who are salaried workers. We include 
this kind of flexibility, not taking pay cuts, but a capacity to meet 
the needs of your family without having your paycheck docked. I think 
it ought to be available to private workers.
  You know, not one that I know of of the employees of the Federal 
Government have come to me or any other Senator saying ``It's a 
terrible system. We ought to abandon it.'' There are 56 Senators who 
are still in the U.S. Senate who supported flexible scheduling benefits 
for Federal workers, and they are refusing to give these benefits to 
the millions of sales clerks, secretaries, factory workers, the kind of 
hourly individuals, mechanics across our country. We have a lot of 
folks here in this Senate who gave it to the Government workers.

  Now, not all the 56 are refusing. I should not say that. If I did, I 
misspoke and I need to be corrected, because there are a number of 
Senators on this side of the aisle who voted for that and who have 
said, yes, it was good for Government, and it would be good for the 
people in the private sector to have these choices. It is totally 
voluntary at the option of the worker and cannot be done unless it is 
also voluntary by the employer; otherwise, the same system stays in 
place that is in place right now.
  But when employers and employees can agree, we ought to have these 
benefits for the people in the private sector just like this benefit is 
available to people in the public sector. There are 56 Senators still 
in this body who voted to give it to people in the public sector.
  How can you be for bigger benefits for Federal workers, but fewer 
benefits for the people who work by the hour and who pay our salaries 
when they pay their taxes? It seems to me to be an irony which is 
strange indeed that we would say to those who pay our salaries, who 
hire us to represent them in this town to do what they need to have 
done--and we make second-class citizens of those whom we represent and 
those who pay us to be here. It is inconceivable.
  Some people say, well, we need to protect the workers. We have built 
protections into this. Those who are saying that we need to protect the 
workers in the private sector, let us find out what kind of protections 
they put in when they voted for the workers to have this flexibility in 
the public sector. It is kind of interesting.
  In the public sector, workers can be required to participate as a 
condition of employment. Participation is strictly voluntary, it cannot 
be required in comptime under our bill.
  They say we have to protect the private-sector workers. They did not 
demand that protection when they issued this whole set of opportunities 
for public-sector people.
  They say we have to protect workers from management. Did they say 
that when they put the public-sector program in place? Management can 
decide when a worker must use comptime. What we have put in our bill, 
workers cannot be coerced into using their comptime. Penalties are 
doubled for direct or indirect coercion.
  It is hard for me to understand how people could say we need tougher 
penalties than this when they invented this program for the public 
sector and they authorized management to make the decision.
  Here is another benefit.
  Comptime paid in cash only when the worker leaves the job in the 
public sector. What have we done for private-sector workers to try to 
protect them? Comptime must be cashed out any time it is requested by 
the worker; must be cashed out at the end of the year if it has not 
been used.
  Was that something that they felt was an important protection when 
they voted for the system in the public sector? Comptime paid in cash 
only when the worker leaves the job. The worker had to quit if he 
wanted the money.
  I think what we have here is a clear situation where we need to give 
private-sector workers the same benefits which people in the public 
sector have been enjoying. I agree that we want to have them protected. 
But as Shakespeare, I think, said in one of the plays, ``I think he 
doth protest too much.''
  They are asking for a full range of protections saying, ``I can't do 
that in the private sector because you don't have private-sector 
protections.'' Well, we have big enough protections in every case for 
the private worker in this bill than they demanded when they passed 
this for the public sector in the bill which now controls the public-
sector effort.
  It is pretty clear to me S. 4 would give private hourly workers real 
choices. They are real choices with protections. They are protections 
which are much stronger than anything that was written into the bill by 
those Senators who wrote in the public sector framework.
  It is high time we stop having an approach which tries to 
discriminate against the private hourly workers. It is high time we 
said that the benefits that have been available in the public sector 
should be available to those in the private sector who work by the 
hour. The benefits that have been available to the vast majority of 
American workers, public sector, salaried workers, the boardroom folks, 
the managers, and the supervisors, those benefits need to be available 
to the individuals who, as a matter of fact, work by the hour in this 
country.
  We should give them the opportunity to choose a set of benefits that 
have not been rejected when available to the private-sector workers. 
They have been embraced by public-sector workers.
  We are for protecting workers. Senator Kennedy has argued our bill 
does not protect workers. Senator Kennedy was a cosponsor of the 
public-sector

