[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 4, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5281-S5290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FAMILY FRIENDLY WORKPLACE ACT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will now resume consideration 
of S. 4, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Grassley amendment No. 253, to provide protections in 
     bankruptcy proceedings for claims relating to compensatory 
     time off and flexible work credit hours.
       Grassley modified amendment No. 256, 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.
       Gorton modified amendment No. 265, 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. LOTT. Mr. President, on the family friendly workplace bill 
itself, the comptime/flextime issue, I hope that we can come to an 
agreement on this. Senator Daschle has indicated he would like to work 
with us on it. The President said during the election campaign and, in 
fact, 2 weeks ago, he would like to work with us on giving some 
flexibility to workers' schedules. I believe he has indicated that 
again today. Senator Ashcroft has done such a magnificent job on this 
bill. In fact, I believe the President said flextime is very 
important--flexibility is very important. I wrote it down and gave a 
copy of it to the Senator from Missouri.

  So, we all agree that having a little option of taking your comptime 
in terms of higher pay or the option of it being some time off, that's 
a good idea. We all agree, I think, that working spouses ought to have 
a little flexibility in their schedules. That is who really benefits 
from the flextime portion of this bill.
  Now, if there are questions or concerns about making sure that it is 
fair and there is no intimidation, it is truly voluntary, hey, let's 
work that out. We ought to do that. We want those protections. We want 
those guarantees. But I want somebody to explain to me how I can 
explain to the hourly workers in my State that they should not have 
these options even though Federal employees do. And, as a matter of 
fact, in truth, so do salaried employees. If they want a little time 
off, they take it off. But, no, not the hourly workers, not the blue 
collar workers in my State, not the people out there pulling the load. 
They don't even have this option.
  Protect them, make sure that the law doesn't get out of control, that 
it's abused--let's do that. But to have this type of flexibility, to 
have a more family friendly workplace, isn't that a worthwhile goal? 
Can't we do this?
  The Senator from Massachusetts and I worked together on some bills 
that he forced me to work with him on. I didn't particularly want to, 
but we wound up doing it. We got health insurance reform last year, 
thanks to the good help of the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum. 
This very day, an unbelievable achievement was signed by the President 
of the United States: IDEA, I-D-E-A, Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act. Last year we gave up in exhaustion. We couldn't get it 
done. This year, because of a lot of good staff work, administration 
input, Democrats, Republicans, all regions, all races, all ethnic 
backgrounds, all degrees of philosophy, we came together on a bill that 
will help education in America--not just for the disabled, but I 
believe all of our children will be better off because of this bill. We 
got it done because we put aside our prejudices and our determinations 
that we were going to be committed to this position or that position 
and we said we need results and we got results.
  We need to do this on this legislation. Let's get started. Let's work 
together. If you have amendments, put them up. I would like them to be 
germane. I would rather we not solve some irrelevant issue. Let's stick 
to the subject at hand. And I believe the American people would be the 
beneficiaries.
  So I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote for 
this cloture, or if they don't, tell us how we can come together and 
give this opportunity to working Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I was listening to the comments of our 
friend and our majority leader with regard to the cooperative effort on 
the IDEA legislation, and he has correctly characterized that. He 
himself deserves great credit. This was worked out in a strong, 
bipartisan way.
  I am hopeful that we can have that same kind of cooperative effort on 
our children's health insurance proposal, which Senator Hatch has 
introduced and which I have cosponsored, which has such broad 
Republican and Democratic support across the country and which I 
believe a majority of the Members of this body, Republican and 
Democrat, support as well.
  The Senator made a very eloquent statement about how we want to be 
family friendly. I would like to see some progress for the sons and 
daughters of working families who are making $20,000 to $25,000. I 
would like to see some progress for the single heads of households with 
two children who are unable to afford the premium for their health 
insurance. Those Americans need to have what I would consider to be one 
of the most, if not the most important, family friendly protection, and 
that is to make sure that their children can have the same healthy 
start as do children of so many of the Members of this Congress and 
Senate.
  So, I know that the next business before the Senate is the cloture 
motion on S. 4. But I am very hopeful that we will find an opportunity 
to address this important proposal. The majority leader felt our 
amendment on the budget was inconsistent with other terms in that 
agreement. Yet, I would say to my friend and colleague, it was 
interesting yesterday when the House Members went down to see the 
President that they introduced a new concept, a medical savings 
account, which Republicans and Democrats had agreed to last year on the 
Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, for 750,000 people. And the Republicans also 
proposed a limitation on punitive damages to protect doctors, even 
though we have some 50,000 Americans who die in hospitals every year 
from preventable injuries. Yet I didn't hear that that proposal was 
part of the budget deal.
  So, I hope, as we move forward, we will be able to gain the attention 
of the majority leader on the issues of children's health. The majority 
leader knows very well the administration is

[[Page S5282]]

trying to help children covered by Medicaid, who are the poorest of the 
poor. We commend that. The Rockefeller-Chafee proposal is a bipartisan 
effort to target resources to make sure those children who are eligible 
for Medicaid will continue to be covered. We believe that proposal will 
cover about 3 million poor children. But we cannot forget the other 7.5 
million children. Our proposal is paid for in its entirety--so we would 
not interfere with the general outlines that have been agreed to in the 
budget--with a cigarette tax, which has the added benefit of 
discouraging teenagers from smoking.
  I know, when the Senator was talking about the areas where there has 
been cooperation, I want to commend him for the great leadership he 
provided on IDEA. He also referenced the progress that was made last 
year and commended Senator Kassebaum. I look forward this year, when we 
pass the Hatch-Kennedy bill, to commending a similar bipartisan effort. 
I believe if we just had a little more favorable view from our majority 
leader, that proposal could go through here in incredibly rapid time.
  But I see our leader on the floor at this time, so I will withhold 
further comments to permit him to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me commend the distinguished senior 
Senator from Massachusetts for his comments.
  Let me say I completely associate myself with his remarks and 
appreciate his extraordinary leadership on children's health issues in 
particular. I came to the floor just to respond to the distinguished 
majority leader. I didn't hear all that he said, but it was reported to 
me. I know he made comment about the progress we are making on the 
supplemental appropriations bill. I must say, I am pleased to hear 
maybe some progress has been made.
  We have been patient, and I think he would concede that we have been 
patient. And we have been very tolerant of the extraordinary delay that 
has existed now for some time in moving this legislation forward. He 
tried, prior to the time of the Memorial Day recess, to negotiate some 
settlement, as did the rest of us, and failed to find some way with 
which to resolve the differences.
  The problem we have, though, Madam President, is that we continue to 
send the message that even though people in the Dakotas and Minnesota 
are losing sleep, even though mayors and city councilmen and business 
people and homeowners and farmers continue to be exasperated and 
frustrated with the lack of progress here, it is business as usual on 
the Senate floor. It is business as usual in the Congress. We send the 
message that it doesn't seem to matter how grave the circumstances, we 
are not going to change the way we are doing business here; we will 
continue to do business as usual.
  So our message to them was that we don't care how long it takes, this 
Congress ought to stay here tonight, tomorrow, tomorrow night, the next 
night until we get an agreement on this conference report, until we can 
find some way to resolve these differences, until we can say to those 
people without equivocation, we know it is not business as usual, we 
know that we have to get something done, we know that you are hurting 
and we are going to respond. But we are not sending that message when 
we adjourn, when we don't meet, when we don't make progress on any of 
the contentious issues for which there has been disagreement now for 
weeks. When does it end? When do we break some new ground and move the 
bill on?
  I am pleased, if the majority leader is accurate, with the report 
that we could have some resolution to some of these issues this 
afternoon. At long last, we may be able to send the right message to 
the people waiting now all this time. But there are 33 States 
detrimentally affected, probably no States more detrimentally affected 
than those States in the Midwest, Dakotas and Minnesota. So, clearly, 
something has to be done. I hope if we are not going to resolve the 
conference report this afternoon, the majority leader will allow us to 
stay in, will allow us to continue to address these issues, that we 
will not accept business as usual, and that we can send as clear a 
message as possible that we understand how grave this situation is, and 
we are going to respond just as effectively and as quickly and as 
completely as we possibly can. That is what the message ought to be.
  We are going to have a compensation vote again this afternoon, a 
comptime vote. I must say, I am disappointed. The majority leader 
talked about it being a two-way street on the supplemental 
appropriations. I would like it to be a two-way street on comptime. I 
would like the Republican leadership and our Republican colleagues to 
take a good look at what we are suggesting as a way with which to 
resolve this impasse. That has not happened yet. Whether it is the 
supplemental, comptime or any one of a number of issues, the only way 
we can demonstrate this two-way street is if we can find some common 
ground and work together. At least let's recognize today that we will 
not leave, we will not adjourn, we will not pretend it is business as 
usual so long as we haven't resolved the outstanding differences on the 
supplemental bill.
  I urge the leader to do that, and I hope that he can work with us to 
ensure that we send that message out to those who are detrimentally 
affected all across this country and are looking for some hope and some 
understanding of our appreciation of the seriousness of the problems 
that they are facing. I yield the floor.

