[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 79 (Monday, June 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5406-S5412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE FAMILY FRIENDLY WORKPLACE ACT

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, for the next 15 minutes or so, since we 
are talking about vetoes, I would like to talk about the Family 
Friendly Workplace Act, S. 4. This is a piece of legislation that has 
been authored by the good Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, 
myself, and others. It is designed to make the workplace a friendlier 
place, a more flexible place. Lo and behold, in the middle of the 
debate, the President has announced to the country he would have to 
veto this bill, which is as puzzling as his veto of this emergency 
relief. He has said he would have to veto the act. We have had a 
filibuster underway on this Family Friendly Workplace Act. We have 
tried to break the filibuster twice and have failed to do so because of 
the supporters of the President on the other side of the aisle.
  If you want to know what the American public thinks about this kind 
of legislation, you just need to go talk to them. In a survey for Money 
magazine in May of this year, 64 percent of the public and 68 percent 
of women would prefer time off to overtime pay if they had the choice, 
which they do not. The Federal workers, since 1978, have had this 
choice, but not these hourly laborers. If they had the choice, they 
would prefer time off to overtime pay. That is what the Family Friendly 
Workplace Act is about. It is about giving employees and their 
employers the voluntary--underscore voluntary--option to design 
programs to meet this desire.
  A Penn & Schoen survey found that 75 percent support the choice of 
time off in lieu of overtime pay. President Clinton's own Labor 
Department has reported that help in balancing the needs of work and 
family is the No. 1 need among working American women. You would think, 
given what we have seen and the stress that is being pounded upon the 
average American family, we would be stepping forward with legislation 
such as S. 4, and trying to create a system in the workplace that 
allows these working families to meet their special needs and to adjust 
the time they need to juggle between family and the workplace.
  Mr. President, I see we have been joined by the distinguished Senator 
from Wyoming, who has been an advocate of the Family Friendly Workplace 
Act. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming, to share his 
thoughts on this legislation with us.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague 
for arranging this special order.
  It seems to me that this is something that is very important. I have 
watched this discussion with great interest, having had some experience 
in small business, and, I must confess, I have been very surprised by 
it. It seems to me that over the years, particularly the last 2\1/2\ 
years, we have spent in this body a great deal of time talking about 
making things more family friendly. We have talked about how we could 
provide more time for families to share in the schooling of their 
youngsters, to share in their communities, to share in the things that 
make communities strong, and to work that in to our professional lives.
  Then comes a proposal to do that which allows for flextime, which 
allows for comptime, and we find suddenly a great deal of opposition. 
That is a puzzle to me. As I mentioned, I have been in a small business 
where you don't have many employees, and I recognize from the employer 
side that there has to be some communication, because you may not be 
able to spare someone for a certain length of time. On the other side, 
I think it is equally or perhaps even more important that the employee 
is not forced by the employer to take the time differently than they 
would like to. But it is my understanding and my belief that in this 
bill those things are protected, that it is a cooperative agreement 
between the employer and the employee, to come to these conclusions.
  So I was very disappointed. Even though I haven't spoken a great deal 
on it, I was very disappointed last week when we didn't get enough 
votes to vote cloture. There certainly are enough votes to pass the 
bill. I am disappointed that the White House has apparently indicated 
the President will not sign the bill, largely as a result of the labor 
unions to which the White House is so sensitive. This Family Friendly 
Workplace Act would help working Americans do the things--the

[[Page S5407]]