[[Page S4632]]

bill. He was a conferee on the committee, and it did not provide the 
protections in the public sector which we have in the private sector. 
It did not give workers the same kind of choices. I think it is time 
for us to say, ``Let's be reasonable,'' and understand for private- and 
public-sector workers we have to provide the capacity for people to 
meet the needs of their families if we want America to be successful in 
the next century.
  This debate can be talked about as if it is a debate about theory, 
about law, and about benefits. In fact, this is a debate about people. 
This is a debate about families. Are we going to give people the 
capacity to have families that are as successful as possible?
  Let me just talk to you about a young woman named Kim Buchanan, from 
St. Louis, MO, a crisis clinician at the Meritz Behavioral Care 
facility in St. Louis, MO. Her husband is a Federal employee at the 
veterans hospital in St. Louis. Her husband enjoys the benefits of 
flextime. They have a son who is 3 years old. Like many American 
families, Kim Buchanan and her husband, Rocky, both work full time. Kim 
just landed a new job which requires her to work on shift hours through 
the week. She must also work weekends. She now needs to find a new day 
care provider for her children while she tries to keep up with her new 
work schedule. Fortunately, the Buchanans are getting some help from 
Rocky's new employer, the Federal Government. Yes, what the Federal 
Government provides is flexible working arrangements. He is allowed to 
work flexible schedules in order to keep up with some of the family's 
activities. That means Rocky can work a few more hours one week in 
order to take some time off, with pay, at a later date.
  Now, here is a statement that Kim Buchanan made:

       Rocky will pick up our son on Monday, Tuesday, and 
     Wednesday. Those are the days I'm going to have him in day 
     care. Rocky has flextime at his job. I would like to see that 
     everyone has it. I don't work for the Federal Government, and 
     it would be nice to have that kind of flexibility especially 
     when you have children. It would be really nice to have that 
     kind of flexibility instead of putting one parent in the 
     bind.

  I think Kim is right. Kim has a pretty dramatic situation. Her 
husband works for the Federal Government and is privileged to have 
flexible work arrangements. She works in private industry and it is 
illegal for her employer to cooperate with her. I wonder what her 
children think? Daddy works for the Government and gets special 
privileges, and Mommy works for the private sector and it is illegal 
for the private sector to help families the way the public sector does.
  Virtually everything we do has some function of being a teacher and 
teaching us. I do not know what we are teaching kids when we tell them 
that it is illegal and wrong for private businesses to help families 
the way the Government does by giving flexible work arrangements. When 
you have Kim and her husband, Rocky, and one can be flexible and have 
good arrangements and offer choices because he works for the 
Government, and Kim, who works for the private sector, would be in 
violation of the law to participate in such a plan, it just does not 
make a lot of sense.
  Let me talk about another individual. Here is Leslie Langford, a 
secretary in Massachusetts. Her husband is a printer. They have a son 
who is about to have his first birthday and a daughter who is 5 years 
old.
  Listen to what Leslie says:

       I've been an hourly employee for the past 14 years. As a 
     full-time employee and a mother of two young children, 
     including an 11-month-old, time is one of the most valuable 
     commodities in my life, and I can't afford to waste any of 
     it. Like many of you, I find it a challenge to juggle the 
     needs of my employer and my family. Luckily I work for a boss 
     in a company that makes this great balancing act a little 
     easier to manage; I strongly support the Family Friendly 
     Workplace Act. This legislation would give millions of 
     workers the flexibility to be with their families when they 
     are needed most. Family friendly legislation such as this 
     is not only desperately needed but long overdue in this 
     country to benefit working parents and their children.

  I am sure if you were to ask Leslie Langford if she thought 
Government workers should have a range of benefits that private workers 
did not have, that there could be rules for Government workers that 
said it was OK to have choices about flextime and comptime, and to 
spend time with your family for Government workers, but it would be 
illegal to do that for the private sector, I suspect Leslie would say, 
how can that be? And the entirety of this country is saying how can 
that be? Why can we not allow hourly-paid workers in the private 
sector, who are a minority of the workers in this country, why can we 
not allow them some of the benefits enjoyed by public-sector workers 
and many of the salaried private workers across the country?
  Here is an interesting letter that came to my office from a 25-year-
old single mother of twin 2-year-old daughters. Listen to this letter 
from a single mother of twin 2-year-old daughters. She says,

       Recently I heard of your Family Friendly Workplace Act. My 
     employer does not allow a flexible work schedule or overtime. 
     My understanding of this act is that I will be able to have 
     flexibility in my work schedule giving me the opportunity to 
     make up work hours lost because of illness in the family and 
     doctor appointments.