  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I join in the urging of our 
distinguished leader in hopes that there can be some resolution to this 
enormous human tragedy in the Dakotas and in parts of the Midwest. 
Massachusetts is not affected, Madam President, but it was not long ago 
that we had hurricanes that came across the Massachusetts coast, that 
traveled through New England and brought devastation, hardship, and 
plight to many communities. Many New Englanders lost their homes, their 
businesses, and their property. And, when the hurricanes went through 
South Carolina, I remember the words of our friend and colleague, 
Senator Hollings, who spoke on that issue so passionately. And I 
remember how this institution responded so quickly. I think all of us 
remember the tragedies caused by the recent hurricanes in Florida. 
Homestead Air Force Base was devastated and many of the communities in 
the surrounding areas were destroyed. And all of us must remember how 
we in the Congress reacted.
  Every American has been touched by what has happened in the Midwest. 
When the Senator from South Dakota speaks about this issue, as the 
Senator from Minnesota did yesterday, and the Senators from North 
Dakota did in the past few days, they are really speaking for all 
Americans. This is not just a regional issue, it is a national issue, 
and it is of national importance. I think all of us who have watched 
the courage and the strength of those families as they have faced this 
extraordinary human tragedy are challenged to say why not now? Why not 
take the action now? This is special. It is unique. It is a crisis. It 
is affecting children. It is affecting families. It is affecting 
elderly people. It is affecting them in many different ways, and we 
should be able to respond.
  I commend our colleagues from those areas, who know it best, for 
their very constructive recommendations. We have given them assurances 
from all parts of the country that we stand behind them. As we are 
about to use the last of the time before the cloture vote, I join with 
the Democratic leader in being troubled by the earlier statement that 
we would not see any further action on this measure today. I was unable 
to speak on this issue yesterday. We have other Members on the floor 
who want to address the Senate on S. 4, but I see the Senator from 
South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will be very brief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me just thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his 
words of support. As he has indicated, even though perhaps it is the 
upper Midwest that is most detrimentally affected, States all over the 
country are affected, even in those areas where there hasn't been a 
disaster, as in the State of Massachusetts.

[[Page S5283]]

  The Senator speaks eloquently about the degree of support and 
sensitivity that we find across the country for the plight that we have 
in the Dakotas and Minnesota, particularly. Let me just say, we have 
had a remarkable degree of response within our caucus. Virtually every 
Senator has indicated they would be willing to stay tonight and speak 
for a period of time about the circumstances in their State or the 
circumstances involving the legislation. Every Senator has expressed a 
willingness to come to the floor, whether it is 2 or 3 or 5 o'clock in 
the morning. They have indicated a willingness to be here.
  Let me thank all of my colleagues for their expressions of interest 
and participation and my hope that we can participate in a meaningful 
way, not in a controversial or confrontational way necessarily, but 
simply providing the rest of the country a better opportunity to 
understand the extraordinary situation that we are facing and the need 
for us to respond as quickly as possible, given this late date.
  So I thank my colleagues. I hope that we get 
Republican participation. I certainly hope that this notion that we are 
going to adjourn rather than to have a good debate is nothing but a 
false rumor and that we will have the opportunity to participate in 
that colloquy tonight. I yield the floor.

  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I say to my friend and colleague from 
South Dakota that churches all over Massachusetts last Sunday had 
collections for people in the Dakotas. This is illustrative of the 
feeling all over this country.
  Madam President, how has the time been allocated and what remains 
between the Senators?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 13 minutes; 
the Senator from Missouri has 23 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will take 2 minutes, and then I will yield to our 
colleagues.
  On the issue, Madam President, of the so-called Family Friendly 
Workplace Act, I believe it is basically a cruel hoax on American 
workers. It is really a one-sided bill that provides maximum 
flexibility for employers and no flexibility for employees. It deserves 
no support from any Senator. It received none from any Democrat on the 
first cloture vote 3 weeks ago. In fact, two Republicans broke with 
their party to oppose cloture, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose 
cloture again today.
  Some have suggested that with this second cloture vote, the 
Republican proponents of S. 4 are simply playing out an elaborate 
charade. By forcing further debate on S. 4 in this way, they hope that 
the Ballenger bill in the House will seem less extreme.
  That strategy will fail. Less extreme is still extreme. Our 
Democratic alternative--and I pay tribute to Senator Baucus, Senator 
Landrieu, and Senator Kerrey for the development of that alternative--
remedies the gross defects of both the Ashcroft Senate bill and the 
Ballenger House bill. It is a realistic approach to comptime that is 
not slanted in favor of employers and against employees. It is the only 
comptime bill that is worth the name and it deserves to pass.
  The Democratic alternative is superior in many ways. First, it 
protects the 40-hour week, while the Ashcroft bill abolishes that 
fundamental principle.
  Second, our alternative forbids discrimination against workers who 
need overtime pay and cannot afford to take the time off instead. The 
Ashcroft bill permits employers to assign all the overtime work to 
employees who will accept comptime.
  Third, the Democratic alternative guarantees employees the right to 
use comptime when they need it the most. That is the key element. The 
employees have the right, that is the key in any evaluation of which 
bill deserves support. The alternative provides that the employees have 
the right to use the time when they need it. The Ashcroft bill does not 
give employees a right to use the comptime even in the most serious 
family or medical emergencies.
  Finally, the Democratic alternative imposes no pay cut on working 
families, while the Ashcroft bill would reduce workers' wages 
substantially.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture. The 
Ashcroft paycheck reduction act does nothing for working women. It does 
nothing for working men. It does nothing for working families. It 
should be rejected out of hand, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Landrieu.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Three minutes is just fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Madam President. To my distinguished 
colleague from Massachusetts who has been such a strong and solid voice 
for working families and working people throughout this country, I 
appreciate his help on this issue.
  I am here today with my colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator 
Kerrey, to offer some thoughts as to how we can make this particular 
bill more meaningful to working families.
  There is an architect, Bill McCuen, in South Carolina who is now 
running for Congress. He recently changed his political affiliation 
from the GOP to the Democratic Party. Mr. McCuen has suggested that the 
national GOP is ``substituting rhetoric for wisdom and * * * building 
walls instead of opening windows.'' With all due respect to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have concluded that Mr. 
McCuen's analysis is applicable in this instance. Perhaps he has had an 
opportunity to study S. 4.
  This bill, in its current form, is not about families nor is it 
friendly. The issue before us today is about workplace fairness. The 
bill is harmful to families in its current form. Our distinguished 
majority leader says S. 4 provides much-needed flexibility to workers. 
But Madam President, this measure is not about giving flexibility to 
workers; this bill is about flexibility only to employers or bosses. 
The 40-hour work week and the protections it affords have been in place 
since 1938. Under S. 4, these protections are clearly abolished. I 
believe that as Members of this body we have a real obligation to 
create truly family-friendly legislation as opposed to the proposal 
being offered by the majority.
  There has also been a lot said Madam President about this bill 
helping women who are now working more than ever before. Today, 60 
percent of mothers with young children are in the workplace.
  This bill does not offer any relief for mothers to spend more time 
with their children or to meet necessary family obligations.
  Madam President, this bill neither makes for a better workplace nor 
is it family friendly. This legislation is merely a comptime scheme 
that will hurt the hard-working families of America--it will cut their 
pay, decrease their benefits and pensions, and threaten their long-term 
plans.
  It will take decisions that should be made by a worker and give them 
to an employer and it abolishes a standard that this Nation has abided 
by for the last 60 years--the 40-hour work week.
  Madam President, my Democratic colleagues want real flexibility and 
choice that will protect the working families of this country. We 
Democrats understand and support the desire employees have for more 
flexibility between work and family. Democrats fought for an increase 
in the minimum wage and the Family and Medical Leave Act so that 
workers would not have to choose between serving their family and 
serving their employer. Between taking their child to the doctor or 
getting to work on time.
  However, we also recognize that we need to have innovative 
arrangements in the workplace so that both employers and employees can 
be sure that their basic interests are protected. Madam President, the 
Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu alternative would provide this real flexibility 
to working families because: Employees could decide when to accept 
overtime pay and when to accept comp time; employees could decide when 
to use their comptime; health and pension benefits for workers would be 
protected; and the 40-hour work week would be preserved.
  Madam President, the legislation that my distinguished Republican 
colleagues have introduced is wrong for working families and would be 
harmful