very things--that the President has been talking about and made an 
issue of in the last election and since. And then we find there is 
opposition to it.
  Most Americans, I believe--the Americans that I have talked to--do, 
in fact, want flexibility in the workplace, would like to have the 
opportunity to be able to make some adjustments. We have a business in 
our town of Cheyenne. It is called Unicover. They are the ones who put 
out first-day stamps, first-day covers. The owner testified before the 
Senate Labor Committee a few months ago. His employees came to him and 
asked for comptime/flextime so there could be some arrangements. He 
wants to offer that to his employees but cannot, of course, until S. 4 
is passed. I suppose this has been said--in fact, when you are 
discussing an issue like this, everything has been said --but the May 
1997 survey from Money magazine found 68 percent of working women would 
prefer comptime to overtime pay. The Labor Department has indicated 
that it would help in balancing work and attention to the family, which 
is the No. 1 issue for working American women.
  So I am truly puzzled by the opposition to it, and I can only imagine 
that it is simply a political opposition brought on by the opposition 
of the labor unions to it, which surprises me as well, because 
certainly union leaders and union members want to do something with 
their families as well.
  Americans need the flexibility in the workplace if we are to 
accomplish the things that we want to, if we are to accommodate the 
fact that more and more women, more and more mothers are in the 
workplace and, therefore, since both family members often are working 
that there does need to be flexibility.
  Our current laws go back to 1938. Most jobs were in manufacturing; 
very strict. One-payroll families were the norm. That has obviously 
changed to where now two-payroll families are, indeed, the norm. In 
1938, 16 percent of the women with children worked outside the home; in 
1997, more than 70 percent work outside the home.
  This Family Friendly Workplace Act creates new choices for employees 
and employers. By mutual agreement, they can agree to substitute some 
alternatives for overtime, some alternatives to the 40-hour operation. 
They can take time off to do the things that they need to do or bank 
some hours with comptime. Federal workers, I understand, have enjoyed 
this flexibility scheduling now for nearly 20 years, and they can do 
that. Why not the rest of the working community? S. 4 protects workers' 
rights, and that is important, very important. Penalties for direct or 
indirect employer coercion are doubled from current law. Accumulated 
comptime may be paid in cash by year's end.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we intend to continue to push, 
continue to address S. 4 in this Congress and, hopefully, get the bill 
passed. It meets the realities of the modern-day workplace, it meets 
the needs of modern-day families, and is something that I think is very 
favored among people in this country.
  It is a little frustrating sometimes to find this kind of dilemma 
that we are caught up in this week, quite frankly, a situation where if 
a bill doesn't suit the President, it has to bring us to a standstill. 
After all, the President is not a king; the President doesn't run the 
country. He has to give as well as the Congress. That is what this is 
about. Here we find another that is very similar.

  I hope that we find some areas of agreement that will allow us to put 
into place S. 4 and protect the rights of workers, protect the 
opportunity for options, protect the opportunity for families to have a 
friendly workplace. I hope we do it very soon.
  Mr. President, I thank my friend for this time and for his work and 
that of the Senator from Missouri on this bill. It has been exemplary. 
Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a moment.
  Mr. THOMAS. Sure.
  Mr. COVERDELL. It is sort of ironic that this Monday afternoon we are 
beset with Presidential vetoes or threats to veto. He has indicated 
that he will veto the Family Friendly Workplace Act if it includes 
flextime, which is what I think most of us feel is among the more 
important features, to allow working families to adjust their time.
  The Senator from Wyoming has talked about compromise, but I just want 
to reiterate and try to get your impression. Don't you find it unusual 
that the only thing we have been met with here is a filibuster, and 
that if you are really interested in creating a family workplace work 
environment, wouldn't you think we would be getting suggested new 
language or something that might compromise, instead of sort of a 
straight-arm and voting down attempts to end the filibuster?
  Mr. THOMAS. I say to the Senator, I think that is curious. If you 
have an issue where you are on different sides of the issue and opposed 
to one another, then you get this kind of thing. But here is one where, 
if you went around and talked about opportunities to have some choices 
in the workplace, if you talked about a way to allow people to have 
some flextime with their families, everybody would agree, nobody would 
disagree with that.
  So it is strange that having that as the premise, having that as the 
basis that we find instead of searching for a way to make it work, as 
you say, it becomes an absolute stoppage of anything happening. It is 
curious, and I am surprised. I guess that is why I am here expressing 
some surprise in the way this has turned.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. As usual, he has 
contributed substantially to the discussion.
  Mr. President, in my opening remarks, I spoke of the percentage of 
working women who would prefer time off to overtime pay if they had a 
choice, which they don't. That is what we are trying to create here.
  I read this very interesting article from the Radcliffe Public Policy 
Institute, ``Work and Family Integration.'' It is very interesting. It 
says:

       Economic changes have direct consequences on work and 
     family life.

  That says it all. I have been arguing for the better part of 2 years 
now that when we talk about American culture and what is happening in 
the American family, we tend to point fingers to who is causing the 
trouble, and Hollywood gets a pretty good dose of it. But I don't think 
Hollywood holds a candle to Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam has put so much 
economic pressure on the working families that it has dramatically 
changed the nature of the way these families function.
  It goes on to say:

       It is increasingly common for all adult family members to 
     spend a greater number of hours at work in order to make up 
     for declining median family incomes to fulfill personal 
     career goals or to cater to growing workplace demands.

