Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 74 (Tuesday, June 3, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5220-S5235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FAMILY FRIENDLY WORKPLACE ACT

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, are we on the legislation so I can offer
an amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we are; pending is S. 4.

Amendment No. 253

(Purpose: To provide protections in bankruptcy proceedings for claims
relating to compensatory time off and flexible work credit hours)

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, under the unanimous-consent agreement my
amendment on bankruptcy to this legislation has been filed. I would
like to take that amendment up at this point. If it is necessary to
read the amendment, I would like to have it read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 253.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 28, after line 16, insert the following:
(d) Protections for Claims Relating to Compensatory Time
Off and Flexible Credit Hours in Bankruptcy Proceedings.--
Section 507(a)(3) of title 11, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``$4,000'' and inserting ``$6,000'';
(2) by striking ``for--'' and inserting the following:
``provided that all accrued compensatory time (as defined in
section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.
207) or accrued flexible credit hours (as defined in section
13(A) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938) shall be
deemed to have been earned within 90 days before the date of
the filing of the petition or the date of the cessation of
the debtor's business, whichever occurs first, for--''; and
(3) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``or the value of unused, accrued compensatory
time (as defined in section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207)) or the value of unused, accrued
flexible credit hours (as defined in section 13A of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938)''.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bankruptcy
amendment to resolve an important question which has been raised
regarding S. 4. This is a bill which will provide America's working
families with some much-needed relief from the demands of balancing
family and work. But some have questioned whether workers' rights to be
paid by companies that declare bankruptcy might inadvertently be
affected by S. 4. My amendment will make sure that this will not happen
and that workers will be fully protected.
S. 4 is a very important bill. We all know the story. Over the past
decade or so, wages have been flat and the tax burden seems to just
grow and grow. As both mothers and fathers around the country have had
to work outside the home and have had to work longer and longer hours,
they have less time to spend with each other and with their families.
This leads to a decrease in the quality of family life.
And with all the assaults we have on families these days--increased
drug use by teens, excessive violence and sex coming from Hollywood to
name a few--Congress needs to give serious consideration to finding
ways to protect and stabilize families. The Senator from Missouri is to
be commended for taking such a progressive stance on this important
issue.
S. 4 will give employers the chance to offer families the choice of
working harder and earning overtime pay or getting some time off in
exchange for working more. That makes good common sense and will expand
the range of choices that working families can make.
Now, I chair the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the
Courts, which has primary responsibility for bankruptcy policy in the
Senate. I am offering an amendment today to make sure that unused
comptime and unused flexible credit time will be protected when an
employer declares bankruptcy. Under current law, unpaid wages up to
$4,000 are given a preferred status if earned within 90 days prior to a
company declaring bankruptucy. Under the Bankruptcy Code, secured
creditors are paid and then the costs of administering the bankruptcy
estate will be paid. After that--ahead of all the other creditors--
workers' wages will be paid subject to those limitations I just
described.
I believe that comptime and flexible credit time should be protected
in the same way as unpaid wages because unused comptime and unused
flexible credit time are essentially unpaid wages.

So, my amendment does two things. First, my amendment provides that
all unused comptime and unused flexible credit time will be deemed to
have been earned within 90 days prior to the employer filing for
bankruptcy. This will prevent a dishonest employer who wants to cheat
workers from arguing that he doesn't have to pay the value of unused
comptime or unused flexible credit time because they might have been
earned over a period of a year or even longer. In other words, by
having the law deem all unused comptime and unused flexible credit time
as having been earned within 90 days prior to the employer's
bankruptcy, the worker's right to be paid will be protected. That's
pro-worker and pro-family and it's just plain fair.
The second thing that my amendment will do is insert comptime and
flexible credit time in the list of preferred debts alongside unpaid
wages. That means that unused comptime and unused flexible credit time
will have the same preferred status as unpaid wages.
Mr. President, I hope that every Member of this body will support my
amendment. It is pro-worker and it makes sure that the promise of
comptime and flexible credit time will not turn into an empty promise.
As we all know, most employers are honest and law abiding and will go
into bankruptcy only as a last resort. But when a company has to go
into bankruptcy, we should take extra care here in Congress to see to
it that workers are treated fairly. We should also make sure that
workers are protected from the small number of dishonest companies that
might try to use a loophole to cheat workers out of what they've
earned.
My amendment simply ensures that unused comptime and unused flexible
credit time will be as protected as unpaid wages. Workers who choose to
take the time to be with their families should not be disadvantaged
should their company have to declare bankruptcy.
Mr. President, I hope this amendment passes overwhelmingly.
I would like to also suggest that as a concession to the Members of
the other side of the aisle, I have also raised the dollar amount
referred to earlier from $4,000 up to $6,000 as well.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I am very pleased to have the Senator come to the floor
and offer this amendment. I would like to clarify the intent of my
colleague. I think I understand it.
If the comptime accumulated earnings, which might either be paid off
at the end of the year as comptime that gets cashed out or might be
taken as comptime, as time off--if that is older than 90 days old,
under the current law it might not have all the protections in
bankruptcy that normal wages would have; is that correct?
Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Missouri has the existing law correct.
That is right.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So what the Senator is doing is making sure that
everything that would be in a comptime or flextime bank in terms of
hours would be protected at the highest level of protection as recently
earned wages under the bankruptcy law?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I think that is a clear improvement to this measure, in
terms of protecting the interests of workers. I thank the Senator from

[[Page S5221]]

Iowa for his insight and his expertise in this area, which obviously
reflects his experience with the bankruptcy laws and his experience in
matters of this character.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Is it appropriate to urge the adoption? It is not
appropriate? We have not had the minority people speak to it yet.
I ask unanimous consent to lay this amendment aside for the
consideration of a second amendment that I have already filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 256

(Purpose: To apply to Congress the same provisions relating to
compensatory time off, biweekly work programs, flexible credit hour
programs, and exemptions of certain professionals from the minimum wage
and overtime requirements as apply to private sector employees)

Mr. GRASSLEY. This amendment is amendment 256. It has been filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 256.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF LAWS TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``Board'',
``covered employee'', and ``employing office'' have the
meanings given the terms in sections 101 and 203 of Public
Law 104-1.
(b) Biweekly Work Programs; Flexible Credit Hour Programs;
Exemptions.--
(1) In general.--The rights and protections established by
sections 13(m) and 13A of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, as added by section 3, shall apply to covered
employees.
(2) Remedy.--The remedy for a violation of paragraph (1)
shall be such remedy, including liquidated damages, as would
be appropriate if awarded under section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)), and (in the
case of a violation concerning section 13A(d) of such Act),
section 16(g)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 216(g)(1)).
(3) Administration.--The Office of Compliance shall
exercise the same authorities and perform the same duties
with respect to the rights and protections described in
paragraph (1) as the Office exercises and performs under
title III of Public Law 104-1 with respect to the rights and
protections described in section 203 of such law.
(4) Procedures.--Title IV and section 225 of Public Law
104-1 shall apply with respect to violations of paragraph
(1).
(5) Regulations.--
(A) In general.--The Board shall, pursuant to section 304
of Public Law 104-1, issue regulations to implement this
subsection.
(B) Agency regulations.--The regulations issued under
subparagraph (A) shall be the same as substantive regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement the
statutory provisions referred to in paragraph (1) except
insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown and
stated together with the regulation, that a modification of
the regulations would be more effective for the
implementation of the rights and protections under this
subsection.
(c) Compensatory Time Off.--
(1) Regulations.--The Board shall, pursuant to paragraphs
(1) and (2) of section 203(c), and section 304, of Public Law
104-1, issue regulations to implement section 203 of such law
with respect to section 7(r) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(r)), as added by section 3(a).
(2) Remedy.--The remedy for a violation of section 203(a)
of Public Law 104-1 shall be such remedy, including
liquidated damages, as would be appropriate if awarded under
section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 216(b)), and (in the case of a violation concerning
section 7(r)(6)(A) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 7(r)(6)(A))),
section 16(f)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 216(f)(1)).
(3) Effective date.--Subsection (a)(3), and paragraphs (3)
and (4) of subsection (c), of section 203 of Public Law 104-1
cease to be effective on the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Rules of Application.--For purposes of the application
under this section of sections 7(r) and 13A of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 to covered employees of an employing
office, a reference in such sections--
(1) to a statement of an employee that is made, kept, and
preserved in accordance with section 11(c) of such Act shall
be considered to be a reference to a statement that is made,
kept in the records of the employing office, and preserved
until 1 year after the last day on which--
(A) the employing office has a policy offering compensatory
time off, a biweekly work program, or a flexible credit hour
program in effect under section 7(r) or 13A of such Act, as
appropriate; and
(B) the employee is subject to an agreement described in
section 7(r)(3) of such Act or subsection (b)(2)(A) or
(c)(2)(A) of section 13A of such Act, as appropriate; and
(2) to section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29
U.S.C. 159(a)) shall be considered to be a reference to
subchapter II of chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--This section shall take effect, with
respect to the application of section 7(r), 13(m), or 13A of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to covered employees, on
the earlier of--
(A) the effective date of regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of Labor to implement such section; and
(B) the effective date of regulations issued by the Board
as described in subsection (b)(5) or (c)(1) to implement such
section.
(2) Construction.--A regulation promulgated by the
Secretary of Labor to implement section 7(r), 13(m), or 13A
of such Act shall be considered to be the most relevant
substantive executive agency regulation promulgated to
implement such section, for purposes of carrying out section
411 of Public Law 104-1.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a very important
amendment. This amendment applies the provisions of this bill, S. 4, to
Congress.
As most Senators know, I pushed for the adoption of the original
Congressional Accountability Act for many years before it was enacted.
Finally, in the last Congress, with my sponsorship, we enacted the
Congressional Accountability Act into law. With this act we said that
we in Congress are no better than the business men and women in our
States. We are not different and we, too, must live under the laws that
we pass. We no longer sit in Washington and look down upon the people
and tell them how to run their businesses. This is a democracy, and
therefore we make laws for the people, and we, too, are the people.
This amendment is offered for the same purpose. It is a continuation
of the spirit and intent of the Congressional Accountability Act.
In the Federalist Papers, Federalist 57, James Madison wrote that:

[Members of Congress] can make no law which will not have
its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well
as on the great mass of society . . . it creates between them
that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments of
which few governments have furnished examples, but without
which every government degenerates into tyranny.