[[Page S5284]]

to the continued economic success of this Nation because it does not 
offer workers any flexibility in meeting their obligations to their 
families and fulfilling their duties to their employers.
  Instead, S. 4 gives employees less control over both their time and 
their paychecks. Critical decisions that affect time spent at work, 
time spent at home, vacation, sick leave, and compensation are all in 
the hands of the employer instead of where they belong--with the 
employee.
  S. 4 undermines the 60-year tradition of the 40-hour work week--a 
tradition that has helped build this Nation into the world's leading 
economy. This bill, as it stands, would create an 80-hour work period 
before an employee could earn overtime. Workplaces have been governed 
by the principle that asking employees to work more than 40 hours would 
be a serious infringement on their personal lives--what working parent 
would want to have even less time with their children than they have 
now?
  Under the bill offered by my distinguished colleague from Missouri, 
employees would make less money and have less choice. Hours of comptime 
used would be counted as hours worked. This means that an employee who 
used 5 hours of comptime on Monday to take care of a sick child at home 
could be forced to work on a Saturday or Sunday to make up the hours 
but would not be paid overtime.
  Furthermore, Madam President, the health and retirement benefits of 
many employees are linked to the number of hours they work so their 
benefits could be slashed under S. 4. Also, nothing in this bill would 
prevent an employer from substituting an existing paid leave plan, such 
as vacation or sick leave, with comptime. Employees could be forced to 
work overtime and choose comptime if they wanted a vacation or needed 
sick leave.
  The bill offered by my friend from Missouri is also unrealistic, 
employees couldn't really take advantage of comptime when they needed 
it. Employers could deny an employee's request to use comptime if the 
employer could claim that the business would be unduly disrupted--
regardless of why the employee needed the time off. This bill forces 
employees to take a chance that they may be able to take time off when 
it is as valuable to them as overtime pay.
  For example, Madam President, take an employee who wants to chaperone 
her daughter's fourth grade class on a field trip. She chooses to 
accept comptime for overtime hours worked in order to earn enough paid 
time off to spend that time with her child and her classmates. Her 
employer agrees. But when it comes time for the field trip, after the 
employee has already worked enough overtime to account for any time 
off, the employer could claim that the employee's absence for the trip 
would unduly disrupt the business and then justifiably, under this 
bill, replace the time off with overtime pay. How much money could 
replace that field trip--the time off that the mother earned and worked 
for?
  Would it be enough to pay for the nonrefundable cost of the trip?
  Would it be enough to make a child forget about a lost chance to 
spend quality time with a parent?
  Would it be enough to make up for the inconvenience that the school 
would have in getting another chaperone?
  Madam President, I believe that, at that point, the overtime pay just 
isn't enough.
  Madam President, public employees have long had protections that 
private sector workers do not enjoy. For example, Federal workers can 
only be fired for just cause under the Civil Service system. 
Alternative work schedules like comptime and flextime went into effect 
for Federal employees as a 3-year experiment in 1978. They were 
extended in 1982 and made permanent in 1985. In all cases, employees 
may elect but cannot be compelled to accept comptime in lieu of 
overtime pay.
  Madam President, I agree with my distinguished colleague from 
Missouri that private sector workers should have greater flexibility 
and I commend Senator Ashcroft for his honest effort on behalf of the 
people of his State and the country. However, S. 4 does not provide 
workers the flexibility my Republicans colleagues are looking for. The 
Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu substitute, though, does.
  Our measure, a meaningful substitute to S. 4, protects working 
families by providing: That employers cannot discriminate in offering 
comptime or overtime pay; employees could use comptime for any purpose, 
as long as they give their employers at least 2 weeks prior notice; 
comptime could be used with less notice if the business would not be 
unduly disrupted; overtime for over 40 hours worked in 1 week would be 
preserved, maintaining the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act; employers 
would be prohibited from intimidating, threatening, or coercing 
employees into participating in a biweekly flexible credit hour 
program; comptime is treated as hours worked in calculating retirement 
and health benefits; comptime could not be used to replace or 
substitute for vacation or sick leave plans; and construction, garment, 
and other seasonal workers would be exempt.
  Madam President, S. 4 is a total sham. It is not friendly toward 
working families. Employers, not employees, maintain the ultimate 
control over use of comptime earned under this bill.
  The unfairness of this bill is further borne out by the fact that 
during the Labor Committee markup of S. 4, the majority refused to 
provide workers real choices in the workplace by rejecting an amendment 
that would have ensured that employees could take compensatory time for 
any of the reasons currently covered under the Family and Medical Leave 
Act such as to take care of an ill parent if the absence of such 
workers would not cause ``substantial and grievous injury to the 
operation of the employer.''
  Madam President, the Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu substitute gives real 
flexibility and protection to working women and their families but, 
most importantly, it allows both employers and employees to work 
together to create the right kind of cooperation in the workplace while 
at the same time allowing working families to choose if and when and 
how they take and use comptime. I urge my colleagues to support and 
adopt this substitute.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  Madam President, 56 percent of hourly workers are women, nearly 60 
percent of those earning minimum wage are women, more than 80 percent 
of overtime recipients have annual earnings of less than $28,000; and 
61 percent earn $20,000 per year or less.
  Working women need their overtime pay. They need flexibility but it 
needs to be the choice of the workers, not the employers.
  Finally, I would like to say that I believe most employers in this 
country want a bill that is fair both to their businesses and to their 
workers.
  I reach across the aisle to my colleagues and say: Let us work toward 
a compromise that establishes real comptime for working families in 
America. Let us substitute wisdom for rhetoric. Let us open windows 
instead of building walls as we work to create a policy that will help 
all Americans in the workplace.
  I thank the Senator for the additional time, and yield to Senator 
Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor 
and controls the time, unless the Senator from Missouri seeks 
recognition.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I control?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Four minutes?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Five?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Five.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Madam President. I also thank my good friend 
and colleague from Massachusetts.
  Madam President, I rise today in very firm opposition to the cloture 
motion on S. 4, the so-called Family Friendly Workplace Act, sponsored 
by my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft. Why do I do so? In 
speaking against cloture, I do not wish to convey that I oppose the 
idea of comptime. Quite the contrary, comptime is an idea whose time 
has come. Indeed, Federal workers get comptime. I think that other 
employees should also get comptime.
  We all hear from people in our home States--I know you do, Madam 
President--we all do--how pressed people