  Again, I would argue, that while the median family income has 
declined, the biggest culprit in absorbing those median income salaries 
is the Government. In fact, by our analysis in Georgia, an average 
family today forfeits 55 percent of their income after they pay direct 
taxes, almost 40 percent, cost of Government regulations, $7,000 per 
family, and their share of higher interest payments because of the 
national debt that has been put on their backs.
  That pressure needs relief in many ways. No. 1, which we are talking 
about here, we need to lower the economic pressure, we need to lower 
the taxes on those average families; No. 2, there should be no 
impediment in the workplace that blocks working families and the 
companies for whom they work from finding ways to suit and balance the 
needs of these work careers and the needs at home.
  This article says:

       Married women with children have entered the labor force in 
     record numbers. They, therefore, have less time for 
     caregiving in the home.

  They have less time. We have seen the SAT scores aren't as good, 
teenage violence is worse, teenage suicide has quadrupled, and you have 
to say to yourself, ``Well, if there is not as much opportunity or 
attention to govern the home, you are going to have problems like this 
that will begin to emerge.''

       Many parents, both mothers and fathers, feel conflicted and 
     torn between spending time with their families and meeting 
     workplace demands.

  This is the point I was making a moment ago: A massive amount of 
pressure in both places and we are operating under a workplace that is 
governed

[[Page S5408]]

by laws that are a half a century old, almost 60 years old. You think 
back 60 years to 1930, the 1930 workplace. First of all, it was mostly 
rural. Now it is only 2 percent that is rural. Just reflect for a 
minute on the kinds of massive change that have occurred between 1930 
and 1997 and you can understand that the governance in the workplace 
probably, like everything else, requires some modernization.

  It says work and family life should not be in opposition but should 
enrich each other. Work and family life should not be in opposition but 
should enrich each other. That is what this legislation is trying to 
do. It is trying to allow the workplace to adjust to the different 
needs that the different workers have with regard to maintaining and 
governing their families.
  Here is a quote:

       It's like you are caught between a rock and a hard place 
     because if you want to have a family, you want to have a 
     couple of children, you can't do that unless you have lots of 
     money to support them. Well, you can, but you'd have to be 
     able to take care of them, at least provide the basics, and 
     in order to do that you either have to have your husband gone 
     all the time working so hard or working toward getting his 
     degree or else both of you have to be working, but the more 
     you're working, the less time you have with your kids, so 
     it's like you can't win.
  That is from a young woman in her twenties in Salt Lake City.

       But the more you're working, the less time you have with 
     your kids, so it's like you can't win.
  You know, we wonder why, even with the economy doing reasonably well, 
why you get so much anxiety coming out of the workplace. Well, that is 
it, right there, ``But the more you're working, the less time you have 
with your kids, so it's like you can't win.

  So here comes S. 4 and it says you and your employer voluntarily can 
make decisions and create options about what happens in the workplace 
so that hopefully it can help make it possible for you both to be 
working and still win. I am absolutely baffled by the threat from the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, ``I would have to veto this if 
flextime is left in the legislation.'' That sure does not square with 
anything we are seeing or reading.
  I was looking at the average hours per week parents devote to 
undivided child care--in other words, full blown. If the woman is 
employed, it is 6.6 hours per week. If she is unemployed, it is just 
under double, 12.9 hours a week, of undivided attention. It doubles.
  Now, you cannot unemploy these people to get this added time. That 
will not work, given what has been happening here in Washington for the 
last 30 years and given the economic pressure on them, but you can 
begin to modify the rules in the workplace so that there is an offset, 
an opportunity to adjust.
  Mr. President, we have just been joined by the senior Senator from 
New Mexico, chairman of the Budget Committee and a Senator most 
knowledgeable and concerned about a friendly workplace.
  I yield up to 10 minutes if that is sufficient, to the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank you for those kind words, and, yes, that is 
sufficient.
  First of all, I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the Family 
Friendly Workplace Act. The way I see it, this bill is long overdue for 
American workers in the private sector. Federal employees have had 
flextime and comptime for nearly 20 years and it is about time the 
millions of American men and women who do not work for the Government 
receive the same benefits.
  I vigorously support this bill for the following three reasons. One, 
it is fair. Federal employees currently have comptime and flextime. It 
is voluntary. And it protects employees.
  Times have changed since we adopted the rigid 40-hour work week. 
Under current law, you cannot arrange a schedule to work 44 hours one 
week and save those 4 hours to take time off in the next week to be 
with your children or to do something very important to help your sick 
mother or your grandmother. Current law says you cannot do that even if 
you want to and your boss agree.

