    [House Hearing, 108 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        H.R. 1119, THE FAMILY TIME FLEXIBILITY ACT
               __________________________________________________________
               __________________________________________________________

                                       HEARING

                                      BEFORE THE
                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                                       OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
                                   THE WORKFORCE

                              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                    FIRST SESSION
                                      ________

                   HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 12, 2003
                                      ________

                                  Serial No. 108-7
                                      ________

                  Printed for the use of the Committee on Education
                                  and the Workforce

      87-722 pdf
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800
    FAX: (202) 512-2250  Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
                            JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman

    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin					GEORGE MILLER, California
    CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina				DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan					MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    HOWARD P. "BUCK" McKEON, California			DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
    MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware				ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
    SAM JOHNSON, Texas					LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
    JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania				RUBE?N HINOJOSA, Texas
    CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia				CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
    FRED UPTON, Michigan					JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan					RON KIND, Wisconsin
    JIM DeMINT, South Carolina					DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia					DAVID WU, Oregon
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois					RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania				SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
    PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio					BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
    RIC KELLER, Florida					DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska					ED CASE, Hawaii
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina					RAU?L M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
    TOM COLE, Oklahoma					DENISE L. MAJETTE, Georgia
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada					CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    JOHN KLINE, Minnesota					TIMOTHY J. RYAN, Ohio
    JOHN R. CARTER, Texas					TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    	MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
    	MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    	PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
    MAX BURNS, Georgia

                Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff
          John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
            CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia, Chairman

    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Vice Chairman				MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina				DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan					LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
    JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia					DENISE L. MAJETTE, Georgia
    RIC KELLER, Florida					DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
    JOHN KLINE, Minnesota					TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

    Table of Contents

    OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
    WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
    	2

    STATEMENT OF VICE-CHAIR JUDY BIGGERT, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE
    PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE	3

    OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MAJOR OWENS, SUBCOMMITTEE
    ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
    WORKFORCE	4

    STATEMENT OF HOUSTON L. WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, PNS INC., SAN
    JOSE, CA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE	7

    STATEMENT OF TERI MARTELL, ELECTRICIAN AND INSTRUMENTATION
    MECHANIC, EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, ROCHESTER, NY	9

    STATEMENT OF ELLEN BRAVO, DIRECTOR, 9 TO 5, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
    WORKING WOMEN, MILWAUKEE, WI	11

    STATEMENT OF JOHN A. DANTICO, PRINCIPAL OF COMPENSATION/HR
    CONSULTING, HR GROUP, NORTHBROOK, IL, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE
    SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (SHRM)	13

    APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE
    NORWOOD, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON
    EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE	33

    APPENDIX B - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF VICE-CHAIR JUDY BIGGERT,
    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
    AND THE WORKFORCE	37

    APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF HOUSTON L. WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN AND
    CEO, PNS INC., SAN JOSE, CA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CHAMBER OF
    COMMERCE	41

    APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF TERI MARTELL, ELECTRICIAN AND
    INSTRUMENTATION MECHANIC, EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, ROCHESTER, NY	47

    APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ELLEN BRAVO, DIRECTOR, 9 TO 5,
    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN, MILWAUKEE, WI	51

    APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JOHN A. DANTICO, PRINCIPAL OF
    COMPENSATION/HR CONSULTING, HR GROUP, NORTHBROOK, IL, TESTIFYING ON
    BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (SHRM)	59

    APPENDIX G - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN
    LYNN C. WOOLSEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS,
    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE	69

    APPENDIX H - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, "LABOR DEPARTMENT
    ENFORCEMENT REACHES 10-YEAR HIGH," ESA NEWS RELEASE, U.S.
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 12/18/02	77

    APPENDIX I - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, "SUITS SAY WAL-MART FORCES
    WORKERS TO TOIL OFF THE CLOCK," GREENHOUSE, STEVEN, THE NEW YORK
    TIMES, 6/25/02	81

    APPENDIX J - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, "MANY LAID-OFF SILICON VALLEY
    TECHIES WORK FOR FREE TO BRUSH UP ON SKILLS," SWARTZ, JON, USA TODAY
    	91

    APPENDIX K -SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, "ALL IN A DAY'S WORK," VALENTI,
    CATHERINE, ABC NEWS.COM	95

    APPENDIX L - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO CHAIRMAN NORWOOD,
    FROM R. BRUCE JOSTEN, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MARCH 31, 2003	101

    APPENDIX M - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO CHAIRMAN NORWOOD,
    FROM DAN DANNER, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
    (NFIB), APRIL 1, 2003	105