[[Page S5285]]

are, particularly working moms, pressed for time, and do not have the 
time to keep their job as well as take their children to Babe Ruth 
ballgames or to parent-teacher conferences, and are very pressed for 
time. It only makes sense, Madam President, that employees, women and 
men on the job, get a little more flexibility so they can take time off 
to be with their family, with their children.
  It is not an easy task that parents have these days. Comptime would 
let working parents balance the needs of their families with the 
demands of their jobs. I believe it is only fair that we give America's 
families that tool.
  Unfortunately, the bill we are now debating, the so-called Family 
Friendly Workplace Act, fails to live up to its name. It is not family 
friendly at all. Why do I say that? First of all, the bill does not 
give workers the choice they need to make comptime effective. Under 
this bill, the employer can decide when a worker takes time off, not 
the employee. That means there is no guarantee that a parent would have 
time off when he or she needs it the most. That completely undermines 
the very concept of comptime.
  In addition, this bill dismantles two important safeguards that are 
fundamental to protecting the rights of workers.
  First, the bill eliminates the 40-hour workweek and replaces that 
time-honored tradition with an 80-hour, 2-week system, which means, 
under their bill, a worker who works 60 hours in 1 week may not be 
entitled to 1 minute of overtime.
  Second, this legislation would allow an employer to discriminate 
against a worker who chooses to take their overtime in the form of pay. 
Why? Because by assigning overtime only to workers who they know will 
take their accrued time in the form of vacation, the employer can save 
some money. But the worker gets pinched.
  Both of these changes will result in a pay cut for people who punch 
the clock. Lots of families depend on that extra money to make ends 
meet. We cannot risk taking it away from them.
  So that is why I rise in opposition to the cloture motion today, 
Madam President. But, as I said earlier, I am not speaking today 
against the idea of comptime. I like comptime. That is why I have 
offered a substitute amendment joined by Senators Kerrey and Landrieu. 
We will offer that substitute at the appropriate time. I think our bill 
gives workers the right kind of comptime.
  We offer employees comptime where they can choose when they take 
their own time off, comptime where they can take pay or time off 
without worrying about discrimination from their employers, and 
comptime that preserves the 40-hour workweek.
  Our amendment, I think, is clear. It is more reasonable and it is a 
better choice. I believe, Madam President, that when Senators look at 
both choices, the substitute that I plan to offer, as well as the 
current bill, they will realize that the better approach is the 
approach that we are suggesting.
  Madam President, the President has indicated that he would veto the 
current bill but he would sign the bill that we will be offering at the 
appropriate moment. I urge my colleagues again to vote against cloture.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I oppose S. 4, the so-called 
Family Friendly Workplace Act, for the basic reason that it is not 
family friendly. This legislation, as written, will disrupt family 
schedules, decrease family incomes, and make it harder for working 
families to balance the competing needs of work and family.
  S. 4 will serve to decrease family incomes by eliminating overtime 
pay for many workers. Under S. 4, an employer has the ability to select 
which worker is given extra hours to work. An employee who wants 
overtime pay instead of comptime may be passed over for the additional, 
and often needed, extra work. The lost income can mean a pay cut of up 
to 15 percent for many families.
  In this country, more than 80 percent of overtime recipients earn 
less than $28,000 a year and 44 percent of those who count on overtime 
earn as little as $16,000 a year or less. These are hard working 
mothers and fathers, willing to work extra hours to help support the 
family. These are not families that can afford a pay cut. S. 4 has been 
called the paycheck reduction act exactly because these families will 
be forced to lose the extra work or to take comptime in lieu of 
overtime.
  S. 4 will interfere with the carefully crafted schedules of families 
struggling to work and raise children for several reasons. First, 
employers are given enormous control over how, when, and if workers can 
earn overtime or comptime. Workers who are given the option to choose 
comptime by their employer and do so, cannot necessarily use the 
comptime when they want. Employers can deny a comptime request if it 
would unduly disrupt business. There is no consideration of the 
importance or necessity of the time off for the family. If a family 
sacrifices to earn comptime, there is no guarantee that they will ever 
be able to use it.
  S. 4 would eliminate the 40 hour work week for many hourly workers. 
Under this legislation an employee could be asked to work 65 hours one 
week and 15 hours the next. In the next 2-week period, the employee 
could be given a schedule of 23 hours one week and 57 hours the next. 
This would wreak havoc on the home life of employees, particularly ones 
with children at home.
  Under S. 4, employers are given flexibility--the flexibility to 
change workers' schedules to meet the demands of the factory or office. 
This is flexibility in only one direction. A real comptime bill would 
provide workers with the flexibility to change their schedules to meet 
the demands of the home and the family.
  The majority of hourly workers are women and many of these women are 
already struggling with the issue of working and raising a family. The 
issue of child care is particularly relevant. Constantly fluctuating 
work hours make it difficult to find good child care. The interests of 
children, who may be home alone more now because of the loss of 
schedule certainty, are denied here. Flexibility in only one direction 
can be coercion, and that is not the balance we should strive to 
achieve.
  Six organizations representing working women throughout America are 
opposing S. 4, precisely because this bill is so hard on working women; 
9-to-5--the National Association of Working Women, the American Nurses 
Association, the Business and Professional Women, the National Council 
of Jewish Women, the National Women's Law Center, and the Women's Legal 
Defense Fund are all on record as opposing this legislation, because 
they ``believe passage of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, 
fails to offer real flexibility to the working women it purports to 
help *  *  *''
  I support making workplaces more family friendly. Unfortunately, that 
is not what S. 4, does. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture 
and against S. 4. This legislation will be bad for workers, bad for 
women, bad for children, and bad for families. Let us make the 105th 
Congress a family friendly Congress by opposing S. 4.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about S. 4, the 
Family Friendly Workplace Act of 1997 and the alternative that has been 
offered by my friends and colleagues, Senators Baucus, Kerrey and 
Landrieu.
  Mr. President, while the goals embodied in S. 4 may, on the surface, 
appear to be family friendly, the legislation passed by the Labor 
Committee is decidedly worker unfriendly.
  Unlike the bill recently passed by the House, S. 4 is not limited to 
the issue of compensatory time. Instead it includes provisions related 
to flexible scheduling and flexible credit hours that repeal the 40-
hour workweek, which has been the bulwark of employee protection for 
almost 60 years, and turn the purported choice for employees that 
supporters claim S. 4 provides into no real choice at all.
  S. 4 provides compensatory time to employees in lieu of time-and-a-
half. While this is an idea that resonates with a great number of 
people, I believe the compensatory time provision of S. 4 does not 
provide sufficient autonomy to employees in selecting compensatory time 
in lieu of overtime and that many employees will be forced to take the 
option of flextime.
  By allowing employers to choose which of the three options to offer, 
compensatory time, flexible scheduling, or flexible credit hours, it is 
inevitable that they will offer either the