  Federal employees have had flextime for many, many years. What we 
have now found out is that Federal employees who have been 
participating in flextime are highly satisfied. That should not 
surprise anyone. It is a very rational and reasonable thing.
  Eight out of ten workers support continuation of the program; 72 
percent say they have more flexibility to spend more time with their 
families and on personal needs; 74 percent said the flexible schedule 
has improved their morale and made them feel better about their work 
and about their employers. If comptime flextime is good enough for 
Federal employees, then why not for the 80 million people that work in 
the private sector of America?
  For example, FBI employees have comptime and flextime. Isn't what is 
good enough for them also good enough for restaurant workers, hospital 
employees, hotel chain workers, telecommunication employees, and, yes, 
firemen, policemen, and others who might be burdened by the 40-hour-a-
week rigid nonflexible time?
  Federal workers can currently use their flextime schedules to attend 
such things as a school play, baseball games, PTA meetings, dance 
recitals, Boy Scout or Girl Scout meetings and activities, doctors 
visits, school field trips, and dental appointments for children. As a 
matter of fact, I say to my good friend, Senator Coverdell, we got 
those examples from people who said this is exactly what they would 
like to do and we got it from Federal employees who say this is exactly 
what they are doing.
  This bill, as I understand it, and I would not be supporting it 
without this, is good because it is voluntary or optional. It 
encourages employers and employees to work together to arrange 
schedules which fit the individual needs of employees and yet provide 
the management with enough opportunities to get the work done that they 
need done. Nothing in this bill requires employees to adjust their work 
schedules if they do not want to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. COVERDELL. You are right now on the core dispute. You have argued 
for the need in the new modern workplace for the flexible time and what 
it does to morale and conflicting schedules, and you said you would not 
be for this if it was not voluntary.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. That would be the same for me.
  As you know, if I could comment about it, not only is it voluntary, 
but the legislation has strict procedures to guarantee that it is 
voluntary, and there would be ramifications of severe proportions if an 
employer were to do anything other than make it voluntary.
  Mr. DOMENICI. No question. In fact, I was going to get to that in a 
moment.
  It is so voluntary that employees under this law can withdraw from a 
comptime and flextime arrangement at any time. Employees can cash out 
accrued hours of comptime and flextime at any time. These provisions 
are going to be enforced just as rigidly as the current provisions of 
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  This bill protects employees from employer misconduct because it 
contains anti-coercion provisions. I would not support it if it did not 
have this protection because this is what assures that it would really 
be voluntary. There are always people who would like to deny employees 
certain rights and some employees would like to not work as hard as 
they should for their employers. We cannot correct all of that.
  But obviously this law says that an employer cannot claim 
inconvenience as a reason for not allowing an employee to take 
comptime. Once the employer and employee have agreed to a schedule, the 
employer cannot then change his mind and say it would be inconvenient 
to do it that way.
  As an example, an employer cannot force an employee to accept time 
off rather than monetary overtime pay by promising to promote an 
employee. This is investigated in the same way that the Fair Labor 
Standards Act rules and regulations of today are handled on behalf of 
the American workingman and in fairness to the management and 
ownership.

  Now I do not understand why the Democrats and labor unions are 
standing in the way of bringing choice and flexibility to the American 
workplace. If Democrats really cared about the

[[Page S5409]]