The bill before us gives important options to the private workplace
that Government--with exceptions including Congress--has enjoyed for
years. It is only fair that if these options--compensatory time, bi-
weekly schedules and flextime--apply to the private sector, then they
must also apply to Congress. A rationale of the Congressional
Accountability Act was that by requiring us to live under the same laws
as the private sector, we will understand the challenges created by the
laws that we pass. If we apply compensatory time, bi-weekly schedules
and flextime to the private sector, we must also apply it to Congress.
Otherwise, we will not get an accurate understanding of what our labor
laws do to our businesses and workers.
The language in this amendment is carefully crafted to complement the
Congressional Accountability Act. The drafting of this language was a
long and careful process. I drafted it in consultation with the Office
of Compliance and the Senate Employment Counsel. I thank both of these
offices for their efforts to craft this language and make it the most
effective and fair language possible.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and to join me once
again in saying that we are not above the laws that we make.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 265

(Purpose: To prohibit coercion by employers of certain public employees
who are eligible for compensatory time off under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and provide for additional remedies in a case of
coercion by such employers of such employees)

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current
amendment be laid aside and call up amendment No. 265.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an
amendment numbered 265.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S5222]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Beginning on page 10, strike line 8 and all that follows
through page 10, line 16 and insert the following:
``subsection (o)(8).''.
(4) Application of the coercion and remedies provisions to
employees of state agencies.--Section 7(o) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(o)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``(7) For'' and inserting
``(8) For''; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (6), the following:
``(7)(A) The provisions relating to the prohibition of
coercion under subsection (r)(6)(A) shall apply to an
employee and employer described in this subsection to the
same extent the provisions apply to an employee and employer
described in subsection (r).
``(B)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the remedies
under section 16(f) shall be made available to an employee
described in this subsection to the same extent that remedies
are made available to an employee described in subsection
(r).
``(ii) In calculating the amount an employer described in
this subsection would be liable for under section 16(f) to an
employee described in this subsection, the Secretary shall,
in lieu of applying the rate of compensation in the formula
described in section 16(f), apply the rate of compensation
described in paragraph (3)(B).''.
(5) Notice of employees.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall
revise the materials the Secretary provides, under
regulations contained in section 516.4 of title 29, Code of
Federal Regulations, to employers for purposes of a notice
explaining the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to employees
so that the notice reflects the amendments made to the Act by
this subsection.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to
amendment No. 265 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the right to amend
his own amendment at this point.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be granted that
right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. MURRAY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Washington has the floor.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask, what is the order of the business of
the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 265.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be laid aside temporarily so I may make a statement in support of this
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to express my
support for the Family Friendly Workplace Act introduced by my
colleague from Missouri, Senator John Ashcroft. I join with the
Nation's working men and women in thanking my friend for his leadership
in bringing this legislation to the floor and giving us an opportunity
to focus on what has become the single most precious commodity for
working families in the 1990's, and that is time.
Trapped between less time and greater demands, the American people
are calling for more choices and flexibility in setting their work
schedules. They want help in balancing the competing demands for time
between their families and their jobs. When surveyed in March by Money
magazine, 64 percent of the American public--and 68 percent of working
women--said they would prefer time off instead of extra pay for
overtime, if the law permitted such a choice.
Unfortunately, the law does not allow such choices, even though
dramatic changes have taken place in America since 1938, when Congress
wrote the basic law governing U.S. workplaces. Six decades ago, most
laborers were employed in industrial plants or on farms. Fewer than 16
percent of married women with children in school were employed outside
the home. Today, service jobs are a key part of the economy where more
than 75 percent of married women with school-age children now work
outside the home.
Many parents are under tremendous stress, often holding down more
than one job while trying to raise their children. The strain can be
even more pronounced in single-parent households or two-parent families
where both spouses work. Is it any surprise that today's parents are
spending 40 percent less time with their children than parents did just
three decades ago? It seems there are not enough hours in the day
anymore to always fulfill the demands of family and of work.
Twenty years ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved relief for federal
workers by enacting flexible work options for government employees.
During House consideration of the bill, then-Representative Geraldine
Ferraro said, ``Flexible schedules have helped reduce the conflicts
between work and personal needs, particularly for working women and
others with household responsibilities.'' Also, Representative Patricia
Schroeder added, ``Flextime increases employee morale and
productivity.''
Even though federal workers have enjoyed these benefits for years,
the rules governing the workplace and working hours for the private
sector remain frozen back in 1938. Predictably, this has created
unintended burdens for millions of workers.
For example, under today's law, a worker who wants to put in 45 hours
one workweek in exchange for 35 hours the next--in order to attend a
child's soccer game, parent-teacher conference, or doctor's
appointment--must first have an employer who is willing to pay five
hours of overtime pay for the 45-hour week. Because many employers
cannot afford additional overtime expenses, working parents are left
with two choices: One is lose five hours of pay in order to be with a
child, or miss the soccer game, school award, or doctor's appointment.
That is an unfair choice parents should not be forced to make.
Employers who try to extend a helping hand to employees with flexible
scheduling do so at the risk of fines and penalties from the Department
of Labor. It is the law--you are not allowed to work 45 hours now in
return for 35 hours in another week and still keep a full paycheck.
President Clinton has said he understands this problem and has
proposed expanding unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave
Act. Unfortunately, his plan only allows leave without pay. It was
designed for periods of extended leave, not for the flexibility needed
to meet the daily challenges of modern family and working life. Working
parents would still have to take a pay cut to be with their children.
Mr. President, I firmly believe the time has come to bring our
employment laws into the 1990's, and so I have proudly signed on as an
original cosponsor of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. Our bill would
create flexible scheduling options for working Americans, benefiting
millions of hard-working women and men.
First, workers under this legislation would have paid flexible leave.
To create time for their families, employees could choose to work
additional hours in one week, to fill in a shorter week later.
Employees could bank up to 50 hours of flexible leave that can be taken
with pay.
Also second, employees could set 2-week schedules totaling 80 hours
in any combination. For example, an employee might want every other
Friday off, compensating for the day off by working 80 hours over the
course of 9 days. This system has worked well for Federal employees.
Third, employees could take time and one-half off, instead of
overtime pay. Employees would have the option of cashing out these comp
time hours for overtime pay, if they wished. It is important to note
that these options are entirely voluntary and any action must be set
into motion by the employee, not the employer. Your employer can't
force you to take comp time if you prefer the overtime. The bill, in
fact, sets stiff penalties for coercive or abusive actions by
employers.

[[Page S5223]]

While I believe the bill affords employees the necessary protections,
should there be reports of widespread abuse under this legislation, I
will be among the first to call for its repeal.
Mr. President, an editorial published in the April 7, 1997, edition
of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune raised some of these same concerns--
concerns I believe have been satisfied--and the newspaper found the
premise behind the bill to be solid. The newspaper wrote:

This is pretty appealing to busy Americans, many of whom
would happily forgo $60 in overtime pay for the chance to
spend Friday with their kids or a string of walleyes. And it
is an efficient form of time management for employers who see
their offices swamped with work one week but becalmed the
next.

The editorial concluded by saying that

Clinton and Congress' Republican leadership should find a
way to accommodate the needs of business and American workers
in a changing economy . . . After all, the whole point is
flexibility.

Mr. President, I trust working parents with that flexibility because
only they know what is best for their families. The flexibility is
especially meaningful for the Nation's working women as well. Both
Working Women and Working Mother magazines have endorsed the flextime
and comptime measures in the Family Friendly Workplace Act, recognizing
that 28.8 million working women stand to gain from this proposal.
Times have changed dramatically since 1938, and change is long
overdue. In fairness to workers and their families, and in the interest
of the productivity of our economy, it is time to modernize our labor
laws and give all workers the choice of flexible work options. So Mr.
President, in concluding, I would like to say that the Family Friendly
Workplace Act offers much-needed help for Americans striving to meet
all the needs of their families. I urge the support of my colleagues,
and once again I want to thank the Senator from Missouri for his
leadership in bringing this bill before the Senate.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today the Senate is
debating an aptly titled bill, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. The
working families of today face more challenges than their parents and
grandparents could have imagined. In addition to providing for their
children, parents want to balance the other demands on their time--
parent-teacher conferences, little league games, doctor appointments,
car pools--but have little flexibility.
The family friendly workplace will give employees the opportunity to
adjust their work hours to take advantage of paid time off during the
workday. It is a short, simple bill that would extend to the private
sector the same benefits already enjoyed by public employees for almost
20 years. First, it will allow hourly workers the ability to bank extra
time which could be taken as paid time off. Second, the measure will
give employees and employers the ability to work out a flexible
scheduling arrangement. Sound simple enough? Surprisingly, these
common-sense practices are now prohibited under current law.
The only explanation I can find for the opposition to this proposal
is the flurry of misinformation that surrounds this debate. For
instance, I have received a few letters in my office from Washington
labor organizations, which reveal their unfortunate misunderstanding of
this bill. One letter states, ``S. 4 contains no penalty to punish
employers who force workers to take compensatory time off if the
workers want, instead, to receive premium pay at the time-and-a-half
rate, after they work in excess of 40 hours during a week.'' This claim
is false. Not only are these options 100 percent voluntary for the
employee, but, in addition to protections that already exist under the
Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA], S. 4 establishes further prohibitions
against employee coercion in the voluntary acceptance of comptime.
Intimidation is outlawed. Another letter I received argues that ``the
enactment of a less effective FLSA would jeopardize worker safety and
health as employees are forced to accept excessively long and hazardous
overtime assignments without pay fearing loss of future employment
opportunities * * *'' This claim is untrue. Let me repeat--these
options are 100 percent voluntary for the employee.
I am also confused by arguments my colleagues have made against this
measure. One amendment the opponents may offer would expand the Family
and Medical Leave Act to grant workers up to 24 hours of unpaid leave
to participate in their child's school activities. They point to a poll
that found that 86 percent of the American public favor legislation
that would allow workers unpaid leave to attend parent-teacher
conferences. Did the poll ask Americans if they would like paid leave
for these educational purposes? I also find this amendment puzzling
since the first argument I hear from labor groups is that workers
cannot afford to take compensatory time off since they rely on their
overtime pay. I agree that many workers would not take the comptime
option because they prefer additional pay. But if extra pay is their
first priority, why would they be so anxious to take unpaid leave?
Furthermore, opponents cite the position of various women's
organizations in Washington who have come out against this bill. Like
many inside-the-beltway groups, they seem to have fallen out of step
with the average working woman, since several studies contradict their
opposition. For example, a study conducted by the Employment Policy
Foundation reveals that women are far more eager to trade income for
leisure--among women earning $750 a week, women are more than twice as
likely as men to choose ``fewer hours for less pay.'' Second, a recent
poll by Money magazine found that 66 percent of the American people
would rather have their overtime in the form of time off, rather than
cash wages, and 82 percent said they support the Republican-backed
comptime bills. Also worth noting is the endorsement of the Family
Friendly Workplace Act by Working Woman and Working Mother magazines.
Even more perplexing is the President's failure to recognize the
special needs of working women by refusing to allow comptime in
exchange for overtime pay. While overtime pay is invaluable to many
workers, nearly three out of four workers reporting overtime pay are
men. In fact, overtime pay is most commonly reported in industries
which are heavily dominated by men--manufacturing (73%), mining and
construction (95%), and transportation (88%). Of the small number of
women who work in mining and construction, only 5 percent worked
overtime in 1996, while 95 percent of men did. The President's
commitment to defeating this proposal will disproportionately harm
women.
While these polls and statistics are helpful and revealing, I need go
no further than my home State to be convinced of the value of the
Family Friendly Workplace Act. One engineering firm in New Hampshire,
for instance, uses a complicated formula to allow employees every other
Friday off. But the complexity of their current system is exactly why
they would prefer the passage of S. 4. If there is any doubt that this
flextime is appealing to employees, this company, like many in the
highly competitive technology industry, advertises their existing
flexible week as an incentive when seeking out technical expertise. Any
Senator who represents an area like the Northeast, which has a large
technology presence, can understand how competitive the recruiting can
be. The flex week is so appealing to potential employees, firms
highlight it in their ads in an effort to outbid their competitors.
Because of the false claims, inconsistency, and bias against women, I
reject the arguments against the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It is
time that these options are enjoyed by all American workers, not just
Federal employees. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this
commonsense legislation, and vote to invoke cloture.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I would like to briefly respond to some of the
discussion that deals with S. 4, which is egregiously entitled the
``Family Friendly Workplace Act.'' But I also want to say to my
colleagues that I am going to spend a little bit of time talking about
disaster relief and the failure of the House

[[Page S5224]]

of Representatives to move forward with this legislation because I
think that takes priority over all of our business here.
Mr. President, I will agree with my colleagues, starting with Senator
Ashcroft, whom I enjoy as a colleague, that this piece of legislation
deals with a very important question. And the question is how people
balance their commitments to work with their commitments to family. I
think that is a very important question.
But I would like to just repeat one more time for my colleague from
Missouri and other colleagues who want to see some kind of positive,
constructive legislation passed, this piece of legislation in its
present form is going nowhere. And it should not go anywhere.
Mr. President, first of all, there are two features that are
automatic nonstarters. My colleague from Minnesota, whom I enjoy
working with, talked about a couple of women's organizations that
support this bill. My understanding is there are huge numbers of
women's organizations who are in opposition, for good reason.
First of all, we have the Fair Labor Standards Act which was hallmark
legislation. The idea here was the 40-hour week. If you worked overtime
you get overtime pay. That is very important. There are a whole lot of
families with incomes below $20,000, $25,000 a year for whom overtime
pay is key.
What we are doing with this legislation, which has this sort of
happy-face title, the ``Family Friendly Workplace Act,'' is we are now
moving from a 40-hour week, we are abolishing it and we are going to an
80-hour 2-week period whereby an employee could work 50 or 60 hours one
week, 30 or 20 hours the next week and not get paid any overtime.
If you think that the reality is in the workplaces throughout this
country that employees are equal partners in this decisionmaking in all
these workplaces, then you might not worry about that. But the fact of
the matter is, the vast majority of people, the vast majority of women
and women's organizations, understanding the threat to the 40-hour
week, will not accept this. This provision is not in the House bill
that passed, and it should not be in this bill. It is one of the
reasons this bill will go nowhere.