[[Page S5286]]

flexible 80 hour work schedule or flexible credit-hour program.
  That is because, unlike comptime which is in lieu of overtime and 
therefore must be exchanged for 1\1/2\ hours off, the flexible schedule 
options require only a one-to-one exchange. Any employer looking at his 
bottom line will make the choice for the employees and the choice will 
be flextime over overtime or comptime. The obvious solution to this is 
to do what the House did and pass a comptime only bill, one that 
includes the protections for workers contained in the Baucus-Kerrey-
Landrieu alternative.
  S. 4 does not adequately protect employees' rights to choose 
comptime, to use it when they want and to be free from discrimination 
against employees who choose not to agree to take comptime or work 
flexible schedules. As written, S. 4 provides that an employee who 
requests the use of comptime off shall be permitted to use the time so 
long as it does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.
  The alternative offered by my friends and colleagues, Senators 
Baucus, Kerrey and Landrieu, would allow an employee to take banked 
comp after giving 2 weeks notice so long as it will not cause grievous 
injury to the employer, as well as for qualifying Family and Medical 
Leave Act purposes. It is important to remember that the banked hours 
are hours that the employee has earned. She should have control over 
when she uses them and the employer should have to meet a high standard 
for denying the request of employees to take the earned hours.
  While S. 4 does not provide sufficient protection for vulnerable 
sectors of the economy such as garment and agricultural workers, the 
Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu proposal does. It exempts part-time and garment 
industry workers, and provides the Secretary of Labor with authority to 
exempt other vulnerable categories of employees if she determines there 
is a pattern of violations of the act or to ensure that employees 
receive the compensation they have earned. These are important 
protections that should be included in any compensatory time bill we 
consider.

  S. 4 allows too many comptime hours to be ``banked'' and does not 
sufficiently protect those hours in the event of bankruptcy. Senator 
Baucus' alternative allows 80 hours to be banked and does protect those 
hours in bankruptcy. It is interesting to note, that even the House-
passed bill allows only 160 hours to be banked.
  The Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu also provides significant penalties for 
employers who violate it's provisions by discharging or otherwise 
discriminating against employees who choose not to take comptime in 
lieu of overtime.
  Another important distinction between S. 4 and the Baucus-Kerrey-
Landrieu alternative is that S. 4 does not sunset the provisions 
relating to either comp or flex time. Senator Baucus' proposal sunsets 
the provisions relating to compensatory time after 4 years and requires 
a Presidential commission to study the impact of the compensatory time 
provisions. Mr. President, even the House comptime bill sunsets after 5 
years. This is yet another reasonable and sensible change to S. 4 that 
we should adopt and that will go a long way toward making S. 4 a truly 
worker-friendly bill.
  Briefly, with regard to flexible credit hours and flexible 
scheduling, I believe these provisions are simply unnecessary and will 
be harmful to workers if enacted. Employers currently have a wide range 
of options with regard to offering flexible scheduling options to 
employees within the context of the 40-hour workweek. Employees can, 
for example, work 4, 10-hour days and be allowed to take the fifth day 
off. What the flexible scheduling and flexible credit-hour provisions 
of this bill do instead is present employees with a Hobson choice; 
either take the flexible credit hour or flexible scheduling option or 
forgo the chance to earn overtime. Simply put, S. 4 does away with the 
40-hour workweek without providing anything for employees except a 
smaller paycheck. Despite claims to the contrary about the support for 
the idea of flexible scheduling, I sincerely doubt that American 
workers want to give up the 40-hour workweek in exchange for a 
potential 80-hour workweek.
  Mr. President, I believe that many American workers could benefit 
from the option of choosing compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay. 
As many have said during debate on this measure, the workplace has 
changed significantly since enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 
The American family has changed too. While many families might like to 
be able to take extra time to spend with their children or on other 
family matters, I don't believe that they would be willing to do so 
under the guise of S. 4.
  As with many bills that come before the Senate, S. 4 embodies 
principles that both Democrats and Republicans can support. I hope that 
we will be able to do the right thing when it comes to S. 4 and limit 
the bill's scope to compensatory time and include the additional, 
needed protections for American families and workers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry. Am I correct that we have our 30 
minutes and then the Senator from Missouri has the second 30 minutes? 
Usually under a cloture motion, the time is evenly divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the agreement last night, the order was 
that the Senator from Massachusetts would have the first period of time 
followed by the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will yield myself the final minute 
and 45 seconds. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes and fifty seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam President, I want to just end up this debate by talking about 
women in our work force.
  Madam President, 38 percent of hourly workers earning overtime pay 
are women; 11.6 million women work over 40 hours each week. This is 22 
percent of all working women. Why do they work more than 40 hours a 
week? Because they need the overtime pay.
  And 6.2 million women work over 48 hours a week each week. This is 12 
percent of all working women. Why? Because they need the overtime. They 
need the pay.
  And 3.6 million multiple job holders are women. This is 47 percent of 
all job holders. More women are getting second jobs. Why? Because they 
need the overtime pay.
  And 1.8 million women hold two or more jobs and work over 44 hours 
each week. This is half of all women with two or more jobs. Why? 
Because they need the money.
  The Ashcroft proposal abolishes the 40-hour week. Those women would 
not get the overtime because this bill abolishes the 40-hour week.
  Under the Ashcroft proposal, the decision about whether employees 
will be able to take the time off is left to the employer. This is not 
the case under the Landrieu and Baucus and Kerrey bill, where the 
employee makes the decision. This is not the case under the Murray 
amendment, where the employee makes the decision whether to take a 
maximum of 24 hours over the course of the year. That amendment was 
defeated in our committee. Why? Because the employee makes the 
decision.
  This bill is a pay reduction act for those women. That is why every 
women's organization that has fought for economic opportunity and 
progress for women--whether it be the minimum wage, the day-care 
program, pay equity, right across the board--every women's organization 
has condemned this bill because of what it would mean for working 
women.
  Madam President, I hope that the cloture vote will fail. This bill 
does not deserve the support of this body. We have an alternative that 
will address those issues. And with the leadership of Senators 
Landrieu, Baucus, and Kerrey, that is the way we should go.
  I yield the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, 
Senator Nickles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, if my colleagues from Massachusetts and 
Louisiana and Montana wish to offer a substitute, they can vote for 
cloture. We can consider their amendment. I am happy to vote on their 
amendment. If other Senators have different ideas, we would like to get 
to the bill. Yet,

[[Page S5287]]

our colleagues on the other side, they say, ``We've got amendments,'' 
but they do not let us vote on the amendments.
  They want to filibuster. They want to talk. But they do not want to 
vote. We want to vote. We want to give all Americans the same rights 
that we give Federal employees.
  If flextime is so bad, why don't my colleagues introduce a resolution 
or amendment to stop flextime for Federal employees? They can offer 
that as an amendment on this bill. Let us find out. Federal employees 
happen to like flextime. It works. It has not been abused. It is not 
employer-only. If my colleagues on the other side read the bill, it 
says ``mutually agreeable.'' It does not say the employer has the sole 
decision or the employee has the sole decision. It says ``mutually 
agreeable.'' That is in the bill.