best interests of American workers they would stop misleading the 
people about this bill and pass it.
  The Baucus-Kennedy substitute amendment does not help the American 
worker because it only provides comptime and does not contain the 
flextime biweekly work schedule of flexible credit hours. Flextime is 
very important. It is important to everyone in the workplace but most 
important to women and non-overtime workers.
  The combination, Mr. President, of comptime and flextime will benefit 
67 percent of all working women in the private sector. Whereas 
comptime, by itself, will only benefit 4.5 percent of all working women 
in the private sector.
  The Baucus-Kennedy bill wipes out flextime. Now, what could be more 
unfair than to penalize all but 4.5 percent of the working women in 
America by restructuring a bill so narrowly that only 4.5 percent are 
benefited? Under the broader bill with both flextime and comptime, 67 
percent of those same working women would have an option to better 
their work schedule to help them with their daily lives and with their 
families.
  The Baucus-Kennedy substitute amendment limits accrued comptime to 80 
hours a year, versus this bill's 240 hours. Doing the math, one can say 
that the Republican bill is three times as flexible for the American 
working people than the substitute being offered.
  The Democrats, and for some reason the labor unions, falsely claim 
that this bill will end the 40-hour workweek. This bill will allow 
employees who want a variation of the 40-hour week to have one--
voluntarily and with no coercion. For those workers who want to keep 
the standard schedule, they can. It is their option and their employers 
option. They do not have to change one bit. If they like the rigidity 
of 8-to-5 work with an hour off for lunch, then so be it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator.
  For those who want to keep the standard 40-hour workweek from the 
Depression, they can keep it that way. For those of us who are yearning 
to make the workplace more hospitable to our working people, for those 
of us who are concerned about family life and would like to have 
workers have a little more family time, we urge the labor unions to 
change sides on this.
  I saw a couple of my friends from the labor unions outside in the 
hall and my first remark to them when I walked out was, ``Why are you 
against the working women?'' Of course, we had a lot of fun after that. 
But actually that is the issue.
  This bill will help women more than anything else, to provide them 
with flexibility and no loss of pay. This flexibility can be used to 
make their lives better in the event they need family time off to take 
care of things other than work.
  I believe the other side of the aisle needs to listen to what the 
American worker wants: flexibility. Ninety-one percent of working 
mothers support flexible work schedules.
  Now, frankly, there are many other reasons we could discuss here on 
the floor. Until the public gets excited and worked up, and until women 
start writing the labor unions and asking them: What are you doing to 
us? Why don't you keep yourselves out of this issue? and, Why are you 
against this? things won't change. Until there is enough foment in 
society for more flexibility in the workplace, then reform will not 
occur.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for 
a really precise and very focused presentation on the nature of the 
volunteer provisions of this legislation and the safeguards that are 
built into the legislation to assure that it is indeed a voluntary 
opportunity for workers and their employers.
  Just a moment ago, before the Senator from New Mexico arrived, I read 
this quote from Radcliffe Public Policy Institute, where this woman in 
her twenties says, ``But the more you are working, the less time you 
have with your kids, so it's like you can't win.'' He makes a point 
that we are going to need a public furor out there because this is 
good, common sense. We are trying to make it so that this 20-year-old 
woman, whoever she is, can be in the workplace and can win, and can 
meet the needs and issues of her family. This article goes on to say 
that XYZ company--they don't name the company--is trying to figure out 
how to deal with this fact. You have this 30-year-old with two kids at 
home, who is not going to give you 16 hours a day, as they did when 
they were in their twenties. Yet, we still want to be globally 
competitive. I actually don't think we have a good answer. These 
people, the ones who have opted to have kids and work less, are getting 
hurt in their reviews.
  See, the current work rules just don't meet the current requirements, 
and you can't make it so that one shoe fits everybody. It just doesn't. 
There are different pressures on the working mothers and fathers. That 
is why I have been so complimentary of the Senator from Missouri for 
coming forward with the family friendly workplace.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I am glad to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I asked the Senator to yield for a question, which is, 
some who are opposed to this have indicated that this is a pay cut. Is 
it your understanding that when a person takes time and a half off with 
pay later instead of overtime pay, that that represents a pay cut? Or 
is that a way to have some time off the next week without taking a pay 
cut?
  Mr. COVERDELL. As the Senator knows, there is nothing about this 
legislation that represents, in any way, a detriment to the worker, as 
in a pay cut or any other function of their work. The only thing that 
happens with the passage of this is that workers have more options and 
opportunities, and under no condition would it lead to a pay cut--none.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I wonder if the Senator from Georgia had the 
opportunity to see the USA Today lead editorial, which says, ``Harried 
Workers Need Comp Time's Flexibility.'' I was kind of interested in the 
way they closed the editorial:

       A choice between time off and overtime is an option that 
     can benefit employees and employers alike.

  Their last words:

       Those who stand in the way deserve a permanent vacation.

  I recommend this editorial to the Senator.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I have not had a chance to read the editorial. But I 
say to the Senator from Missouri that in many discussions with 
individuals with whom I have not necessarily been philosophically 
together in the past, they think your legislation is correct--people of 
all persuasions. It is the kind of thing we ought to get into the 
workplace. If the Senator will yield, you and I are, at the moment, 
functioning on the time that the good Senator from Ohio has come to 
use. So if we might, I would like to yield up to 7 minutes to the 
Senator from Ohio, and then we might ask unanimous consent to get 
another minute or two.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I will be pleased to yield. I ask unanimous consent 
that the USA Today editorial entitled ``Harried Workers Need Comp 
Time's Flexibility'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Harried Workers Need Comptime's Flexibility

     Our View: But unions are blocking flexible work rules favored 
         by employees and employers alike
       What works better for you? Pay for overtime or compensatory 
     time off instead?
       Three quarters of workers say they want a choice. And they 
     should have it.
       With workers spending an hour more on the job each week 
     than they did 15 years ago and 60% of women working, many 
     workers are stretched to their limits in meeting family 
     needs. A survey by the independent Families and Work 
     Institute found 40% of workers saying they don't have enough 
     time for family chores; another third lack time for personal 
     needs.
       The problem has some businesses scrambling for answers. 
     Seven in 10 offer workers flexible starting and ending hours. 
     Many have added a personal day off. Some are experimenting 
     with ``free days'' that combine vacation, holiday and sick 
     leave.
       And many say they would like to offer time off for 
     overtime. But they can't, at least not to the 60 million 
     full-time hourly employees who make up the bulk of the 
     private workforce.
       Federal law bars the practice.