    APPENDIX N - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO CHAIRMAN NORWOOD,
    FROM SUSAN R. MEISINGER, SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
    (SHRM), APRIL 3, 2003	109

    APPENDIX O - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO CHAIRMAN NORWOOD,
    FROM DANIELLE RINGWOOD, ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC.
    (ABC), March 28, 2003	113

    APPENDIX P - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO REPRESENTATIVE,
    FROM LEE CULPEPPER AND ROB GREEN, NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION,
    APRIL 7, 2003	117

    APPENDIX Q - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO CHAIRMAN, RANKING
    MEMBER AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE
    PROTECTIONS, FROM THE UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF
    AMERICA, APRIL 2, 2003	121

    Table of Indexes	125

    HEARING ON H.R. 1119

    THE FAMILY TIME FLEXIBILITY ACT
    ____________________

    Wednesday, March 12, 2003

    Subcommittee on Workforce Protections

    Committee on Education and the Workforce

    U.S. House of Representatives

    Washington, D.C.

    	The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m., Hon. Charlie Norwood, Chairman
    of the Subcommittee, presiding.

    	Present:  Representatives Norwood, Biggert, Ballenger, Isakson, Kline, Blackburn, Owens,
    Kucinich, Woolsey, Payne, and Bishop.

    	Staff present:  Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Jim Paretti,
    Professional Staff Member; Travis McCoy, Legislative Assistant; Paula Nowakowski, Staff
    Director; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Greg Maurer, Coalitions Director for
    Workforce Policy; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; Kevin Smith, Communications Advisor;
    Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member; Allison Dembeck, Executive Assistant; Linda Stevens,
    Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern
    Coordinator.

    Peter Rutledge, Minority Senior Legislative Associate/ Labor; and, Dan Rawlins, Minority Staff
    Assistant/Labor.

    Chairman Norwood. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the
    Committee on Education and the Workforce will now come to order.

    We are meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 1119, the Family Time Flexibility Act.
    Under Committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking
    Minority Member of the Subcommittee.  Therefore, if other Members have statements, they may be
    included in the hearing record.  With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain
    open 14 days to allow Members' statements and other extraneous material referenced during the
    hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record.  Without objection, so ordered.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD,
    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON
    EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

    	I yield myself time for an opening statement.  The focus of today's hearing is H.R. 1119, the
    Family Time Flexibility Act.  I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of H.R. 1119, which, as we
    will hear today, offers to private sector employees a benefit which public sector employees have
    enjoyed for years:  the ability to choose, at their option, whether to take extra paid time off in lieu
    of receiving overtime pay in their paycheck.

    	Let me say first that I imagine each employee given this choice might have a different
    answer, or a different approach, based on his or her own situation.  But that is one of the key
    features of this legislation, that it gives each employee the ability to make this choice for him or
    herself, based on his or her personal priorities, not those of the federal government or a 1938
    wage-and-hour law.

    	In the last Congress, this Subcommittee heard testimony about flexibility in the workplace,
    and specifically, on the ability of employers to accommodate the needs of their employees under
    the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

    We heard about demographic changes in the workforce, the dramatic changes in the
    workplace as we have moved away from a manufacturing-based economy to a professional and
    service-based economy, and the changes we have seen as women have grown to comprise almost
    half of our workforce.

    	We heard about the issues that matter most to today's workers:  chief among them, the
    ability to balance work and family.

    	We heard about the failings of outdated provisions in the law, such as that part of the Fair
    Labor Standards Act that generally prohibits a private sector employer from offering paid time off
    to employees in lieu of overtime.

    	These hearings made one thing very clear: family-friendly legislation such as H.R. 1119,
    which provides greater options to working men and women in balancing the demands of work and
    family, is an idea whose time has come.

    	The Family Time Flexibility Act would, for the first time, give private-sector employers the
    option of offering employees the choice of paid time off in lieu of cash wages for overtime hours at
    the employee's option.

    	The bill guarantees that the choice is in the hands of the employee, whether to take
    something extra home in the paycheck, or whether to bank paid time off for a longer vacation, a
    family holiday, or any other reason that they may choose.

    	In light of some of the misconceptions surrounding this bill, I think it is also important to
    state for the record what the bill does not do.  The bill does not affect the 40-hour workweek, nor
    does it change the way by which overtime pay is calculated.

    	Perhaps most important, nothing in the legislation requires an employee to opt for paid time
    off if he or she would prefer time-and-a-half overtime pay.  Indeed, we have included numerous
    safeguards to ensure that the choice to opt for time off or extra cash is that of the employee, and not
    subject to coercion or undue influence by the employer.