  It works for Federal employees. Why don't we make it available for 
everybody else in America? Because my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle do not trust Americans? They do not trust businesspeople? 
They do not trust employees to be able to make this decision?
  The bill allows people, if they try comptime and they do not like it 
and they accumulate some hours and they did not use it, they can cash 
out. The employer has to pay. That is not optional. If the employee 
wants out and says, ``Hey, I don't like it. I want to go back to the 
old time where I can be paid overtime, be paid instead of comptime,'' 
they can be paid.
  Our colleagues do not trust employees to be able to make that 
decision. They do not want to give them the choice to be able to say, 
``Wait a minute. I have something coming up next week. I would like to 
work an extra hour, maybe every night for 5 days so I can have Friday 
afternoon off with my kids.'' They do not trust American women and 
American men to be able to make that kind of decision.
  They are saying they are going to deny that kind of decision. That is 
what they are doing by filibustering this bill. They are saying to all 
Americans, we think you should not be able to make that decision. We 
are going to preempt you from making that decision.
  I think that is a serious mistake. They do not trust American 
citizens, employers and employees, to be able to work out what is 
mutually agreeable. They are not going to allow employees, women or 
men, to be able to work, say, 9 hours a day for 8 or 9 days, and be 
able to take off every other Friday.
  Why won't they let them do that? Why don't we give Americans that 
opportunity to have that choice, have that option? We are not mandating 
it. We are trying to give them that option.
  So I want to compliment my colleague from Missouri. I ask unanimous 
consent for an additional minute, or ask my colleague for an additional 
minute.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield the Senator 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. NICKLES. I want to compliment my colleague from the State of 
Missouri who has given great leadership on this issue to give all 
Americans the same choice and options that we give Federal employees. I 
cannot believe my colleagues on the other side will not allow us to go 
forward with this bill. They can filibuster it. They may kill it. They 
may kill the whole darn thing. But I think they ought to be ashamed. If 
they want to vote for the Baucus amendment, let us vote for cloture. 
The Baucus amendment would be in order. Let us vote on it.
  Then for my colleague to say this is against working women, that is 
hogwash. Working Women magazine and Working Mother magazine both 
endorse this bill. This bill, particularly the flextime provision, is 
very positive for working women.
  I compliment my colleague and urge all of my colleagues to vote for 
cloture so we can help the working men and women of this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
4 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am pleased to co-sponsor the Family 
Friendly Workforce Act. I have always had a long-standing interest in 
helping workers balance the competing interests of work and family.
  Ten years ago, I introduced the Federal Employee Leave Act of 1987. 
This act established a type of leave sharing in which employees could 
donate some of their annual leave to a coworker who faced a personal 
emergency, but who lacked sufficient leave to attend to the problem. 
The Leave Act was good for workers because it provided an innovative 
way for employees to balance work and family when faced with a serious 
or unexpected illness.
  I now stand before you co-sponsoring another bill which will provide 
relief to American workers when it comes to balancing work and family. 
The Family Friendly Workplace Act is not only good for American 
workers, but it is particularly good for women and children.
  This bill recognizes that the American workforce is changing--
especially for women. The number of women in the workplace has 
increased. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women now 
account for 46 percent of the labor force. Over 67 percent of women 
with children under the age of 6 are working. That is compared with 
only 10 percent of working women 50 years ago. Moreover, 81 percent of 
American women will be in the work force, by the year 2000.
  While the numbers of women in the workplace have changed, one thing 
that has remained constant is the difficulty in balancing family and 
career. Ask any working parent, particularly mothers, and they will 
tell you that there are never enough hours in the day when it comes to 
the children. We all know the countless women who spend hours 
chauffeuring their children from one event to another. There are always 
school plays, baseball games, dance recitals, PTA meetings, Boy Scout 
and Girl Scout meetings, doctors visits, school field trips, dental 
appointments--all in need of a parent's company. This list does not 
even cover household errands like: Going grocery shopping, picking up 
the dry-cleaning, running to the pharmacy to get medicine for a sick 
child, or picking up the children from daycare.
  It is about time for the American workplace to recognize the need for 
working parents to have flexibility in their work schedules. I think 
the 58.2 million working women of America want this too. I also think 
the millions of children currently in daycare deserve to spend more 
quality time with their mothers.
  According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the No. 1 issue women want 
to bring to the President's attention is the difficulty of balancing 
work and family obligations. This is not surprising considering that 
since 1965, time spent with children has dropped 40 percent.
  The Family Friendly Workplace Act is good for working mothers because 
it provides choice and flexibility. For women who work overtime, this 
bill would allow them to choose time-off or comptime instead of 
receiving pay for their overtime work. For example, an employee could 
accrue up to 240 hours of comptime which could be used to attend a 
child's soccer game or school play.
  For the majority of women who do not work overtime, this bill 
provides for flextime in the form of biweekly work schedules and 
flexible credit hours. With biweekly work schedules, a mother could 
schedule 80 hours over a 2-week period in a way that would let her have 
every other Friday off to spend time with her children.
  With flexible credit hours, a working mom could accumulate up to 50 
hours of paid time-off. If her child gets sick, she could then use some 
of her banked hours to stay home and care for the child. The idea of 
flexible work schedules is what women want--81 percent of women support 
more flexible work schedules like those this legislation would make 
possible.
  I support this bill because it is voluntary. Nothing in the bill 
requires employees to adjust their work schedules. Nothing in the bill 
requires employers to implement comptime or flexible hour programs. 
Instead, this legislation encourages employees and employers to work 
together. There are tough penalties in the bill to prevent

[[Page S5288]]

employers from coercing or intimidating employees. An employer cannot 
force a worker to take comptime instead of paid overtime.
  In listening to the debate on the floor, I am appalled by the 
opposition to this bill by the Democrats and the labor unions.
  Labor unions of the United States have a problem with flextime. 
Frankly, if we end this debate with American women asking: What are the 
labor unions doing in this mess? Why are they interfering?--I am 
afraid, in the final analysis, the labor unions will find out they were 
working for the wrong cause.
  I do not understand what is wrong with giving parents flexibility in 
the workplace to spend more quality time with their children. I also 
fail to see why my Democratic colleagues are against giving working 
women in the private sector the same luxury of work flexibility that 
women in the public sector have. Isn't it about time that the 
flexibility afforded to Federal employees for almost 20 years now be 
extended to the 80 million private sector employees in this country 
with this bill?
  This bill is long overdue. It clearly makes it easier for the working 
mother to juggle the ever-challenging responsibilities of motherhood 
and work. I think it is high time for flexibility and fairness in the 
workplace. What is good enough for Federal employees is also good 
enough for private sector employees.
  Madam President, these remarks are addressed to the Democrats on the 
other side of the aisle. It was not long ago that they took a great 
deal of pride in saying they were for family and medical leave. 
Everybody knows what family leave is. It is an effort to get businesses 
to give people time off when there is a family illness or when they 
need time off because something very serious has happened.
  Frankly, family leave versus flextime is like an ant versus an 
elephant. Now, I do not know why I chose elephant, but in this case it 
is good, because the Republicans are for the real--real--family time.
  Plain and simple, this bill modernizes the labor laws of America to 
meet the challenges of our day. There are no recessions. There is no 
depression. What we have is five times as many women working and 
raising children, and they need flexible time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Missouri for 
the great job he has done.
  In survey after survey, the American people endorse the ideas and the 
basic principles of this bill. More flexibility in the workplace, 
letting workers choose how they want to be compensated for overtime, 
letting workers decide what they need most--time with their family, 
time to study, time to relax; or time-and-a-half overtime pay to meet 
their financial obligations.
  Madam President, an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer, I think, 
summarized it very well. ``A little flexibility would be a godsend to 
good workers who also want to be good parents.'' The article went on to 
say, ``It could benefit employers, too, who'd find it easier to recruit 
and retain productive workers.''
  President Clinton has stated, ``We should pass a flextime law that 
allows employees to take overtime pay in money or in time off, 
depending on what is better for their family.''
  Clearly, what we have here are the makings of a national consensus. I 
believe it would be a terrible shame if we let this popular and this 
necessary legislation fall victim to partisan wrangling here on the 
Senate floor.
  Madam President, this is a proworker bill. The bill requires that all 
participation be voluntary. Let me say it again--voluntary. All 
participation under this bill must be voluntary. If a worker does not 
want it, he or she can just say no. No punishment, no retribution, no 
consequence. Under no circumstances will participation be a condition 
of employment.
  Further, Madam President, the bill has powerful anticoercion 
provisions in very strong penalty language for any employer who 
violates those provisions. I believe, Madam President, we have already 
established some level of cooperation in this bill. For example, during 
the markup, Senators Kennedy and Wellstone were very concerned about 
the status of unused accrued comptime hours in the event of a 
bankruptcy--a legitimate concern. They wanted to create stronger 
protections for employees. In the spirit of compromise, I asked our 
distinguished colleague Senator Grassley, whose Judiciary subcommittee 
has the proper jurisdiction and expertise on this issue, to draft 
legislation to deal with these concerns. Yesterday, Senator Grassley 
came to the floor and offered his amendment to improve this bill. 
Unfortunately, regrettably, we have not yet been able to vote on 
Senator Grassley's amendment.
  Madam President, we should build on this bipartisan spirit of 
cooperation, the bipartisan spirit of that amendment, and work toward 
passage of this bill. I believe, Madam President, we need to put the 
focus on the needs of those workers. We should look at this issue from 
the perspective of the working people who are going to be directly 
affected. Let us pass a bipartisan response to their very legitimate 
concerns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I wish to add my thanks to my 
distinguished colleague from Missouri for his leadership on this bill.
  I rise today in support of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I will 
read a letter from a small businessperson, Gary Tharnish, in Lincoln, 
NE, dated April 30, 1997. I will read this because I think it does, in 
fact, cut directly to the essence of what this bill is about. As my 
distinguished colleague before me made very clear, this is a voluntary 
bill. This is not a mandate. This is about flexible work time for our 
men and women.
  I will read this letter from Gary Tharnish, the owner of Burton's 
Flowers:

       Dear Senator Hagel: It is my understanding that S-4, 
     ``Compensatory Time'' will soon come to the floor for a vote. 
     I would like to urge you to vote in favor of this bill. As a 
     small business person my employees are begging me to offer 
     them compensatory time. I explain to them I can not offer 
     this. They do not understand the governments intrusion into 
     their personal affairs. I would like to explain the situation 
     an employee is in.
       Elaine is a mother of 3 children. This day and age it is so 
     important for a mother to be home when her children get out 
     of school. In order to make ends meet Elaine needs to work. 
     Her options are a full time job and children home alone, or 
     part time work. I offer her and 2 other women a part time job 
     from 9:00 to 3:00 so they can be home when their kids get 
     home. However in the summer they are not able to work. They 
     would love to take their overtime pay and use it at that 
     time. At Valentines Day and Mother's Day they receive a lot 
     of overtime. They would love to use their ``time and a half'' 
     hours to receive pay during the summer.
       Please, I am asking that you vote in favor of S-4. All 
     Small Businesses and the thousands of constituents working 
     for them will benefit.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gary J. Tharnish.

  Madam President, this really does say it very effectively, very 
succinctly, and I think it encompasses what we are trying to do with 
this bill.
  I ask my colleagues to spend some time in the remaining minutes that 
we have, reviewing their own constituencies, reviewing their own 
situations for their own workers in their States. I strongly urge 
cloture be invoked this afternoon and my colleagues vote in favor of 
the Family Friendly Workplace Act.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, the Senate once again has the opportunity 
to move beyond rhetoric and pass a bill that will really help working 
parents and their families.
  This afternoon's cloture motion represents the second time those of 
us who support the Family Friendly Workplace Act, S. 4, have worked to 
invoke cloture--to move this issue to a vote. And yet, the minority has 
blocked consideration of this measure despite S. 4's wide public 
support and bipartisan support here and in the House.
  The Family Friendly Workplace Act will help working parents balance 
the

[[Page S5289]]

demands of having a family and holding down a job. Working parents, 
particularly women, are looking for more flexibility in their schedules 
and more time with their children. In fact, according to a recent Labor 
Department report, ``the number one issue women want to bring to the 
President's attention is the difficulty of balancing work and family 
obligations.'' And, according to Lynn Hayes, author of ``The Best Jobs 
in America for Parents,'' when working parents are asked what they 
desire most in a job, a majority answer ``flexibility in scheduling.'' 
Similarly, according to a study commissioned a few years ago by 
Arizona's Salt River project of the Southwest region, a majority of 
parents with children under 13 are willing to trade salary increases 
for flexible time, leave, and dependent-care benefits.
  There are other studies showing that Americans want flexibility in 
the workplace. In a work/family study conducted by Johnson & Johnson, 
for example, the company expected a need for child care to surface. 
Instead, ``the big issue that popped out was that of all the things 
that we would do as a corporation in support of parents, the biggest 
factor was that they wanted a flexible work schedule.'' And Federal 
employees, who already have this flexibility, support it in large 
numbers.
  As the parent of two children and grandparent of four, I have seen 
first hand how difficult it can be to effectively balance work and 
family responsibilities today. Parents are working just as hard or 
harder than ever before just to make ends meet without gaining 
additional time or money for their families. That's because our tax 
laws take too much of working parents' hard-earned dollars. It is also 
because our outdated labor laws make it impossible for many employees 
to work together with their employers to develop schedules that better 
respond to the demands of work and family.
  The problem was highlighted in a recent Newsweek cover story on the 
problem parents and their children encounter when parents do not have 
enough time to spend with their children. In the article, Kevin Dwyer, 
assistant director of the National Association of School Psychologists, 
cites research showing that, when parents do not have enough time to 
spend with their children, it leads to kids being ``more aggressive, 
more deviant and more oppositional.''
  That brings us back to why passage of S. 4, the Family Friendly 
Workplace Act, is so important. S. 4 will give millions of working 
parents, and in particular an estimated 28.8 million women paid by the 
hour in the private sector, the flexibility to better juggle their 
responsibilities both as parents and employees.
  By updating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Family Friendly 
Workplace Act will allow hourly wage workers and their employees to 
develop flexible work schedules. Under the FLSA, hourly workers in the 
private sector are not allowed to develop flexible work arrangements 
with their employers, even though public sector employees and salaried 
private sector employees can.
  In fact, as noted, Federal employees have been allowed to participate 
in flexible scheduling programs since 1978. It has worked well, and 
fully three-quarters of these employees report more time for their 
families and higher morale. Eight out of ten Federal workers surveyed 
by the General Accounting Office are pleased with the flexible 
scheduling option and want the program continued.
  The Family Friendly Workplace Act will extend such opportunities to 
the private sector by guaranteeing, upon agreement between employer and 
employee, specific flexible work options.
  First, it will allow hourly wage employees and their employers 
together to choose whether the employee will be compensated with time-
and-a-half pay or, compensatory time-and-a-half time. Some families 
need additional income; some families need more time to juggle the 
demands of parenthood. Whereas current law provides many working 
parents with the opportunity only for extra pay, S. 4 provides a choice 
between increased pay or time.