Mr. President, in addition, there is another feature that deals with
flextime which essentially says you can work overtime and then you can
take that hour off or however many hours you worked, but you do not get
an hour and a half off for an hour overtime so it becomes a cut in pay.
Again, you have two features in this bill that are in direct
contradiction to the Fair Labor Standards Act and, therefore, going
nowhere.
Now, the third point I want to make is that there has to be some
guarantee, some way that we protect people for whom being able to work
and working overtime and being paid overtime is critical to their
family's income. In a huge percentage of families with incomes under
$20,000 a year, the household head works overtime. So what you do not
want to have happen is a situation where an employer is only going to
give the overtime to those people who take comptime as opposed to
people who want to have time-and-a-half pay. Again, so far, we have not
seen any willingness to sit down and negotiate and compromise on some
of these questions.
Mr. President, in committee Senator Murray talked about an extension
of the Family and Medical Leave Act which was terribly important. The
Senator may, while she is here, raise a question with me about this,
and I am pleased to do a colloquy with her on that. In addition, I had
an amendment in committee which said if there is a situation dealing
with Family and Medical Leave Act considerations where there is
sickness in the family or whatever and you banked 20 or 40 hours, you
should be able to take that time off; you do not need to ask for
permission.
Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Minnesota is correct that during the
debate on this bill I have talked consistently about the fact that
women do want flexibility in the workplace in order to make sure they
can take care of their children when they need to.
The concerns we have continuously raised about the bill we are
debating is who decides when that woman or man, father or mother, gets
to take that time--whether the employer decides or they do.
When it is your child's conference time at school, your employer
cannot say, or probably will not say to you, ``You can take your
conference time next week.'' You need to go to them as an employee and
say, ``My child's conference is next Thursday at 10 o'clock. I need to
take an hour to go visit with my child's teacher.''
Let me ask the Senator from Minnesota, the option that I am offering
that allows 24 hours off a year for parents to participate with their
child, in your opinion, would that give employees the ability to have
some control over their time and their ability to participate with
their families?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in responding to the question that the
Senator from Washington has raised, that is really what is at issue
here. There is an alternative that Senator Baucus and others have
presented which really does give the employees the flexibility, if that
is what this is about. We have to make sure that employees have the
flexibility so that if they need to take the time off--time, I might
make the point, time that they banked--if they need their comptime
because they want to go to school and visit with the teacher or because
they have an elderly parent that is ill, they ought to be able to do
it. If we really want to give them flexibility, we should give them
flexibility. That is not in this piece of legislation.
I also say to the Senator from Washington that, in addition, we have
a very serious problem here. Sometimes I think here in the Senate we
lose sight of the reality of the circumstances of many families in our
country. We have a paradoxical situation where we have this impressive
abundance, an affluence and good macroeconomic indicators, but at the
same time, we have large numbers of families that are struggling to
earn a decent living and raise their children successfully. People are
still feeling the economic squeeze, and one of the ways people are able
to put food on the table and support their families is to be able to
get that overtime pay for working overtime. We are not going to abandon
that principle.

This legislation in its present form will be defeated again tomorrow.
People gave their sweat and their tears for fair labor standards and
for a 40-hour week and for the idea that if you work overtime you get
overtime pay. Now, if we want to really give employees the flexibility,
we should do so. But you do not have a cut in pay with flextime, you do
not have a cut in pay by abolishing the 40-hour week and going to an
80-hour 2-week framework. You make sure that employees, in fact, if
they bank that extra time, that flextime, are able to take it off, time
and a half for every hour worked overtime to be with their child or to
be at a doctor's office with their parent. They get to do it. They do
not have to ask for permission. You certainly make sure that you do not
have any discrimination whereby this becomes too good a deal in its
present form for too many employers, and the only people, I say to my
colleague from Washington, that they give any overtime to are those
people who will not ask for overtime pay, who will only ask for
comptime. That is what is at issue here.
I agree with the question, which is this is all about working
families. This is all about how people balance commitment to work with
balancing a commitment to family. But this piece of legislation does
not give employees the flexibility, and this piece of legislation does
not give people the guarantee that they will not be discriminated
against and no longer able to obtain overtime pay for overtime work
which is so important to so many families that are barely able to make
ends meet. This piece of legislation takes the Fair Labor Standards Act
and it turns it on its head. It literally overturns 50 or 60 years of
people's history. It is too bad, because we could pass a piece of
legislation.
My colleague from Missouri has a good idea, at least in the goal of
giving employees the flexibility. But in its present form, this piece
of legislation will go nowhere.

[[Page S5225]]

Mr. President, now, I understand I have not looked at some of the
amendments--Senator Grassley's amendment. We also, in committee, were
talking about the whole problem of bankruptcy and what happens to
people who have earned this time. I think maybe the ceiling is too low
and we have to have a higher threshold. Maybe something can be worked
out on that, but then I hear there is another amendment that wants to
apply this piece of legislation to the Congress, to staff, the people
who work here.
Well, Mr. President, I think that most of the people who work here--I
have to look at all of the specifics, but I would think that a lot of
people who work here might say, well, we would rather go forward and
not backward. Right now, I think, people would be kind of worried about
losing some of their fair labor standard protection or they would be
worried about not being able to work overtime and get overtime pay. I
do not think people want to see that. I also think employees here
working with us want to make sure that if they bank the time, they will
be able to take it off when they need to take it off to be with their
families.
So, again, Mr. President, you cannot take a piece of legislation that
is flawed, I say with some regret, badly flawed for the vast majority
of families in this country, and now apply it to people who work here,
which just compounds the problem. Make this a good piece of
legislation, and then, I say to my colleague from Iowa, and then we
should apply it. I am all for that.

Disaster Relief

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to mention to some of my
colleagues that with some regret, at least for a while this afternoon
while I have the floor, there probably will not be a lot of discussion
about this important piece of legislation, because I am now at the
point, as a Senator from Minnesota, where I could not have any more
patience for the political process here.
We have had people in our States, and the Chair, I know, would feel
the same, and I believe my colleague from Missouri would feel the same
way, who have been through an absolute nightmare. We have communities
where everybody had to evacuate--total devastation. We have one
community in Minnesota, East Grand Forks, across the Red River from
Grand Forks, and everybody had to leave and the people are still
waiting for the Congress to provide them with relief. And the House of
Representatives had the nerve to go into recess without providing that
assistance.

Well, Mr. President, for a while this afternoon the only point of
discussion while I have the floor is going to be about the problems
that we are facing in States that have been flooded, in States that are
waiting for this disaster relief, because I think this ought to be the
priority for the Congress. Whatever I know about this political
process, whatever leverage I have as a Senator, I am going to use it. I
will slow up whatever I can slow up. I will stop whatever I can stop. I
will do it this week, and I will do it next week and I will do it as
many weeks as I need to, until that disaster relief bill is passed. I
do not know what else to do. I do not know what else to do.
Mr. President, let me just talk a little bit about what is going on
here. What we have is a situation where some people are playing
politics with the emergency supplemental as opposed to getting this
relief out to people who are trying to rebuild their lives.
Can you imagine, I say to the Chair and my colleague from Missouri,
can you imagine how people in Idaho and Missouri would feel when their
homes have been destroyed? We worked together in a bipartisan fashion,
and Senator Stevens was a big part of that. We came up with not only
the funding for FEMA, but most important of all is some small business
loans we came up with in what is called Community Development Block
Grants, moneys which would enable people to move forward with buyouts
for people who live in the floodplain, enable people to have assistance
to rebuild their homes. That was the good news part. We were on our
way.
And then we had a disagreement. We had a disagreement over something
called the CR. Frankly, people back in the Dakotas and Minnesota do not
know that much about a CR and they do not really care too much. They
just thought we would have the elementary decency of providing them
with some help in their hour of need. But we got a debate about the CR.
We have another debate about roads and public parks and maybe a
couple of other matters as well. I would have thought that my
colleagues--and I think some Republicans agree with me, so I do not
think this is really so much a partisan issue; I know that in our
States, Republicans agree--I would have thought that my colleagues
would have had the elementary decency, the elementary decency before
they went into recess, and we were going to stop them, and I cannot
even remember the technical maneuver, but we were going to try and
force a vote on adjournment, I guess it was, but they did not call it
adjournment. We were in recess. So, theoretically, every 2 or 3 days,
we were in session, but we really were not. Then people in the House of
Representatives could then vote against adjournment and feel good about
it, knowing that nothing had been done.
I could not believe it. The leadership in the House of
Representatives--I do not even call it leadership when people in our
States are in such need, waiting for some final assurance that relief
is going to be forthcoming--goes into recess.
They don't even have the elementary decency to put aside what
differences we have and just go forward--make sure that people know
that they are going to be able to rebuild their homes, make sure that
people know they are going to be able to move back into their homes,
and make sure that people know that they are going to be able to go on
with their lives. But no.
I am Jewish. I throw my hands around here. I am sorry, my colleagues.
But, no. They go into recess. And I am supposed to try to explain to
people in Minnesota and North Dakota and South Dakota how we can play
these kind of games here? People can't believe it.
To all of my colleagues, to all of the people who are here today, no
wonder so many Americans sour on our political process. You have floods
the likes of which haven't been seen for 400 or 500 years. You have
total devastation. The hospitals are destroyed, schools are destroyed,
and everybody in the town are all leaving. You have flooding. You have
hail. You have snow. You have fire. And, in spite of all of that, the
goodness of people comes out. They support each other, they love each
other, and they try to get back with their lives. But they know they
need help. And the House of Representatives goes into recess. It is
unbelievable.
Now we are back here, and it is Tuesday. We hear that maybe this week
this disaster relief bill will not be passed. Or maybe, people say,
``Well, play a game and we will put on a continuing resolution.'' What
does a continuing resolution have to do with the budget or have to do
with getting disaster relief for people? It is called disaster relief
because it is disaster. It is called an emergency supplemental bill
because it is an emergency. Stop playing political games with people's
lives.
So, Mr. President, now we have a situation where some people are
thinking, OK, what we will do is put a continuing resolution on this
bill; it has nothing to do with emergency supplemental assistance; we
will send it to the President; then he has already said he will veto
it; and then it will come back here. And I don't know what they will do
next.
Why are they sending it to the President when you know he is going to
veto it? If you want to debate the budget, let's debate the budget. If
you want to debate the parks and the other issues, fine. But can't we
just put aside our differences and please get the supplemental
assistance to people? This is really a huge issue.
Mr. President, there are families and business owners in Grand Forks,
ND. My colleague from North Dakota talked about this, and East Grand
Forks. They need to know whether they are going to be part of the
floodplain buyout. But they do not know. They do not know whether or
not there is going to be a buyout. They do not know whether they should
move. They do not know whether they should try to come back to their
homes. They don't know whether there is going to be any assistance at
all. The State does