    	We will hear from several witnesses today, both as to the practical and the legal aspects of
    expanding workplace flexibility for working men and women.  I look forward to today's testimony.
    I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important families-first piece of
    legislation.

    WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD,
    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON
    EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE - SEE APPENDIX A

    Chairman Norwood.  I now would like to yield the remainder of my time to my colleague and
    Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee, Representative Judy Biggert, the sponsor of the Family Time
    Flexibility Act.

    STATEMENT OF VICE-CHAIR JUDY BIGGERT, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
    WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
    WORKFORCE

    Thank you very much for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman.  I commend you for holding
    this hearing, and I appreciate your support of the Family Time Flexibility Act.  I would also like to
    thank our witnesses for coming today.

    	We all know that workers today face a difficult dilemma:  how to balance the demands of a
    job with the needs of their families.  We also know that this challenge has become even more
    difficult as more and more American families rely on two incomes to survive.

    	This conflict may weigh most heavily on women, but all workers, regardless of gender,
    experience conflict between work and family, watching their children's soccer game, or going
    through the stack of papers on their desk.

    	The Family Time Flexibility Act will help to ease these pressures.  The concept behind this
    bill is simple: if workers have to work overtime, they should be allowed to choose how they want
    to be compensated - with more money or more paid time off.  For some, time is more valuable than
    money.  Most workers just want the freedom to make that choice for themselves.

    That is what this bill does; it gives them choice and flexibility.

    	What this bill does not do is to require employees to take compensatory time, or require
    employers to offer it.  But where both parties can agree, an employee could begin banking his or
    her overtime hours to be used at a later time as paid compensatory time off.  In fact, this bill
    contains numerous safeguards to protect the employee, and to ensure that the choice and selection
    of compensatory time is truly voluntary on the part of the employee.

    	So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I look forward to working with you to pass this bill
    and provide workers with flexibility and important protections in a manner that will not overburden
    employers or jeopardize their willingness to make compensatory time available as an option.

    WRITTEN STATEMENT OF VICE-CHAIR JUDY BIGGERT, SUBCOMMITTEE
    ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
    WORKFORCE - SEE APPENDIX B

    Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mrs. Biggert.

    I yield to the distinguished Ranking Minority Member from New York, Mr. Owens, for
    whatever opening statement he wishes to make.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MAJOR OWENS,
    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON
    EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I want to welcome this afternoon's witnesses, especially Ms.
    Bravo, and thank you for taking time from your schedules to be with us.

    	We are here today to consider H.R. 1119, the so-called Family Time Flexibility Act.  This
    legislation, except for its title, is identical to the comp time legislation introduced by our colleague,
    Mrs. Biggert, in the last Congress, and essentially the same as H.R. 2391, which was considered
    and ultimately rejected in the 104th Congress, and H.R. 1, which was considered but failed in the
    105th Congress.

    	The proponents of the legislation contend the bill enhances flexibility for working families.
    In fact, this legislation undermines the 40-hour week and it harms working families.  Indeed, the
    most obvious and direct result of this legislation is to effectively result in workers providing
    inadequately secured no-interest loans to their employers.

    	Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the bill's proponents, no worker has a right to paid time off
    under H.R. 1119.  H.R. 1119 does not provide an employee a right to ask for compensatory time
    off, unless the employer first agrees to offer the time off.

    	Where an employer offers comp time, the employer may arbitrarily decide to only offer
    comp time to some employees while denying it to others.  Or an employer can arbitrarily deny
    compensatory time to a worker on some occasions, while offering it to him on others.  Rather than
    increasing the worker's control over his or her own life, H.R. 1119 increases the employer's control
    over the worker's life.  H.R. 1119 undermines existing pay leave policies.  Under H.R. 1119, a
    worker may be able to earn the equivalent of a month's paid leave, 160 hours of comp time.  Why
    should an employer give away paid leave when the employer can effectively require an employee
    to earn it through comp time?

    	Even when an employee earns comp time, H.R. 1119 does not provide a right for the
    employee to be able to use it.  For example, assume a worker wants to use three days of accrued
    comp time to care for his wife, who is undergoing life-threatening surgery.  Regardless of how
    much notice the employee provides of the intent to take leave, and notwithstanding the fact that the
    employee may have a statutory right to take that leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act,
    the employer may still deny the employee the right to use the comp time the employee has earned.

    	The single significant change that H.R. 1119 makes to the overtime law is to permit an
    employer to defer paying anything, potentially for up to a year and a month, for overtime work.  In
    effect, employees are being asked to provide a poorly secured no-interest loan to their employer.