  Now her employer cannot offer flexible work schedules and overtime 
like we have in the public sector. It is illegal. That is not a hit on 
her employer, it is just that we said this benefit that you might want 
to be able to share with your employers--you cannot do that.
  She goes on to say:

       As a 25-year-old single mother of twin 2-year-old 
     daughters--[she has her hands full]--the Family Friendly 
     Workplace Act would be extremely beneficial to my situation. 
     My children were born with a congenital heart disease and 
     they need to attend checkup appointments on a 3-month basis, 
     with a cardiologist. These appointments have to allow a full 
     day, since our specialist is in Springfield, MO, and 
     especially because both of my children attend the 
     appointments. Also, since my children have a heart disease 
     they need special attention if they are ill.
       As a single mother, it is very difficult to lose any days 
     financially. [I bet it is] The opportunity to make up any 
     lost work days would be incredibly helpful. The Family 
     Friendly Workplace Act would give me the opportunity to take 
     time off from work, without the loss of pay because of those 
     days my children are ill or need to attend a doctor's 
     appointment.
       Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and your 
     consideration of the many working parents who would 
     appreciate such an act. Please go forward with the Family 
     Friendly Workplace Act.

  ``Please go forward.'' I think that means don't filibuster. I think 
it means get to a vote on this act. I think it means share the same 
benefits with those of us in the private sector who are needed 
desperately by our families as you already allow for people who work 
for the Federal Government, the boardroom already enjoys, as salaried 
employees already enjoy, as the majority of workers in America already 
enjoy, please address the needs of those of us who are in the minority 
here, the hourly-paid workers in the private sector.
  Madam President, we have a great opportunity to serve the people of 
this country, to let them make choices. We have developed a framework 
for that choice, which is a solid framework that protects the worker. 
It protects the worker far more profoundly than the workers who are 
protected in the public system, and there are no complaints in the 
public system, virtually no complaints. I do not know if the Presiding 
Officer has ever had a Federal worker rush in and say, ``This is a 
terrible system which gives us flextime--abolish.'' I doubt, seriously, 
if that has been the case.

  We have built more protections into this bill for the private sector 
than there are for the public sector, and the 56 Senators in this body, 
including many on the other side of the aisle, and the lead opponent on 
the other side of aisle against this measure is the Senator from 
Massachusetts. He was a cosponsor of the measure which provided 
benefits to public-sector workers and a cosponsor of that measure which 
does not provide nearly the same protections for workers. I think it is 
time for us to confess that if benefits are available to the public 
sector they ought to be available in the private sector.
  My grandfather used to say ``God is no respecter of persons.'' People 
are the same, they have the same challenges. Public-sector workers have 
families and they need to be able to spend time with their families and 
they can with the special law that we have for them. Salaried workers 
need to, and

[[Page S4633]]

the law allows that. The boardroom boys need to do that for whatever 
they need to do when they leave early. But salaried workers and 
boardroom folks and Government workers are special citizens compared to 
hourly workers. I think just as God is no respecter of persons, we 
should not be a respecter of persons that says one category of American 
workers has the freedom to help their family, and for others it is 
illegal. I think that ought to cause us all to cringe, and I think the 
ones that ought to be cringing the most are the ones that have provided 
it, voted to provide it, even without protections to the public sector 
who are saying now we cannot provide that to the private sector until 
we make it so cumbersome it would not work.
  Madam President, we have a great opportunity to help the families of 
America help each other. The success of this Nation is not going to be 
determined by what happens in Washington, DC. The success of this 
Nation will be determined around the kitchen table in American homes. 
That is where values are built. That is where we develop the kind of 
character that really determines the future of a country. We have to do 
what we can to make the homes as strong as possible, and we cannot have 
a group of American workers that are--they are a minority of the 
workers. It is clear the majority already have flexible work 
arrangements. We cannot have the 59 million American workers say, 
``Your home is not important enough. You could not make this decision. 
You are not bright enough.'' The truth of the matter is they deserve 
the opportunity to have flexible working arrangements to choose 
compensatory time off instead of overtime if they want it, and then to 
change their mind if they want and to ask for the money instead.
  I think the great opportunity we have is something we can capitalize 
on next week. I look forward to voting on it at that time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of New Hampshire). The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________