[[Page S5226]]

not know whether it should go forward. The mayors do not know what they
can say to the citizens because they do not know what we are going to
do because people have been waiting and waiting and waiting.
Some of my colleagues today are going to wait because I am going to
talk on the floor of the Senate for a while as well because it is just
simply unconscionable and it is simply indefensible that we just do not
get on with the business of providing people with this assistance right
now.
Mr. President, we have another problem. If we are going to start
rebuilding--I think maybe in Idaho and less in Missouri. But in Idaho I
think this is a bit of an issue as well. We have to get going because
our building season is over come mid to late October.
So, if we do not get the approved funding now and we don't started
with the construction we are not going to get it done. Minnesota is a
cold weather State. It is without a doubt the best State in the
country. But it is a cold State. We have to get the funding right now,
or we are not going to get the construction work done.
Colleagues, there are very good, very wonderful, very strong, very
loving people in Minnesota and the Dakotas, and others States as well
are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. They are trying somehow
to rebuild their lives. They have been through a living hell. You would
not wish it on anyone. They have been waiting and waiting for us to
have the decency to please get the assistance to them. And we are still
playing political games here.
Mr. President, the supplemental contains $500 million in CDBG funding
for flood assistance. This program is one of the oldest Federal block
grant programs in existence. This gives the States the most
flexibility, or it could be the most flexibility for local communities.
Let me explain what we are talking about here. Whether we are talking
about floods in the Midwest, or hurricanes in the South, or earthquakes
in the West, this CDBG money is critical because it fills in the
cracks.
In other words, what happens is FEMA money is good for public
infrastructure and some help for homeowners and the small business
money in loans. But the problem is many people can't cash flow any more
loans. They can't get their businesses going. They can't rebuild their
homes unless they get this community development block grant money. We
have to task--thank you, Republicans, and, thank you, Democrats. We
work together. That was the right thing to do. But now--for the last 13
or 14 days, whatever it has been--people back in Minnesota cannot
believe what they are seeing here. They don't understand these games.
They don't understand why it is we just do not provide them with the
assistance that they need.
Mr. President, we have seen homes destroyed. We have seen city blocks
immersed in water. And our communities, Ada, Warren, East Grand Forks,
and others are in tremendous amount of need. They are in hurt. And they
have the task of rebuilding their neighborhoods block by block and home
by home.
I would like to thank FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
for their work, and its Director James Lee Witt for his leadership. He
has been great. I would like to thank all of the FEMA people who are
out in Minnesota. They have been great. They are real heroes and real
heroines. They are doing everything they can to help people. They are
working with our community. And they are thinking about again buyouts
and relocation plans.
They are thinking about how to enable people to move back into their
homes, and how people can rebuild their businesses. But we need to get
the funding to our States now. We need to begin the process of
rebuilding our communities.
Mr. President, I don't know any other way to say it. I would say to
my colleagues: Quit playing political football with the lives of
disaster victims. Quit playing political football with the lives of
disaster victims.
I don't know anything else to do. I mean, I apologize to my
colleagues. I am going to continue to talk for a while--not all day and
all night and all day tomorrow. But I do want to speak for a while
about this.
Really, every opportunity I get as a Senator I am going to continue
to come out and hold the floor. And I think just about every other
Senator will do the same thing from our States. This is going to go on.
Any Senator would do it, Democrat, or Republican. What else are you
supposed to do?
I mean the first thing you do is you try to appeal to the common
sense of some of your colleagues. You say, look, we have some
differences here. So why don't we just put those differences aside and
just get the assistance to people because we don't differ on that.
This is an emergency. Let's get the emergency assistance to people
now. We tried to make that appeal. That didn't work. Then you try and
appeal to the goodness of people. You say, look, people are hurting.
People need some certainty. People need to have some confidence that we
are going to provide some assistance to people. Please,
Representatives; please Senators--I think even more Representatives now
that I think about it on the House side--please. Can't you just put
aside the differences? Can't we just go forward with what we agree on
and get this disaster relief to people?

That doesn't work.
Then you try another appeal. You say, look, Senator, if it was your
State, you would want to get that assistance out to the people. You
would have a tough time going home and looking at people in the eye and
having them look at you and try to explain what in the world is going
on here.
So you try to appeal to colleagues, and you say, ``Look, I have
always been there for you when you needed help in Missouri, or you
needed help in Idaho, or whatever State, which is true. I remember the
flooding and what they went through just a few years ago. Now we need
help. Please, won't you help us get this through?
And that doesn't work.
So, since none of that works, there is only one thing to do. And that
is just use the Senate rules and figure out your leverage and just do
not let the U.S. Congress--in particular the House of Representatives
which has this held up--go on with business as usual. We are going to
talk about what is going on in Minnesota, the Dakotas, Missouri, and
California, and a variety of other States.
Mr. President, I have here a letter from the mayor of East Grand
Forks, MN, Lynn Stauss.
I tell you. My colleague, Representative Collin Peterson, made a very
good point this morning. Lynn Stauss is a part-time mayor. He makes
about $5,300 a year. He is coming back out here tomorrow, and the mayor
of Grand Forks, ND, as well. They shouldn't have to keep coming out
here. But they have to keep coming out here to keep saying to people:
``Please, Senators and Representatives, don't make the people in our
communities an abstraction.'' We are talking about real men, real
women, and their children.
I don't know how the mayor has done it. He has been incredibly
courageous. He has given people a lot of hope under some very difficult
conditions, I say to a former mayor, Mr. President. But I know it gets
hard after a while. People start to run out of hope when we don't come
through here in the Congress.
So this is a letter dated May 20, 1997. I should have brought my
glasses knowing that I was going to be on the floor for a while.
Do you have any glasses? [Laughter.]
These glasses are too conservative. I thank my colleague from
Missouri. I have never understood how such a good person could have
such bad ideas. [Laughter.]

Dear Senator Dorgan: We understand that there are currently
proposals to dispose of the five hundred million in CDBG
grants for disaster aid in two separate payments. Because of
the magnitude of destruction of the record setting flood of
1997 and the ice storm preceding the flood on April 4, 1997
throughout the Red River Valley, especially to the
communities of Grand Forks, North Dakota and East Grand
Forks, Minnesota, it is imperative that the total amount of
five hundred million be released to our communities without
delay. The people of our communities have suffered the loss
of income, homes and businesses. In addition, our streets,
water system, electrical system and sanitation system have
been severely damaged and require immediate attention. The
public facilities as we once knew them are virtually non-
existent. We are now a community without a city hall, a
library, several schools, fire hall and senior citizens
center.
Our number one priority is the acquisition of over 600
homes and businesses from the

[[Page S5227]]

floodway. Immediate acquisition and relocation is the only
preventive measure in relieving stress and allowing our
citizens an opportunity to rebuild in our communities.
Because of our short window of construction, if we do not act
now our businesses and residents will have no alternative but
to relocate in other communities.
We enclose for your information a copy of a proposal from
Wynne Consultants which clearly depicts the aftermath and
total devastation left by the flood and ice storm. We believe
the report will provide you with a comprehensive
understanding of our urgent, basic needs. The five hundred
million in CDBG grants must be released to our communities to
allow us the flexibility to rebuild and move forward with our
lives.

Mr. President, this is from the mayor, and I just want to emphasize
the importance of the words ``to rebuild and move forward with our
lives.'' Again, Mr. President, I am sorry to inconvenience colleagues,
but I feel as if people in Minnesota have been inconvenienced, and I
think it is important to focus on this because I think we should pass
this before we do anything else.
An emergency supplemental is an emergency supplemental. That does not
mean messing around, playing all sorts of political games. And disaster
relief is disaster relief. It seems to me to be patently unfair and
insensitive and unconscionable for the House of Representatives to go
into recess and not pass this disaster relief bill or for this week all
of us in the Congress to mess around and mess around and mess around
and not do this work. If there is one thing we should do this week, it
should be to pass this disaster relief bill. This should come before
anything else. This disaster relief bill should come before, I say to
my colleague--I know how much work he has put into this, and I still
think there is a possibility of passing a good piece of legislation
when we get down to really give-and-take discussion and work together.
I do not think this bill will pass in its present form. I do not think
it should.
(Mr. KEMPTHORNE assumed the chair.)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not think this piece of
legislation takes first priority. I do not think some of the amendments
that are on the floor right now take first priority. I am not speaking
about those amendments. There is not anybody who is going to speak on
those amendments for a while. I do not think those amendments should
take priority. I do not think the budget, if we get to the budget
sometime this week, should take priority. I do not think there is
anything we could do this week that would be as important as providing
people, families, who have been through just total devastation with a
helping hand. Can't we do that? Can't we just provide people a helping
hand? Can't we give people some confidence they are going to have some
assistance so they can move back into their homes? Is that too much to
ask? Can't we give some small businesses some confidence that there is
going to be some access to capital and some assistance so they can
start up their businesses again?
I want to tell you something. Maybe some people think some of this is
funny, but I want to tell you something. A whole lot of these people,
these homeowners and these business people, are leaving. They are not
going to be able to stay in these communities, I say to the majority
leader, who has helped us, who has done a good job, and I thank him.
These people are not going to be able to move back into their
communities. A lot of these people are going to leave. That is what we
are now here on.
So, Mr. President, I think it is appropriate that I take the floor
and speak about this because I am hearing this from people in my State.
And I know other Senators are hearing this as well.
Mr. President, this is a letter from the mayor of East Grant Forks,
Lynn Stauss, again, who has just done a yeoman job, to members of the
task force, the Minnesota Recovery Task Force:

Please accept the following information as our preliminary
application to the Minnesota Recovery Disaster Task Force. We
hope the data we have included will assist you in assessing
the level of damage in East Grand Forks and allow us to
receive early consideration in the coming discussion on
recovery activity in our State. We consider our position to
be worthy of a serious share of the Federal and State funding
that will come to Minnesota. I know that you have been
apprised of our damage situation throughout the Nation and
statewide media over the hours of this disaster. Our city
staff would welcome the opportunity to answer your questions
at any time. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Lynn Stauss, Mayor, East Grand Forks.

Now, Mr. President, what I have here--and it will take me a little
bit of time to read this application--is the application from the
mayor. I want to emphasize one more time--and, Mr. President, I would
like to apologize to some citizens who have come here today who are
here during our proceeding. Normally we have debate on amendments, and
when I start reading from some of this I fear that for some people here
that will not be--without knowing the ins and outs of all of this, it
may not be relevant, but I want to just make it clear one more time I
once in a while come to the floor of the Senate and do this, but not
very often, and I think those of us, whether we are Democrats or
Republicans, don't come to the floor of the Senate and do this and hold
the floor unless we really feel strongly about something.