    	In industries characterized by thinly capitalized businesses, including the construction
    industry, the garment industry, and many seasonal industries, the promise of comp time is likely to
    be illusory.  A random check of 69 garment contractors in Southern California in 1994 found that
    73 percent maintained improper payroll records, without which fair administration of comp time
    would be impossible; 68 percent were not paying overtime in accordance with current law; and 51
    percent were not even paying minimum wage.

    	Allowing such employers to offer comp time will greatly increase the complexity of
    enforcing the law by making it more difficult to determine whether an overtime violation has
    occurred.  It would greatly increase the number of violations that occur as employers seek to keep
    pace with competitors and the temptation to defer payment for overtime work grows.  Finally, it
    will inevitably result in more workers receiving no compensation at all for their overtime work.

    	The concern about potential abuse of comp time cannot be overemphasized.  The overtime
    law is among the most commonly violated laws in the country.  At the appropriate point, I will
    submit three different recent news reports concerning overtime violations.  One concerns
    unemployed workers in Silicon Valley, working for free in order to brush up their skills.  Another
    concerns a suit alleging that a major employer, Wal-Mart, regularly required workers to work off
    the clock.

    	The third report, from yesterday's ABC News web page, quotes an employment lawyer as
    saying that the current employment environment is the worst he has seen in 23 years of practicing
    law, and that among the biggest problems he sees are companies misclassifying employees in order
    to deny them overtime pay.

    	There are things that this Committee can do that would help working families.  We can
    expand the coverage of the Family Medical Leave Act, to ensure that more workers have a right to
    leave in the event of a family or medical emergency.  We can provide workers with the right to
    refuse excessive overtime, rather than being required to work excessive unsafe hours.  Workers can
    ensure they will have the time they need to care for their families.

    	And finally, we can increase the minimum wage.  The minimum wage has not been
    increased since 1997.  In five-and-a-half years, inflation has wiped out the value of the last
    increase, and the real value of the minimum wage is approaching its lowest levels in more than
    three decades.

    	Unlike the comp time legislation, expanding family leave, providing the right to refuse
    excessive overtime, or increasing the minimum wage are policies that would definitely help
    working families.

    	Again, I welcome today's witnesses.  I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Owens.  And I am, as you are, eager to hear from
    our witnesses.  So I would like to start by introducing our witnesses to the Subcommittee.

    	First, we have Mr. Houston Williams, who is the founder, Chairman, and CEO of PNS Inc.,
    San Jose, CA.  He will be testifying today on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

    	Next, we have Ms. Teri Martell, who is an electrician and instrumentation mechanic at
    Eastman Kodak Company in Rochester, NY, where she has been employed for 21 years.

    	Our third witness is Ms. Ellen Bravo, who is the National Director of 9 to 5, National
    Association of Working Women, Milwaukee, WI.  Welcome.

    	And finally, we have Mr. John Dantico, who is Principal of Compensation/HR Consulting
    for the HR Group, Northbrook, IL.  He is testifying on behalf of the Society for Human Resource
    Management (SHRM).  Welcome, all.

    	Before the witnesses begin their testimony, I want to take a minute to remind our Members
    that we will be asking questions after the entire panel has testified.  In addition, Committee rule (2)
    imposes a five-minute limit on all questions.

    	And with that, Mr. Williams, if you would begin, please, sir.

    STATEMENT OF HOUSTON L. WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, PNS
    INC., SAN JOSE, CA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CHAMBER
    OF COMMERCE

    Good afternoon, and thank you all very much for allowing me to testify before you today.  I
    commend you for your efforts to find ways to improve workplace flexibility, and for holding a
    hearing on this very important issue.

    	My name is Houston Williams, and I am founder, Chairman, and CEO of PNS Inc.  PNS is
    a California-based corporation involved in providing telecommunications services and products to
    the telecommunication service providers and the end users of that service, to include warehouse
    and distribution, network and system engineering, installation, light manufacturing.

    	Approximately 80 percent of my workers are hourly workers subject to the overtime
    provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  These employees work primarily in clerical positions
    and as technicians in various blue-collar positions in our warehouses, such as assemblers, drivers,
    rackers, jobbers, and stockers.

    	I am here to speak to you today on behalf of the U.S. Chamber.  I joined the Chamber board
    of directors in June 2002, and also served as a member of its council on small business.  The
    Chamber is the world's largest business federation, representing an underlying membership of more
    than three million businesses and organizations of every size and in every industry sector and
    region of the country. Ninety-six percent of the Chamber members are small businesses owners
    with fewer than one hundred employees.