[[Page S5410]]

       The Fair Labor Standards Act mandates private hourly 
     workers be paid 1.5 times their hourly wage for each hour 
     over 40 worked in any seven-day period. No time off instead, 
     even if the employee wants it.
       It's a ridiculous situation, made more ludicrous by 
     fumbling over the issue in Congress. Both parties claim they 
     want comptime, but labor union resistance is causing the 
     Democrats to stall.
       Last week, the Senate couldn't agree even to allow a vote 
     on a comptime measure. The bill, similar to one already 
     passed by the House, would allow, but not require, employers 
     to offer employees 1.5 hours of paid time off for every hour 
     worked over 40 hours instead of paying overtime. Employees 
     could bank up to 240 comptime hours a year. They could use 
     them when they wanted as long as they provided reasonable 
     notice and doing so wouldn't cause undue disruption to the 
     business. Unused hours would be cashed at the end of the 
     year. Employees also could negotiate agreements with 
     employers for 80-hour, two-week schedules--45 hours one week, 
     35 the next, for example--without overtime.
       Any finding that employers coerced employees would lead to 
     double pay, heavy fines and potential jail time.
       Democrats say that's not good enough. They argue employers 
     will still coerce workers. But the real source of their 
     opposition lies elsewhere. Labor unions don't want comptime 
     except through negotiations with unions. And unions 
     contributed $30 million to Democratic campaigns last year.
       Without labor opposition, most differences over comptime 
     could be solved.
       A choice between time off and overtime is an option that 
     can benefit employees and employers alike. Those who stand in 
     the way deserve a permanent vacation.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his 
eloquent statement and comments about the need for S. 4. I also thank 
my friend and colleague from Missouri for the great work he has been 
doing to bring not only to the attention of the Senate but to the 
American people exactly what is at stake in regard to this bill.
  Mr. President, I am proud, again, to be on the floor to speak in 
favor of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. This bill is a truly 
necessary and forward-looking response to the major changes that have 
already taken place in the U.S. work force in the last few years.
  Mr. President, today's working men and working women feel battered 
between the conflicting demands of work and family. They feel there has 
to be a better way. I think they are right.
  Mr. President, the bill we are here to talk about on the floor today 
represents that better way--a better way for workers to balance the 
needs of family and the needs of the workplace. This bill gives working 
people the flexibility that they know would make a huge difference for 
the better in their lives.
  Mr. President, according to a survey conducted by the U.S. Department 
of Labor Women's Bureau, the top concern of working women is flexible 
scheduling in the workplace--flexible scheduling, which will allow them 
to balance their responsibilities at work with the needs of their 
children and the needs of their spouses. A stunning 66 percent of 
working women with children reported that their primary concern was the 
difficulty that they were having in balancing work and family.
  According to another recent poll conducted, 88 percent of all workers 
want more flexibility, either through scheduling flexibility or choice 
of compensatory time in lieu of traditional overtime pay. In that same 
poll, Mr. President, 75 percent--three-fourths--favored a change in the 
law that would permit hourly workers such a choice.
  These poll results tally with what most of us know intuitively, what 
we know from talking to our own constituents. As both the economy and 
American family life grow more and more complex, the men and women in 
America's work force want greater flexibility to be able to cope with 
all of these changes.
  The legislation known as S. 4 would do that. It does not propose 
doing something untried, something unheard of, something never used 
before. On the contrary, this is not revolutionary. We have a history 
of its use in the public sector, and we have a history of its use among 
employers who are not hourly but are salaried employees. All this bill 
does is give workers and their employers in the private sector the same 
kind of workplace flexibility that their counterparts have had for 
years in the public sector.
  Mr. President, I don't think it is outrageous to say that workers in 
the private sector should have the benefit of the same kind of 
flexibility Government workers have today. In fact, all it is is a fair 
shake. It is only equity and equality; it is only fairness.
  Mr. President, American society has changed a great deal over the 
last few decades. The stereotypical role of management and labor, male 
and female workers, simply does not exist anymore today. In 1938, when 
the original underlying legislation was passed, less than 16 percent of 
married women worked outside of the home. Today, more than 60 percent 
of married women work outside of the home. And 75 percent of mothers 
with school age children work outside the home today.
  The world has gone around many times in those years and the world has 
changed. The American society has changed. The squeeze on these 
workers, between family and job, is so great that workers themselves 
believe that action is absolutely imperative. That is why we are trying 
to change the outdated Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. President, this 
would be a real, positive and necessary change for real American 
working families.
  A few weeks ago, I was on the floor and I talked about the Morris 
family, an Ohio family. Clayton Morris, a father and a husband, is a 
public employee. That means he has the option of choosing compensatory 
time over traditional monetary overtime pay. He is free to spend 
important extra time, because of this, with his 2\1/2\-year-old son, 
Domenic.
  However, Clayton's wife Ann is a sales assistant for a Cleveland area 
business form company. That means she can't take time off to be with 
Domenic in lieu of overtime pay. The Federal Government today prohibits 
her from doing that. Ann has said, ``He''--referring to husband 
Clayton--``has the ability, if he works overtime, to store those hours. 
He can use the stored comptime to be at home where he is needed. 
However, when I need to be able to leave work, I end up having to take 
sick time or vacation time to do the very same thing. It would be 
really nice if I had a flexible schedule.''
  Mr. President, American workers and their employers want and are 
demanding this flexibility. Seemingly, countless studies and surveys 
have pointed out, time and time again, Americans' overwhelming need, 
desire, and support of a more flexible workplace schedule and the 
changes the Family Friendly Workplace Act would provide.
  Mr. President, if you look at a family like the Morrises, you can see 
one major reason for the broad public support for this bill. People in 
the private sector see their friends and family members who are in the 
public sector; they see how much this type of flexibility helps them 
and helps their families. They see it and know it works.
  Mr. President, I regret that thus far in the U.S. Senate, some 
Members of the Senate have chosen to stand in the way of the perfectly 
legitimate desire on the part of American workers and employers for a 
truly flexible, family-friendly workplace.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
under our control be extended by 10 minutes. We checked with the other 
side, and I believe they are in concurrence. This is so that the 
Senator might finish his remarks and appropriately not have to rush. 
Then we may be rejoined by the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me stress that it is 
not too late for this Senate to work toward an intelligent bipartisan 
resolution of this issue.
  I say to my friends: Let's put politics aside. Let's try to see how 
far we can move toward giving America's workers what they want, what 
they need, and what they deserve. This is one case where thus far the 
American people are far ahead of this Congress--far ahead of this 
Congress in the very real sense that they know this law needs to be 
changed. They know that we need to have this flexibility. They not only 
want it. They are demanding it.
  I am confident that in the days ahead and weeks ahead we will be able 
to bring about this change that the American workers--people who work 
by the hour, who are out there every day trying to make a difference, 
every day who are trying to balance their family