But, Mr. President, I do feel strongly about this. Time is not
neutral. Time rushes on. There are too many people who are hurting.
They have asked for assistance, and we have got people who are playing
games here. There is no other order of business that should come before
our passing this emergency supplemental bill that provides disaster
relief to people who have been through hell. They deserve our help, and
they should not have to wait. They should not have to be out there
twisting in the wind. They should not have to wonder what in the world
is the matter with us. This bill ought to pass this week. This bill
ought to pass today. I would be proud or pleased to leave the floor
right now if I only thought something was going to be done.
Mr. President, let me go on and read from this application. This is
just from East Grand Forks, really not talking about--I was in Ada, MN.
In Ada, MN, it was just devastating. The school was completely flooded,
much of it destroyed. They are going to be able to renovate the school,
but can you imagine this? Here you have the school completely
destroyed. It is going to be rebuilt, but somehow those students and
the teachers and the support staff and the superintendent and the
parents and the neighbors all banded together, and other schools will
take in those kids and those kids are now finishing school and they are
going to graduate. That is inspiring.
I will tell you something, Mr. President. What is not inspiring is
this Congress. What is not inspiring is the House of Representatives.
What is not inspiring is the Representatives or Senators who put
extraneous measures onto this piece of legislation and are not willing
to get the assistance to people who need it now. That is not inspiring.
We do not set a very good model for young people when we cannot stop
playing games and just provide assistance to people who need that
assistance.
In Ada, as well, their hospital was just, again, devastated. They had
to, in the dark of night, I think it was late at night, 10, 11, 12
o'clock, they had to take elderly people out of the nursing home, had
to evacuate them. It was just unbelievable what people went through.
Can you imagine a hospital destroyed, the community center destroyed,
the school destroyed? And can you imagine what it would be like to,
first of all, be flooded out and then you are faced with a blizzard and
people do not have any heat? People go through all of this and they
continue to flourish, and the churches or the synagogues all come
together and people help one another and somehow people make it
through, although there is a lot of hurt and there is a lot of pain and
probably some people are going to have to go through a fair amount of
counseling to get through all this. But at the very minimum couldn't
this Congress--I say this now to the majority party--pass this
emergency supplemental bill now?
Doesn't emergency mean emergency? Could not we provide this
assistance to people now? Is that too much to ask? Is that too much for
the people of Grand Forks, ND, to ask? Is that too much for the people
of East Grand Forks to ask? Is that too much for the people of Warren,
MN, to ask? Is that too much for the people of Ada, MN, to ask?
I heard my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, this morning.
I

[[Page S5228]]

thought he was eloquent. He said something like how many more days do
people have to wait? I think that is an important question. How many
more days, how many more weeks do people have to wait for help? How
many more days do the people in our communities who are trying to
rebuild their schools or hospitals have to wait? How many more days do
the people who are trying to find out whether they are going to be
moving or whether they are going to be staying or whether they are
going to have money to rebuild their homes or to rebuild their
businesses, how much longer do they have to wait? How much longer do
senior citizens, many elderly people--a very high percentage of our
smaller towns and communities really are comprised of elderly citizens.
How much longer do they have to wait to know whether they are going to
be able to live there?

The answer will be determined by what we do or what we do not do. I
am determined as a Senator from Minnesota to do everything I can to
make as many of my colleagues as uncomfortable as possible until we
take action.
Let me repeat that. Whatever I can do to make those who are
responsible for this delay uncomfortable, whatever I can do to focus
attention on their irresponsibility, to focus attention on their
insensitivity, to focus attention on their callousness, whatever I can
do to make it clear to the leadership of the House of Representatives
it is time to get serious, it is time, as my children would have said
when they were younger, to get real I will do.
Mr. President, this application form--let me read from this form:

The flooding of April 1997 caused hundreds of millions of
dollars in damages to private properties, infrastructure and
businesses in the city of East Grand Forks.

Mr. President, I think what I am going to do is actually read this
slowly because right now time will move on slowly on the floor of the
Senate:

Damage to housing ranged from complete destruction of the
properties to severely damaged basements, electrical systems,
and heating systems.

By the way, built into this disaster relief bill--and I thank my
colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats--is some assistance in the
low-income home energy assistance program, the LIHEAP program--Senator
Stevens helped us on that--which will enable people, for example, to
buy new furnaces, which will be a big help. Again, it will not happen,
it will not happen until this disaster relief bill is passed:

The vast majority of single family and multifamily dwelling
units sustained damage. Similar damages to privately owned
commercial properties occurred. Beyond the costs of the
physical damage, these businesses have also been forced to
deal with the economic loss associated with being unable to
operate. Many have been unable to reopen and those that have
to deal with having lost employees.

That is another issue, Mr. President. I know that when I went to
Breckenridge, it was just really poignant because there I met with all
of these small business people. It was not a meeting that had been
arranged. I just came up to look at the flooding. And as soon as I came
into the community, all of these small business people came up to me--
and I am not putting them down at all, you understand--and they were
absolutely desperate. I mean, there was just desperation and fear; they
were really so frightened. And they were saying, look, we can't make
this unless we get some assistance. And, Senator Wellstone, if you just
give us loans, we can't cash flow those loans and we are not only
worried about ourselves, we also are worried about our employees. Well,
you know what? All the time I hear speeches given about small
businesses, ``Oh, we love small businesses. They are just like family
farmers.'' We love them in the abstract.

You know what? We have a lot of small businesses in Minnesota and the
Dakotas that have been flooded out. We have a lot of small businesses
that want to rebuild their businesses. We have a lot of towns that
depend on those small businesses.
I hear my colleagues always say they are for the small businesses.
You know what? The best way you can be for small businesses this week
is to do something concrete, which is to stop playing games with this
disaster relief bill, pass this piece of legislation, and get the
assistance to people so they can start their businesses up again, so
they can at least begin the process of rebuilding.
The mayor goes on to say:

The magnitude of the loss has forced the city to move
forward on the implementation of measures to minimize the
future possibility of a similar event occurring. At a time
when the city is forced to deal with the enormous expense of
reconstruction, it is also faced with considering the huge
expense of future mitigation.

This is going to be a much bigger part of what we do in the future,
which is mitigation, which is to try to figure out how to prevent this
from happening in the first place. So people who are living in a 100-
year floodplain are not necessarily going to live there. We are going
to relocate some people. We are going to relocate some businesses. We
are going to do that in lots of parts of this country. That is going to
be a bigger part of what FEMA and other agencies do as well.

The city is currently in the process of planning the
construction of a dike-levee system which will ultimately
result in the need to relocate households residing on the
``west side'' of the dikes. At this time, the final dike
alignment has not been established. However, it is evident
that at least 300 households will have to be initially
relocated and ultimately 650 to 700 households need to be
relocated. Businesses located in the immediate downtown also
will need to relocate, probably 10 to 15 commercial
properties.

Mr. President, I have here somewhere a document where Kit Hadley, who
heads up the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, said the other day that
this was one of the worst housing disasters in the history of our
country. It is true. I mean, when whole towns evacuate, when people
become refugees, when so many people are still homeless, people who
worked hard all their lives, that is a housing disaster. It is a
housing disaster, I say to my colleagues in the House and I say to my
colleagues in the Senate, but especially in the House. It is time to
get on with the work. It is time to provide some relief to people. It
is time to provide people with some assistance.

Businesses located in the immediate downtown also will need
to relocate, probably 10 to 15 commercial properties.
Planning is underway to establish sites to which the
business, primarily commercial and residential, relocations
will occur. Several potential sites for residential
relocation are currently being considered. Although no final
decision has been made on the business relocations, the B-N
triangle, a parcel situated immediately to the east of the
current downtown district, is being considered. At each site
to which the relocations will ultimately occur the
establishment of essential infrastructure will be necessary--
sewer, sanitary and storm water, and streets. Damage to
infrastructure was citywide and included all of the major
infrastructural systems.

Can you imagine this? Damage to the sanitary sewer, to the storm
sewer, to the water system and the streets--all of that damage took
place.

Other public facilities, such as public buildings, were
also damaged, several beyond repair, including the city hall
and the fire department. Damages to park and recreation
facilities and buildings were severe and widespread. Among
the public structures which were destroyed were three
schools.

Mr. President, this reminds me of a poignant moment. My colleague
from the 7th Congressional District, Congressman Peterson, Collin
Peterson, spoke at graduation--I heard about this--to the students of
East Grand Forks who had been flooded out, whose school had been
destroyed. He said to the students, ``You know, as much agony as you
and your families have gone through, you have probably learned more
than you could have ever learned in school''--and I think that is
true--``about yourselves and, really, about your community.''
I would add to Congressman Peterson that I think people in our
communities have learned about all of the heroes and heroines that
there are. Someday--as long as I am on the floor here for a while--I am
going to write a book. Maybe I can get my colleague from Missouri to
coauthor it. Because this would cut across all parties and all
ideology, and he is like this in terms of what he believes in. What it
would be, there was a book written years ago that should be immortal,
by James Agee, Walter Evans was the photographer, and the name of the
book was, ``Let Us Now Praise Famous Men.'' It's a long story. Forbes
magazine had commissioned James Agee back in the 1940's to go, I think,
back to Alabama to write about the pathology of poor

[[Page S5229]]

sharecroppers and tenant farmers. And he went there and lived with
people. Mr. President, he, as opposed to his impression before he was
there, and his thesis, he thought to himself, ``It's amazing that under
these conditions, people are able to survive or even flourish. They
should be famous.'' So he wrote a very different kind of book with
wonderful, powerful photographs.
We could do a book. The Chair is like this as well. Three of us could
write this book, and we could title it, ``Let Us Now Praise Famous Men
or Women.'' It wouldn't matter whether they were Democrats or
Republicans. What it would be, it would be about men and women in
communities who do wonderful things in their community. You know what I
mean? I mean, it wouldn't be cynical; it would be uplifting. It would
be about all the people in our country who do really wonderful work in
their communities. No one knows them. They are not nationally famous or
internationally famous. They don't do it for that. But they should be
famous.
Mr. President, only because I don't want to yield the floor, I would
ask my colleague whether he would consider doing it with me, but then I
would lose my floor privilege. But I am telling you, this would be a
good book. There would be more Democrats profiled in the book than
Republicans. But, you know, it would be more or less balanced. More or
less.
To be more serious, it wouldn't have anything to do with parties. But
there are a lot of great people in this country. And there are a lot of
people who are unsung heroes and heroines. There were a lot of people
in East Grand Forks and Granite Falls and Montevideo and Warren and Ada
and Grand Forks who are heroes and heroines. Boy, I don't know how--I
say to a former mayor--I don't know how the mayors have been able to do
this. But we have had Mayor Owens and Mayor Stauss. They have been just
unbelievable. Pat Owens has been--people have seen her. She didn't want
it. I know that it would have been her prayer to have never had this
opportunity to be such a national spokesperson, because she would never
have wanted for this to happen in her community. But she has so
inspired people, she has, over and over again, called on people not to
give up and called on people to have hope, and has said we can rebuild
our communities.
And now the big missing ingredient is our support, our assistance. We
pass disaster relief bills when there are disasters. And this is a
disaster. We pass emergency supplemental pieces of legislation when
there is an emergency. I really think that we are doing one heck of a
job in this Congress of souring people toward our political process by
our failure to live up to just the sort of basic standard of decency.
Look, I don't like to say this. I should not say it because, I don't
know, maybe I am giving ground here. But, you know, if some of my
colleagues, some of my colleagues on the other side, if they want to
have a continuing resolution and they are going to put it on this
disaster relief bill because it gives them leverage--you do have
leverage. You do have leverage. When people are desperate, it gives you
leverage. If that is what they want to do and send it to the President,
playing the game, knowing he is going to veto it, do it. Do it today.
Get it done. Send it to the President, he vetoes it, it comes back
here, then take it off. Everybody can claim victory. Whatever you want
to do. Just get it done and just get this disaster relief bill passed.