  The Family Friendly Workplace Act also provides, if agreed to by both 
employer and employee, a way for employees to bank overtime hours (up 
to six weeks of paid time) so that, when needed, employees will have a 
way to take extended leave and still receive a paycheck. Allowing 
employees to bank overtime hours, and be paid for those hours, is 
preferable for most workers, since many employees cannot afford to take 
extended unpaid time off to take care of a sick child or other 
dependent.
  Moreover, under S. 4, at the end of the year, employers must cash out 
by paying the employee for the unused accumulated hours. The employee 
must also be able to cash out his or her accumulated leave within 30 
days.
  S. 4 also allows employees to develop biweekly, or flextime 
schedules. For example, under current law an employer cannot allow an 
hourly wage employee to work 45 hours one week in exchange for 35 hours 
the next week so that the worker can attend, for example, a child's 
baseball game, a parent-teacher conference, or doctor's appointment. S. 
4 will change this rigid interpretation of the FLSA. It will allow 
workers the ability to arrange biweekly work schedules--the employee 
could work any combination of 80 hours over two weeks, if agreed to by 
the employer. Someone could work a long week and then a short week to 
best fit the needs of his or her family.
  As a safeguard against abuse, S. 4 requires that any flexible work 
arrangement or banked overtime hours be agreed upon by both the 
employer and the employee, without coercion. Collective bargaining 
agreements would remain unaffected, and revised work schedules could be 
worked into a collective bargaining agreement.
  Madam President, the Family Friendly Workplace Act will update labor 
law to allow for increased flexibility in the workplace and to better 
reflect the needs of today's families. As we all know, today's parents 
are under a great deal of pressure--to provide for their children 
financially and provide the time needed to raise a healthy child, 
capable of contributing positively to society. We in Congress should 
respond by correcting the law, when possible and without mandate, to 
improve the ability of parents to provide for their children.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote to invoke cloture, pass S. 
4, and send it to the President for signature.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I would like to speak briefly about the 
amendment I have introduced to S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. 
This bill, in my estimation goes a long way toward giving Americans 
more flexibility in how they fulfill their responsibilities to work and 
their families. S. 4 provides working Americans an option which is 
already available to public sector employees, the ability to choose 
compensatory time off in lieu of cash overtime pay. Further, the bill 
assures private sector employees that their choice to take either 
compensatory time or overtime pay will be protected. The use of 
coercion, intimidation, or harassment to force a private sector 
employee to take either compensatory time or overtime pay as a 
condition of employment is expressly prohibited under this bill. My 
amendment simply extends those same assurances to public safety 
officers.
  In my State of Washington, Jim Mattheis, president of the Washington 
State Council of Police and Sheriffs, reports that compensatory time is 
extremely popular with the families of working law enforcement. Access 
to compensatory time has increased the morale, efficiency, and safety 
of law enforcement officers. More importantly, compensatory time 
provides law enforcement families some much needed flexibility in work 
schedules which are exceptionally stressful.
  Unfortunately, my law enforcement constituents in Washington State 
report that the experience in the public sector has demonstrated a need 
to ensure that employees are free to choose whether to work for 
overtime pay, to use their compensatory time within a reasonable amount 
of time once it is earned, or to preserve their comptime banks.
  Police officers provide a tremendous service to our communities. They 
put their lives on the line each day to protect our families and our 
communities. Public safety officers deserve to have the simple 
assurance that their choice of compensatory time or cash overtime pay 
is preserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. May I inquire as to the time remaining?

[[Page S5290]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes and 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in behalf 
of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. Unfortunately, so many statements 
about it this afternoon do not reflect the act. They may reflect some 
attacks on the act or what someone has said about the act, but the 
truth is this act is a totally voluntary way for employees to cooperate 
with their employers to provide more flextime, more time for people to 
spend with their families.
  This is not some new potential that has never been tried anywhere. We 
began in 1978 in the Federal Government to offer these kinds of 
benefits to Government workers. They have been tried in the 
governmental setting during the 1970's, all through the 1980's, and now 
through most of the 1990's. I have been in the Senate for a couple 
years, almost 3 years now, and I have not had a single Federal worker 
come to me and say this is a terrible means for abusing workers. When 
you survey those workers, the General Accounting Office, which surveyed 
the workers, found out that at a 10-1 ratio those workers said this was 
a very important way to help them accommodate the needs of their 
families.
  The Senator from Montana said if Federal Government workers get 
comptime, so should other workers. Well, Federal Government workers do 
get comptime and so should other workers. That is what this bill is 
about. But Federal Government workers get flextime and so should other 
workers. And that is what this bill is about.
  Now, I appreciate the patience of Senators on this flextime cloture 
vote. This is not the way we intended for this to unfold. We have made 
an effort to reach out to those on the other side of the aisle. We have 
conferred with them about constructing some amendments because they 
have raised concerns. Now, when they raised concerns, we sort of 
thought it would be appropriate if they would bring amendments to the 
floor to address those concerns. As a matter of fact, no amendment from 
the Democratic side was offered for consideration--no amendment was 
offered for consideration.
  So in an effort to address the concerns, we developed amendments that 
would meet those concerns that the Democrats had been raising. As soon 
as we developed those amendments--and there were a number of Senators, 
and Senator Grassley has already been mentioned on a bankruptcy 
amendment, there were two amendments about worker choice between 
comptime and overtime pay, and also amendments about so-called 
discrimination so to make sure in spite of the fact that the language 
that is already in the bill that prohibits an employer from selecting a 
worker to do overtime work because he is one that would only take one 
kind of compensation or another, we wanted to prohibit that. We not 
only wanted to reflect their concerns, we were willing to bring our own 
amendments. There were probably seven or eight amendments yesterday 
ready to come to the floor to assuage the concerns raised on the 
Democratic side of the aisle. And what happened? Instead of addressing 
this bill, they chose to filibuster this bill and talk about other 
things.
  I am at a loss, when they talk about the need for two-way 
cooperation. The Senator from Louisiana comes today. She says she comes 
to offer amendments and offer thoughts. Well, I got the thoughts part. 
But we have not had any amendments offered. There has been an 
opportunity to offer amendments. If you really want to offer 
amendments, we want them. I stood here on this floor Monday afternoon 
and pled for people to bring amendments, to come and let us consider 
them. I stood here yesterday afternoon and pled, ``If you have 
amendments to this bill, please come and bring them. Let us correct any 
defects.'' And did they come? No.
  Yet when we brought amendments to try and address the very problems 
that they mentioned, they filibustered. They talked about things much 
as they did today. With the 30 minutes allowed in the bill, the 
Democrats chose to spend most of the time talking about other things.
  The truth of the matter is we have a tremendous opportunity to extend 
to the American workers some very important rights and benefits that 
are enjoyed by the boardroom folks, the salaried folks, the supervisors 
and managers of America, and all the Government workers of America have 
either comptime or comptime and flextime. In enactment after enactment 
on the floor of this Congress we have extended those rights both to 
local government workers, to State government workers, to Federal 
Government workers, and we have reinforced that, and the President has 
even extended those rights by Executive order. This morning, while I 
was at the White House for the signing of the IDEA law, the President 
pulled me aside and said, ``John, there is nothing more important we 
can do for American families--nothing more important than to provide 
flexible working arrangements for American families.'' We do want to 
cooperate. My intention to cooperate will not be extinguished no matter 
what happens today.

  I think what we have here is a filibuster to kill flextime without 
real debate and without offering real changes. It is a search and 
destroy mission targeted at killing flextime, flextime that would help 
the men and women of America accommodate the competing needs of their 
families and their home place.
  Madam President, 57 Senators who now sit in this body, and Vice 
President Gore, voted to extend flextime benefits to Federal employees 
in the last decade and they voted to extend them to State employees and 
they voted to do it without anywhere near the protections we have put 
in this bill. The protections simply were not there, and they say that 
employees cannot make a decision about when they can use their 
comptime--that simply does not reflect this bill. The bill says that an 
employee cannot be forced to use his or her comptime at anytime, so the 
employee makes the decision, and if the employee makes the decision to 
cash it in, the employee can get the money back. Right now, there are 
60 million hourly workers who are waiting for an opportunity to have 
comptime and flextime benefits.
  I challenge Senators to match their words with deeds and to vote to 
give millions of Americans the benefits that Federal workers have 
enjoyed since the 1970's. Today's cloture vote is far more than it may 
seem. Every vote against cloture is a vote to kill flextime for 
millions of working American families.
  No one defends current law as adequate to meet the needs of today's 
family, especially President Clinton. As I mentioned before, this 
morning President Clinton expressed to me his belief that flexible work 
arrangements are the most important thing we can do for families. The 
President wants a bill he can sign.
  I, again, challenge Senators to be serious, start negotiating and 
stop stalling.

                          ____________________