[[Page S5411]]

obligations with their obligations in the workplace--need. They need 
this type flexibility that S. 4 will give them.
  I again commend my colleague from Georgia for the great work that he 
has done on this bill, and my colleague from Missouri for bringing this 
matter to the floor.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio. I hope 
that the family that he alluded to in the term of his career will find 
the relief we are so avidly pursuing here.
  I have been reading--the Senator wasn't present through all of it--
from the Radcliffe Public Policy Institute, the great article that 
talks about the rigors and stress in the workplace. And it says, 
``Effects of Economic Changes on Families and Children.'' It is a short 
article. I hope everybody gets a chance to read it.
  It says that because mothers assume more of the caretaking 
responsibilities for children, the elderly, and frail, the problems of 
integrating work and family responsibilities can disproportionately 
impact women, both professionally and personally, the very point that 
S. 4 is trying to correct, or at least help correct.
  It says a major consequence of changes in the economy is that 
dependents do not spend as much time with the family members who are 
responsible for their welfare.
  I mentioned earlier. You can see it in all the data about family and 
children: school scores, the violence, the drugs, and a host of related 
problems.

       Relationships among all family members suffer, and in some 
     cases affect both family stability and workplace performance. 
     The total time parents spend with their children has 
     diminished by about one-third in the last 30 years.