This assistance from the Congress is not going to make people whole.
It is not going to be enough. The only thing this does, it gets people
at least a chance, at least a chance. Can we at least do that?
Mr. President, this is one of many articles I see here. Maybe there
will be an opportunity while I am on the floor. I know there were
also--I am looking for the author of this. It was in the Star Tribune.
I also know the Pioneer Press--I read of the work of Nick Coleman in
the Pioneer Press, which was very, very powerful. I may want to read
from that, either this afternoon or tonight or tomorrow. I will not be
on the floor all day and night. But I will be on the floor a lot over
the next couple of days, over the next couple of weeks--who knows, over
the next couple of months. I would think we will get this done.
But, you know what, my expectations are pretty low. I could not
believe it, Mr. President. We had a press conference last week. I guess
it was right before we went into recess. I said at this press
conference--I guess it was Thursday, because we went into recess that
Friday. I said that the House not sending us back something to work
with, it was probably the worst--it was, for me--the lowest or most
disappointing or worst time I had in the Senate. Because I thought that
in the end, the goodness of people would come through. And even though
people disagreed on the continuing resolution and whatnot, people would
at least agree to agree on what we agreed on and get the disaster
relief to people who were in such need.
There was someone at this press conference, a journalist. There was
some laughter. I said, ``Wait a minute. You know, I don't think I am
being naive. I don't think this is naive at all to believe in the
goodness of people, including my colleagues.''
I love being a Senator. I get goose bumps when I have a chance to be
on the floor of the Senate. I do. I never thought I would have a chance
to be here. It is a huge honor, and every day you hope you will do your
job well. You make plenty of mistakes, but you do your very best. It's
a huge honor.
I was a teacher for 20 years. I want young people to be interested in
public service. I like the people I work with. I enjoy people here in
the Senate and I enjoy people in the House, agree or disagree. But
there comes a certain point in time where, you know, the indignation
just kind of takes over. And I have just run out of patience.

This is outrageous. This is outrageous. Frankly, I would say to
people in the House of Representatives, who went into recess without
sending that disaster relief bill over here and getting the job done,
shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you. It is not too
much to expect for you to get some help, some assistance to people in
our States who are in such pain and really need the help now.
They really do. Time is not neutral for them. Time rushes on. I mean,
if they do not get the help, people are going to leave or families are
going to just be under such pressure and without any hope, who knows
what happens? But I will tell you one thing--I will tell you one thing,
Mr. President--I do not want to go back to East Grand Forks and some of
the other communities and look at people and try to explain to them why
in the world this Congress did not take any action. I just cannot
explain it. And the one thing I do know is, even if I inconvenience
some of my colleagues, the one thing I do know is there isn't going to
be anybody in Minnesota that is going to be able to say I did not fight
for this, win or lose.
So I get to speak on the floor of the Senate now. And I will continue
to speak on the floor of the Senate for a while. And then I just want
to put my colleagues on notice: Everything you bring on the floor of
the Senate, everything you bring this week and next week, I will look
for leverage, I will somehow get to the floor, and I will do everything
I can to put the focus back on getting emergency assistance to people
in Minnesota and the Dakotas and our other States as well.
You know, we have some distorted priorities here when people want to
play games with the lives of people who are in such pain, in such
agony.
This is an article from the Star Tribune, Minnesota Star Tribune. It
is called ``Stains of Pain.'' Mr. President, the top of it reads, ``The
people at ground zero of the Red River flood want desperately to get on
with their lives. But how do they do that when they are adrift in such
wreckage?''

The people at ground zero of the Red River flood want
desperately to get on with their lives. But how do they do
that when they are adrift in such wreckage?
Grand Forks, N.D.--On Belmont Road, a fading sign propped
against a sagging mound of clothes, furniture and appliances
proclaims, ``We are not what we own.''
At the Darbyshire house on Polk Street, a battered house
knocked off its foundation, a pink ``condemned'' notice is
taped on the front door. Look down from the notice and you
look into what was the Darbyshires' basement.
In north Grand Forks, in the Riverside neighborhood, a
bright yellow house is stained dull brown to the eaves. The
Riverside Park swimming pool is a sewage lagoon.

[[Page S5230]]

Across the Red River, on the northwestern edge of East
Grand Forks, a girl plays by the street, listless and
unsmiling. She tosses a scrap of something into the air,
watches it fall, then tosses it again.

I am going to read that again. ``Across the Red River, on the
northwestern edge of East Grand Forks, a girl plays by the street,
listless and unsmiling.''
Mr. President, you are talking about a little girl listless and
unsmiling. I guess so, given what she and her family have been through.
Maybe what we need to do is we need to understand that these words or
these articles, this is not just a distraction, this is not just
statistics, we are talking about people's lives.
This little girl, Mr. President, listless and unsmiling, should not
have to stay listless and unsmiling. Little children should be smiling.
Little children should be happy. Little children should be looking for
their future. We ought to give this little girl and her family, Mr.
President, some reason to expect that will happen. And yet we cannot
provide disaster relief for people who have been flooded out of their
homes? We cannot provide support for little children? Sounds kind of
melodramatic, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I do not want to lose my floor privilege.
Mr. President, ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Kansas be
able to give a tribute to Senator Strom Thurmond, after which I then
would retain my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
I wonder if I could ask my colleague how long he might want to speak.
It is fine for me however long he wants.
Mr. ROBERTS. I would tell the distinguished Senator from Minnesota
that I do not intend to speak more than about 10 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. Whatever time he needs. I just
wanted to know how much time.
Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. First, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for
letting me have this time. I know that he feels very strongly about
this debate and wanted to make so many pertinent comments.
(By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Roberts are printed in
today's edition of the Record under ``Tribute to Senator Strom
Thurmond.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota has the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me, before entertaining a question
from my colleague, a request from my colleague, let me read from an
article. And I see my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, is
on the floor. Let me read from an article, ``Stains of Pain,'' dealing
with Grand Forks, ND. This was May 25, 1997.

It has been five weeks since the river swamped these towns.
The river is back in its banks now, officially below flood
stage, far from homes and businesses and children at play.
But the water marks remain everywhere.

Mr. President, I was just thinking, I know some of my colleagues want
to speak, but I also see my colleague here from North Dakota. I wonder
whether it would be possible, Mr. President, I want to read this
article, and then if there are some requests about speaking, perhaps we
could do that, although I then want to make it clear that on unanimous
consent, my resumption on the floor not be counted as a second speech.
Now, I want to make it clear to my colleagues if they put in that
request, that would be part of my unanimous-consent agreement. I also
make a request, I know my colleagues want to speak about some other
things, but, for certain, if colleagues want to speak about Senator
Strom Thurmond, I do not want to interrupt that in any way, shape or
form. If colleagues want to speak about Senator Thurmond, fine.
Otherwise, I know there are things a few people want to cover. What
we are doing here today is saying we want to focus on this and this
will be it. This is the issue. This is the action that should be taken.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. I would like to come and speak for a bit. I understand, I
think the Senator from Massachusetts does wish to speak a tribute to
Senator Thurmond. I suspect the Senator from Missouri wishes to pose
some comments on the debate today on the bill on the floor. Perhaps we
can find a way to do that. I will come back and discuss the disaster
supplemental bill at an appropriate time, probably in the next 30
minutes or so.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from North Dakota, that would be
fine. I would like to finish reading this article and then accommodate
colleagues, but I also ask unanimous consent I maintain my floor
privilege. If I could finish this, let me go on with this article.

On Polk Street, a block off Lincoln Drive, Paul Dilling
stands in the front yard of his ruined house, which was
submerged to the rafters. He stands by his water mark: A U.S.
flag, muddy and torn, which he salvaged from the muck and
stuck on a stick.
But it has been five weeks of misery for Dilling.

That is really the point I am trying to make. It has been 5 weeks of
misery. People have been through misery. They have been devastated, and
now they wait for this Congress to pass the disaster relief bill. That
is why I am saying this should be the first item of business for us.
It is interesting, there is a St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial of May
23, with a headline ``Congress Can't Resist Political Gamesmanship.''

Congress has breezed out of town, leaving Washington for a
long holiday recess. Despite evidence to the contrary,
congressional bigwigs figured satisfying their political egos
was more important than expediting flood relief legislation
that would aid, among other backwaters, Minnesota and the
Dakotas.

I know that my colleagues may want to have some floor time now, so I
will be very brief. But let me just for a moment develop this point,
and then I will keep my floor privileges. This is from the St. Paul
Pioneer Press.
Now, I have not always agreed with the editorial positions of the St.
Paul Pioneer Press. Sometimes I have, sometimes I have not. That is
beside the point. Sometimes the St. Paul Pioneer Press will take
editorial positions closer to the positions of the distinguished Chair
or my colleague from Missouri. It is an interesting paper, and they,
like any good editorial page, have their own integrity and they say
what they think is right. But I just want to make it clear that this is
not some sort of editorial written by Democrats trying to figure out a
way to criticize Republicans.

Congress Can't Resist Political Gamesmanship

Congress has breezed out of town, leaving Washington for a
long holiday recess [right before Memorial Day recess].
Despite evidence to the contrary, congressional bigwigs
figured satisfying their political egos was more important
than expediting flood relief legislation that would aid,
among other backwaters, Minnesota and the Dakotas.

We have had enough of this political gamesmanship. We have had enough
of it. We have people in our States that are hurting. We have children
that are homeless. We have children that have had to live through this
devastation. We have families under duress. We have families under
pressure. And the people in Minnesota and the people in the Dakotas and
the people in some of the other States have every right to believe that
the goodness of the Congress would come through and we would provide
them with the assistance they so badly need to rebuild their lives.
You have people in the House of Representatives that go on vacation
as opposed to providing this assistance. That is why I am on the floor
today. That is why I am staying on the floor. And now I hear that this
week we may not pass this. This is outrageous.
One more time: If you want to have a debate about a continuing
resolution budget, debate it. If you want to have a debate about parks
and environmental legislation, debate it. But do not put it on a
disaster relief bill. Do not hold good people that deserve our support
hostage to your grand political strategy.
Today, it is an inconvenience. We have a bill on the floor. It is a
slight inconvenience. People wanted to have a discussion on amendments,
and we are not doing that today. It is not a major inconvenience. But
you know what? I actually think, and I do not

[[Page S5231]]

mean this in an arrogant way, I think I am doing some of the leadership
in the House of Representatives a favor, because if, in my own small
way, I can put any pressure on them to do the right thing, they will be
better off, because they look terrible. They look terrible. You could
do a poll in Missouri, Massachusetts, Minnesota, anywhere in the
country, and 99.9 percent of the people in the country would say this
is outrageous. Can't you people at least provide help to people when
they need it? That is what this is all about.
I say to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, I am actually being a pretty
good politician. I say first to the Star Tribune, both newspapers, this
is a very good article, and there are many others. This editorial of
the St. Paul Pioneer Press is right on the mark.
Now, this hurts. ``Despite evidence to the contrary, congressional
bigwigs * * * ''--I hate to hear that. But you know something, it is
too easy to do. Mr. President, I do not like it when my colleagues are
called congressional bigwigs.
I tell you something, you are bringing it on yourselves. I actually
do not know if I should use the word ``leadership'' in the House,
because I think it is hard to say there is any leadership when you
cannot move forward on a disaster relief bill.
But I tell you something, here is a headline in the Star Tribune,
``Flood Relief''--and I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, I will
finish up in a moment--``Flood relief, a political football, takes
another bounce in D.C.''

Congressional skirmishing delayed consideration of flood
relief legislation Thursday, and the $5.5 billion aid package
will not be approved until Congress returns from the Memorial
Day recess early next month.

That is from Washington bureau chief Tom Hamburger, Star Tribune.
Well, Mr. President, I have plenty of articles to read from. I have
applications from some of our cities that have been devastated. I will
have time to continue to talk about what has happened, but I will tell
you that if my being on the floor of the Senate at least for a while,
at least for the rest of the afternoon, and then, as I say, all week
and the weeks to come, every time I can come out here, any leverage I
have to come out here and talk about this, I will keep pressing and
pressing and pressing and pressing and pressing.
My colleagues are going to hear about people in East Grand Forks and
Ada and so many towns, they will get tired of hearing about it. But you
know what? I do not really care, because this is just outrageous.
I have some very good people I work with that are on the floor now,
representing a broad spectrum of political opinion, Senator Kennedy and
Senator Ashcroft, but I tell you something, this is not a great moment
for the Congress, and I think it is outrageous what the House of
Representatives did. This disaster relief bill has to get passed, and
it has to get passed this week. The only way I know to try and do
everything I can, there is no guarantee, is just to raise a lot of
heck--I did say heck--on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I will continue
to do so.
Now, I have other points I want to make, but I see the Senator from
Massachusetts. I wonder if the Senator may have an inquiry he would
like to make. I still have the floor, Mr. President, and I want to make
it clear that if I do take any question from the Senator or give the
Senator any time, I ask unanimous consent if the Senator wants to
speak, either Senator, I ask unanimous consent my resumption on the
floor not be counted as a second speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the right to object. The
objection is heard.
The Senator from Minnesota has the floor, and the Senator from
Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question, and, Mr.
President, let me say before yielding, I do not understand the
objection, but I would like to let colleagues speak about Senator
Thurmond and cover some other matters, and I am pleased to do that as
long, again, as I get unanimous consent resumption on the floor not
being counted as a second speech.
My colleague has objected, I guess, for now.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what I would like to propose, and ask the
Senator if he would agree, is that I be recognized for a period of no
more than 15 minutes. I will try to make it closer to 10 minutes. And,
subsequently, I see Senator Ashcroft, who is the principal sponsor of
the underlying legislation which we are debating, and I know he has
been here longer than I have and has some comments and also some
requests in terms of perfecting amendments, I hope he would be offered
time to be able to do that, and, subsequently, the Senator from
Minnesota would be recognized and that there would be no objection to
his speaking at that time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Is this a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. Just trying to work this out in a way that is
accommodating. I do not know whether the Senator from Missouri wanted
to be included in the time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I construe this as a question from my
colleague from Massachusetts. And I have said before that I would be
willing to enable the Senate to have the Senator speak and topics but
that I want to do it within this time limit, and if the Senator from
Missouri wants to speak as well but only with the unanimous-consent
agreement that my resumption on the floor not be counted as a second
speech.
Is the Senator asking a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield further, pending the
agreement, which I hope would take place between the Senator from
Minnesota and the Senator from Missouri, I would like to be able to ask
consent to speak for not more than 15 minutes, and at the time I finish
the Senator from Minnesota be recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will
not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I would like to just clarify where we are
right now.
Only the Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. And only the Senator from Minnesota may make a
unanimous-consent request.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
I ask unanimous consent that my colleagues at a minimum be allowed to
speak in testimonial to Senator Strom Thurmond and about Senator Strom
Thurmond as long as my resumption on the floor not be counted as a
second speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is fine. I thank the Chair.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question? He can yield for
a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question in one moment.
Let me make it clear--and I will yield for a question in a moment--
what has happened here. I just want my colleagues to know that I am out
here for very good reason. They would be out here if it were their
States. The Senator from North Dakota is going to join me.
But, Mr. President, I have been willing to ask unanimous consent that
Senators who want to speak--at least, the Senator from Massachusetts
wanted to cover something else as well--but at least speak about Strom
Thurmond be able to do so, who has served for so many decades in the
Senate, and as long as my resumption on the floor not be counted as a
second speech.
It is a reasonable unanimous consent. My colleague from my Missouri
has not agreed to do that. I just want Senators to understand what is
going on here.
I am pleased to go on and speak. I just think it is a shame that
Senators who want to speak at least about Senator Thurmond are not able
to do so.
Mr. President, I will go on. I believe my colleague has a question.
Mr. KENNEDY. I just want to apologize, if the Senator will yield.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator would not share my regret to Senator
Thurmond for being unable to make these comments, I was unable to
because of Senate business on the floor earlier

[[Page S5232]]

today and intended to make these comments this afternoon. I hope he
would understand that they are included in the Record, and I regret
that I am denied the opportunity to make them here on the floor. It is
a very unusual process of procedure in terms of senatorial courtesy.
But if that is the way that is going to be, so be it.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, let me continue.
Mr. President, let me now return for a while. We will get back to the
disaster relief. Let me now turn to S. 4. I will speak some about S. 4.
Mr. President, let me also say to Senator Thurmond, before I do so,
that I would like----
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to call the Senate to order
under the Pastore rule.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota will confine his
debate to the specific question pending before the Senate.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be pleased to talk about S. 4,
and will do so.
Mr. President, we have here what is called the Family Friendly
Workplace Act. Mr. President, in all due respect, it is hardly friendly
to families.
Mr. President, as I have mentioned earlier, we have to approach
legislation sometime in the sense of history. There was once an
exchange I had on the floor of the Senate with my colleague from
Missouri where we talked about a song, ``Which Side Are You On?''
Florence Reese actually wrote it. Florence Reese was a great troubadour
for working people and for unions, especially mine workers.
Mr. President, when we were able to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act
in the 1930's, that was an enormous step forward for working people.
This piece of legislation, Mr. President, essentially wipes out
almost 60 years of people's history.
Mr. President, for those who are watching this debate, since we are
going to talk about this bill for a while before we again talk about
disaster relief by the rules that I am now under, for those people that
are watching this debate, one of the things that was most important
about the Fair Labor Standards Act was the idea of the 40-hour week.
The idea was that if you worked overtime you would get overtime pay.
Mr. President, I am speaking without notes. So I don't remember the
exact figures. But I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of 60
percent of those households with incomes under $20,000 a year depend on
overtime pay.
So, Mr. President, one of the things which is a dear principle here
is that there is no way as a Senator from Minnesota, which is a State
that believes in economic justice, that I am going to let any piece of
legislation, or at least to the best of my ability I am going to try to
prevent it from overturning the Fair Labor Standards Act.
So, Mr. President, if you work overtime, you ought to get overtime
pay. That is a cherished principle. This piece of legislation wipes
that out. And it is called the Family Friendly Workplace Act?
Well, Mr. President, let me just make it clear that if you have a
situation where you now have a piece of legislation that says that if
people work 50 hours or 60 hours or even theoretically 70 hours a week,
yes, they might only work 20 hours the next week under this
legislation, or 30 hours, or whatever but they don't get any time and a
half off. So it becomes a pay cut.
That is what it is all about. This isn't the Family Friendly
Workplace Act. This is the Paycheck Cut Act.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I actually won't yield for a question right now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. So this piece of legislation, Mr. President, which is
supposed to be friendly to families establishes a new framework. It is
not the 40-hour week.
Second of all, you have a flextime provision which says that you work
overtime and then you can take some time off but it is hour for hour.
You don't get time and a half off.
Mr. President, that hardly represents a family friendly workplace.
Mr. President, I regret what I just said to my colleague. He asked me
to yield for a question. I certainly will. I got caught up a little bit
in sort of the, you know, kind of anger from a couple of minutes ago. I
am not being at all gracious.
Mr. President, I will continue to speak, but if my colleague has a
question, I think he did, I will be pleased to respond.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Did my colleague ask me to yield for a question?
Mr. ASHCROFT. I did ask him to yield for a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for a
question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. President, if he
is aware of the fact that under the bill that the only way you can be
working more than 40 hours a week without overtime compensation is to
do so as a result of a voluntary agreement similar to the voluntary
agreement which is entered into now by Federal employees with their
employers, whereby you can schedule a 40-hour week to average over a 2-
week period.
Such agreements, in the Federal system for example, provide the basis
for people to work 45 hours in the first week and 35 hours in the
second week, and have every other Friday off. And absent that kind of
voluntary written agreement scheduled in advance, no one can be asked
to work more than 40 hours in a week without being paid overtime.
As a matter of fact, absent a specific voluntary agreement, all
work--all work--is conducted under the bill as if it were conducted
without the bill's existence; that only with voluntary agreements is
there any change in the way the bill is done. And the voluntary
agreement regarding overtime work when it provides for more than 40
hours in 1 week is pursuant to the flexible schedule that is now
allowed as a benefit for Federal employees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me respond to my colleague's
question.
Let me first of all just say that I have spent enough time as a
community organizer, and I have spent enough time with working people,
many of whom are nonunion workplaces. One big difference, of course, is
that with Federal employees and public employees that a much larger
percentage of the work force are unionized and that I know that what in
theory can look voluntary and look like a partnership isn't always the
case.
Whereas, in theory it would look like an employer couldn't say to an
employee, ``Look. You know, here is my proposition. I want you to work
50 hours this week, and, yes, that is 10 hours overtime, but you get 30
hours off next week. That is what I want you to do.'' In theory, the
employee doesn't have to do it. But anybody who knows anything about
the reality of many people in terms of what they deal with at the
workplace knows that they don't exactly have a lot of power, and they
are not exactly in a position to say no, especially when that job might
be the only job there and they have to put food on the table for their
kids.
People put up with a lot.
Mr. President, lest anyone think that I am some sort of devoted to
class warfare, let me just examine the facts.
Last year the Department of Labor found violations of current
overtime law in 13,687 cases involving 170,000 workers. They awarded
over $100 million in back pay. The Department's Wage and Hour Division
has a current backlog of approximately 40 percent of annual complaints.
In the garment industry, an investigatory survey conducted by the
Department in Los Angeles last year revealed noncompliance with current
overtime law in 55 percent of our shops.
In our subcommittee we watched the videotape feature from CBS news
which chronicled a ``Battle Against Overtime,'' apparently conducted
systematically by one of the country's largest supermarket chains. The
news item reported on the company's alleged practice of coercing
employees to perform work off the clock; that is, without any pay in
order to avoid paying overtime.

Mr. President, these practices may not be the norm for most employers
but they do demonstrate the need to protect against a bill which will
provide employers with a tool which they could use to avoid paying
overtime.