  In the face of that, the rules that govern the workplace have stayed 
virtually static. Here we have a situation where children receive a 
third less attention. Of course, SAT scores have plummeted, teenage 
violence has soared, and the Congress has not stepped forward to 
modernize that workplace.
  I thank the Senator from Ohio. We have just been joined by the 
primary author and sponsor of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. He has 
done a remarkable job in explaining the necessity of this to America.
  I am going to yield the remainder of my time, which is about 5 
minutes, to the bill's primary sponsor, Senator Ashcroft of Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me take this moment to express my appreciation and give my thanks 
to the Senator from Georgia, the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from 
New Mexico, the Senator from Wyoming, and others who have spoken 
eloquently in behalf of American workers.
  It is easy to say, Well, we are talking about a bill here, a bill 
before the U.S. Senate. But the truth of the matter is that we are 
talking about people. We are taking about people and families. We are 
talking about the fact that people in single-parent homes--obviously 
100 percent of the parents--have to be at work. And in multiple-parent 
homes, two-parent families, the cost of doing business and taxes have 
really literally driven the second parent into the workplace, and they 
need to have time. People feel the financial stress, and they feel the 
family stress.
  All that we really have offered by the administration is that we 
would give people family and medical leave, which is a way to say that 
you can have time off without pay if you need to spend time with your 
family. If you give people time off without pay, that increases the 
financial stress that they went to work to resolve.
  I have found in my own family that every time I had to take a kid to 
the doctor that was not when I needed less pay. That was when I needed 
my full paycheck, because when you had those emergencies there is all 
of the little dollar costs of those emergencies.
  So I really believe that this opportunity we present to let people 
sort of develop a bank of time off so that they can take time off with 
pay later on is very important.
  The comptime part of this bill--which is to say that, if you are 
asked to work overtime, you can say instead of having time-and-a-half-
time overtime pay I would like to have an hour and a half with pay off 
later on for each hour that I work in overtime. Time off with pay 
instead of just taking pay as time for the overtime is a way for people 
to meet these needs.
  It only though goes to people who normally get overtime. What you 
really find out is that of about close to 60 million workers who work 
by the hour in America only about a third of them ever get any overtime 
at all. Most companies say, ``Well, we just can't afford to be paying 
150 percent of our labor costs. So we don't provide for any overtime.''
  So, if all we did was to address the comptime parts of the labor 
force, which is the way you can get time and a half off for working an 
hour of overtime, time and a half off with pay, we would find ourselves 
limited from a quarter to a third of the work force that we were 
helping.
  The last time I checked, whether or not your company does overtime, 
or whether or not you normally get overtime, your kid still gets sick, 
your kids still get awards, your kids still go to soccer games, and 
they still need their parents. But, if we just deal with the narrow 
quadrant of the culture that gets overtime, we are going to ignore two-
thirds to three-quarters of the culture, and we really need to do more 
than that.
  It is important for us to then have what we provided for every 
Federal employee, and that is the option for flextime. Flextime is the 
way to schedule work in advance, to work an extra hour in one period so 
you can take an hour off with pay in another period, or the most 
popular program for Federal workers. This started in the 1970's.
  So there is not a big problem to work 45 hours 1 week in return for 
only having worked 35 hours in the next week, and that really results 
in people taking every other Friday off. Since Friday is a working day, 
you can do the motor vehicle license stuff, or you can go to the 
doctors. It is the ability for people to spend time with their 
families.
  One other point needs to be mentioned, especially in light of the 
remarks of the Senator from New Mexico about serving working women. 
Overtime work in this country is concentrated among men. Hourly workers 
are just about split evenly between women and men. But overtime work is 
2-to-1 in favor of men. So for every woman that gets an overtime hour 
men get two overtime hours.
  So, if we are really going to try to relieve pressure on working 
women, we do less for women in this bill if we just do the comptime, 
and if we do not get to the flextime part of the bill.
  I think it couldn't be said more clearly than in USA Today, the lead 
editorial, ``Harried workers need comptime flexibility but unions 
blocking flexible work rules are favored by employees and employers 
alike.''
  That is the black letterhead line sort of stuff.
  I already submitted this for the Record. It says those who stand in 
the way deserve a permanent vacation. I don't know that we want to put 
them on vacation but send them home.
  The point is we really need to find ways to help workers. This is the 
way to help people have more time with their families without taking a 
pay cut and to help people plan. The more pressing the responsibilities 
are the more valuable planning is.
  It is against the law right now to plan with your employer to work an 
extra hour this week and take that hour off with pay next week. We 
shouldn't make it against the law for people to do reasonable things 
like that. It is against the law right now for your employer to say, 
``Instead of paying you time and a half time off, I am giving you time 
and a half off with pay down the road.'' It is against the law.
  The Government shouldn't be about the business of making reasonable 
agreements like that against the law.
  The editors of USA Today have made it clear that they agree that this 
is something that needs to happen, and that labor unions and their 
lobbyists here in Washington shouldn't stand between the American 
people in this capacity to serve their families.
  It is with that in mind that we should continue to work toward the 
enactment of the Family Friendly Workplace Act.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S5412]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time granted to the Senator from Georgia 
has now expired.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________