[[Page S5233]]

So I have no doubt that my colleague means exactly what he says.
There isn't anybody that believes anything other than that about it. He
means what he says. But, what looks good in theory doesn't work in
practice. That is the problem.
That is why, Mr. President, in the House of Representatives in the
piece of legislation that they passed the only thing you have is the
comptime. With comptime you get an hour and a half off for the hour
that you worked overtime, or you get an hour and a half in pay.
That is why this piece of legislation has been called, even by some
of the people in the House that supported that bill, too extreme. And
it is. Because, Mr. President, what you are going to have here when you
do away with a 40-hour week and you get into this 80-hour-week
framework is all sorts of potential for abuses of power.
Mr. President, if we didn't have the record that I just read to you
about some of the existing abuses, and the way in which there is forced
overtime right now, I wouldn't worry about it. But, Mr. President, that
is the reality. That is the reality. That is one of the problems.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields for a question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator cites 13,000 cases that were resolved or
filed in the last year. It seems to me, that demonstrates that there is
an enforcement mechanism in place, and that when there are abuses that
are undertaken, either under the current law, which obviously isn't
perfect, or else there wouldn't be any abuses, you know, I think that
is really a wrong statement because you have abuses even under the best
laws. The key is whether you have enforcement. Given the fact that you
have enforcement and that you have double penalties under the law that
has been proposed so that you double the risk for the employer, given
the fact that the law talks about the fact that it shall be against the
law to have either direct or indirect coercion or intimidation, and
given the fact that when you define what coercion is in the bill, you
find out that it is to intimidate, threaten, coerce, includes promising
to confer or conferring any benefit such as appointment, promotion or
compensation, or affecting or threatening to affect any reprisal such
as deprivation of appointment, promotion or compensation, don't you
think that the measures in the bill provide a safeguard, and that if
there are violations they could be pursued just as aggressively under
the new framework, which is a framework that is already shared by the
Federal Government employees? Could not the enforcement personnel also
enforce this kind of law, especially with elevated penalties and the
increased description of coercion?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, he raises a
couple of important questions and good questions. The fact that the law
does not work so well now does not mean that we now make the existing
law even weaker with the hope that somehow it will work better.
That is my first point. My second point, Mr. President, is that we
have a backlog. We have a significant backlog of cases, and my
understanding is that another problem with the bill is that not only
does the bill not exclude certain categories of workers, like people in
the garment industry that should be excluded given the existing record,
but you don't have the existing woman- and man-power enforcement. We
are going to need more of that.
Third, I say to my colleague, I think what he is talking about would
be helpful especially if we wanted to pass a piece of legislation and
one of the areas where we would really have to toughen this up is we
have to make sure that there is not any discrimination here.
I talked about this earlier. What I was talking about earlier is what
many people as they now come to find out--at first I think people
really liked the bill when they first heard about it. They liked the
bill because my colleague is on to something important and he is trying
to do something I think important. And that is, people were saying
look, you know, if there is a way that we could have more flexibility
and could be able to spend more time at home and we could have the
flexibility to get the comptime and time-and-a-half off instead of
time-and-a-half wages, we would like to have that option.
But what people are deathly afraid of, and for good reason, is what's
going to happen is that in the absence of some sort of protection here
against discrimination, there is going to be no guarantee that all too
many employers are going to basically say, well, Senator Ashcroft and
Brian Ahlberg and Paul Wellstone, there are three of you. Now, Brian
Ahlberg and Senator Ashcroft, you two folks, you want overtime work and
you are willing to take time-and-a-half off but not time-and-a-half
pay. We will give you the overtime work because, as an employer, as a
company, I don't want to give you the time-and-a-half pay.
That is a huge problem. If we do not have some sort of a way in which
we can guarantee that you will not have that discrimination, then a
whole lot of families that are struggling to make ends meet may not be
able to get that overtime pay that they depend upon.
So, Mr. President, let me just make it crystal clear that the bill's
penalties right now for coercion do not cover the discrimination that
we are worried about. And I would just make it clear that one of the
things we might want to do is accept the Kennedy amendment which was
turned down in committee that deals with discrimination.
The bill's penalties now apply to this kind of discrimination, and we
are making progress. But, Mr. President, I am puzzled--I see my
colleague on his feet, and I am pleased to take another question if he
has one, but let me just say to my colleague that I am puzzled by the
current approach we are taking.
It doesn't trouble me because I am able to speak about what I think
should be the priority of this Congress, which is getting disaster
relief to people in communities in Minnesota and the Dakotas, and I
will be back on that at 5:20 or whenever I can, but I would say to my
colleague, I am puzzled with the approach taken here because this bill
is not going to pass, and yet my colleague is really--I mean, the last
thing I want to do is say something that is going to offend him. I
mean, I will in terms of different debate, but I am not going to do it
personally, because he is for real. He believes in what he is doing.

It seems to me there is a way you could really get the flexibility
for the employees and you could really accomplish the goals of that,
but I do not get to say that because he is the author. He probably
feels he knows best. But I am telling you right now, if you do away
with the 40-hour week, you are not going to get the bill passed.
You have this 80-hour, 2-week framework which we do not have in the
House--their bill is more moderate--you are not going to get this bill
passed. You have the flextime where you only get 1 hour off for 1 hour
overtime, you are not going to get this bill passed. And if the
penalties that my colleague talked about for coercion do not cover this
kind of discrimination, then you are not going to get this bill passed.
Mr. ASHCROFT. May I ask the Senator a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield for a question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. May I ask the Senator, does he think the Senators on
his side of the aisle intend to offer amendments that we can begin to
process providing the kind of relief to the private sector that people
in the Government area have in terms of these flex benefits? We have
flextime benefits. We have comptime benefits. Flexible time, in
particular, is available to governmental employees. In the 1996 survey
conducted by the Census Bureau, only 6.6 percent of all hourly paid
women, for example, got overtime pay in a typical work period, and if
we are only going to deal with comptime, we are dealing with a very,
very small number.
Now, when you talk about Federal Government employees and their
ability to have flexible working arrangements, we are talking about a
broad population, because flextime applies to those who do not normally
get overtime work. Are there any--does the Senator know of any Senators
on his side of the aisle who will be offering amendments to get that
done?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, a couple of points I would like to make

[[Page S5234]]

to my colleague. The first one is, we will get to some of those
amendments. We filed amendments. But I have to say to my colleague that
we are not likely to get to those amendments until we pass a disaster
relief bill. So the first answer to his question is just that; I do not
think we are going to get to these amendments until we pass the
disaster relief bill.
The second point I would make to my colleague is that I will be very
interested in all of these figures. I do know that in, roughly
speaking, 60 percent of the cases of families with incomes under
$20,000 a year, you have a worker who depends upon overtime pay. And
whether or not we are talking about women or men, it seems to me this
is terribly important. Of women who work overtime, 38 percent of hourly
workers earning overtime pay are women--38 percent. And 11.6 million
women work over 40 hours each week.
Let me repeat that--11.6 million women work over 40 hours each week.
This is 22 percent of the working women in this country. And 6.2
million women work over 48 hours each week. This is 12 percent of
working women. And 2.3 million women work over 59 hours each week. This
is the 4 percent of working women. So let me just----
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me just make the point if I could, Mr. President,
it is really quite astounding, and it says something very fundamental
about where we are in this debate. Thirty-eight percent of hourly
workers earning overtime pay are women; 11.6 million women work over 40
hours each week. This is 22 percent of working women.
Mr. President, this is not surprising. This is not surprising at all
because we have got in our country--let me just make this clear. In our
country we have a paradox. On the one hand, we have this affluence
which we are grateful for, but on the other hand, we have many families
who are still unable to make a decent living and raise their children
successfully, and many women are working full-time and many women are
working overtime.

You have an alternative bill, if we wanted to have some give-and-take
discussion, you have an alternative bill of Senator Baucus, Senator
Kerrey, and others which makes it clear that what we do is take in part
what the Senator from Missouri has done, but we extend it and we say,
look, there are going to be penalties and we are going to have some
protection against discrimination so that an employer cannot say to a
woman who is working, or, for that matter, a man, look, we will give
you overtime if you take comptime but we will not give you overtime
pay.
That is unacceptable. It is just simply unacceptable. And, Mr.
President, that is where we say, if you will, in the words of Florence
Reese, which side are you on? That is where we draw the line.
Mr. ASHCROFT. May I answer that question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to take a question in one second.
Let me just finish this. Let me just finish it real quickly.
I have to go back to this case of whose side are you on. We are on
the side of working families when we make it clear that the 40-hour
week is protected. And if you work overtime, you are entitled to time-
and-a-half pay. We are on the side of working families when we make it
clear that if you want to get some time off to be with your families
and you have worked overtime, you should get time and a half. We are on
the side of working families when we have a piece of legislation that
makes it crystal clear that no employer can discriminate and put people
in a position where the only kind of overtime work they are going to
get is if it is your comptime and not overtime pay.
We are on the side of working families when we make it clear that for
family and medical leave reasons, if you have banked your time and you
have 30 hours of banked time and now you have a child sick or you have
a parent that is ill, you can take that time off. You do not have to
ask for permission.
None of those features are in this legislation right now, and
therefore this legislation in its present form will go nowhere. And,
yes, there will be amendments on the floor of the Senate, and, yes,
there will be efforts to improve this bill. But as long as I have the
floor, there are not going to be any amendments until we get to the
disaster relief bill.
Now, I am not going to be able to stay on the floor forever, but that
is going to be the point.
Now, Mr. President, I want to make it clear I can only yield for
questions. So I cannot yield--I think the Senator mentioned he wanted
to answer, he wanted to answer what I have said, and I would ask the
Chair, am I correct, the Senator--I think he may have meant it
differently. The Senator said I would like to answer the question. Am I
correct I can't let the Senator answer any question; I can only yield
to a question? So, Mr. President, I would be pleased only to yield for
a question from my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Does the Senator from
Missouri have a question?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, I do. I will try to phrase this in the form of a
question. When the Senator from Minnesota asks whose side am I on, he
indicated that 38 percent of the hourly workers, overtime pay workers
were women. That really means that 62 percent are men. Almost twice as
many men in the equation are overtime workers as are women and that
really does not talk about the number of women generally who are
workers that rely on overtime or have the chance to get overtime.
My question is, for the vast majority of workers that do not get
overtime at all, and especially for women who are outranked about 2 to
1 by men in terms of the privilege of getting overtime, setting all
those aside, you are doing something for the people who get overtime,
and it is true that your proposal addresses those people and there are
two men in that group for every woman in that group. That is what your
own statistics basically show. So you are doing something for mostly
men who get overtime. But for the people who do not get overtime and
still have sick kids and still have families that have trouble and
still need to have flexibility in their workplace, what are you
proposing for those individuals? And are there going to be amendments
to this legislation that propose to do something to give them
flexibility?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me just respond to my colleague in two different
ways.
First of all, a pay cut where people are no longer able to get
overtime pay or may be put in a position that they do not get overtime,
time off for overtime worked doesn't help anyone. It does not help
working women. It does not help working men. And it does not help
working families. It is, if you will, elementary.
Second of all, as a matter of fact, if you look at the alternative--
this is what puzzled me about my colleague here. If you look at the
alternative that is being presented by Senators Baucus and Kerrey and
other Democrats, and I would assume there would be Republican support,
as a matter of fact, that is exactly what we are talking about, which
is what you have in this alternative. You have comptime--that is what
it is about. It does not abolish the 40-hour week. It does not amount
to a pay cut. It is time-and-a-half off for every hour you have worked
overtime. It provides the protection against the discrimination so
employers are not able to only give overtime to people who take
comptime as opposed to people who need the overtime pay. It makes sure
that you get the flexibility that we say the employees want.
That is part of it. The other part of it is, in all due respect to
some of the employers in our country, not all of them --there are, of
course, many great employers--the fact is--and in the subcommittee we
heard testimony to this effect.
The fact of the matter is, right now there are all sorts of
opportunities for flexibility. You don't have to overturn the Fair
Labor Standards Act. People can work 4 10-hour days and then take a
Friday off or a Monday off; they can work 9-hour days and work half a
day Friday or take every other Friday off; people can come in at 7 and
leave at 3; they can come in at 10 and leave at 6. There are employers
right now that provide employees with that flexibility.
The real problem is that a lot of employers don't give employees that
flexibility. So, all of a sudden I become a

[[Page S5235]]

little skeptical, as a Senator from Minnesota, where we put a real
value on economic justice and work and families, when the very people
who do not give the employees the flexibility they could right now,
come in and testify to the need for this bill. I remember we had
testimony from a representative of the National Federation of
Independent Businesses saying, ``Look, we need to do this because we
can't afford to pay overtime.'' All of a sudden I am saying to myself,
``My gosh, this is not family friendly. This is going to lead to the
functional equivalent of pay cuts. This is not about giving people the
choice and flexibility they need.''
Mr. President, we had an amendment in subcommittee. It was turned
down. It's part of the alternative. It works like this: If you bank
comptime and, for example, you have 20 hours that you have earned, it's
your time. Now, if you have to go to your child's school, if you need
to go visit with the principal or a teacher, or you need to take care
of a family member, you can use your accumulated comptime to get that
time off. We could do that. Then we would have real employee
flexibility.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield for
the Chair to make an appointment and that I not lose my right to the
floor and that my resumption on the floor not be counted as a second
speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________