    	I am pleased to support H.R. 1119, the Family Time Flexibility Act, and to relate how this
    bill would help my company and my employees.  H.R. 1119 would modernize the application of
    the Fair Labor Standards Act to the private sector by permitting employers to offer their employees
    a voluntary choice of taking overtime in cash payments, as they do today, or in the form of paid
    time off from work.

    	Just as with overtime payments, paid time off would accrue at a rate of one-and-a-half hours
    for each hour of overtime worked.  Family time arrangements permit employees to build up a bank
    of time that they can use to take paid time off from work when they need it, provided the time off
    does not unduly disrupt the employer's business.

    	Family time, sometimes referred to as compensatory time, is a simple common-sense
    solution to provide additional flexibility to help employees balance work and time for family or
    other personal needs.

    	I would think that everyone on this Subcommittee would agree that the workforce has
    changed significantly since passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act 65 years ago.  When the Fair
    Labor Standards Act was enacted, the workforce consisted mostly of men.  It was not typical for
    households with young children to have both parents work outside of the home.

    	But today, a greater percentage of employees who work overtime are women.  There are
    more dual-wage earner couples in the workforce, and there are more single mothers in the
    workforce.  These demographic changes in the workforce are a major reason why today, many
    more employees view time off as valuable, and in some cases, more valuable than cash payment for
    overtime.

    	Some opponents of family time legislation argue that more mandated family leave programs
    are the way to balance work and family commitments.  But new one-size-fits-all mandates are not
    the solution we need.  Instead of stifling creative scheduling arrangements, we should be finding
    ways to encourage innovative employer-employee partnerships by giving employees and
    employers more options so that, together, they can find solutions to balance the needs of employees
    with the demands of the workplace.

    	Providing more options for the employees will help them find time for any number of
    personal commitments, including spending time with family or friends, volunteering with a non-
    profit organizational charity, visiting the doctor or dentist, or participating in the local community
    group, church, or religious organizations.

    	The concept of giving employees a choice to select paid time off in lieu of cash wages is
    nothing new.  In fact, it has been an option widely available to government employees for close to
    20 years, where I understand it has worked well.  The time has come to give the men and women in
    the private sector the opportunity to choose for themselves whether to receive extra compensation
    or paid time off for working overtime.

    	Let me take a moment to describe my company and how enactment of this legislation
    would help me to provide more options for my employees.  PNS has roughly 125 employees, down
    from 375 employees in mid-year 2000.  Roughly 90 percent of our employee body has young
    families or they are of childbearing age.

    	PNS is a generous firm, providing full medical benefits, including family coverage, for
    which we do not require any employee co-payment.  We also offer a 401(k) plan, five personal paid
    days off, and two weeks of paid vacation.  These benefits apply equally to all employees,
    regardless of rank.

    	For some of my employees, additional paid time off is more valuable than additional
    money.  More time to spend with their families, more time to do errands, and indeed, more time to
    enjoy the material things they have purchased with their wage.

    	Even though we offer good benefits, employees sometimes need additional time off to
    accommodate family or personal needs.  To illustrate how enactment of this bill would help my
    employees, let me provide another example.	 On any given day, two or four children accompany
    their parents to work at our corporate headquarters.  This could be for a number of reasons, such as
    child day care.  Often times, those parents would prefer to stay home and work, and care for their
    children at home.  But nevertheless, we allow them to bring their children to work, whereas if they
    had additional time, they would spend that time at home.

    	While I work hard to accommodate all the situations like this in our organization, i.e.
    allowing our employees to bring children to work if necessary, passage of this bill will allow me to
    offer these parents a better option:  an opportunity to accumulate a bank of paid time off that could
    be used for unexpected emergencies like these.

    	Some may argue that employers support this legislation as a way to exploit their workforce.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.  Employers are genuinely interested, in my humble
    opinion, in providing employees with flexibility to meet family and personal commitments.  And
    this legislation would give me, as an employer, an additional tool to help me meet the needs of my
    employees.

    WRITTEN STATEMENT OF HOUSTON L. WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN AND
    CEO, PNS INC., SAN JOSE, CA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE U.S.
    CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - SEE APPENDIX C

    Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.  We appreciate your testimony.

    Mr. Williams. Thank you.

    Chairman Norwood. I failed to mention to you that I am always very hesitant not to let our
    witnesses' testimony go beyond five minutes; you make great efforts to be here.  But do the best
    you can to try to stay within a five-minute time frame, please.

    Ms. Martell, you are now recognized.

    STATEMENT OF TERI MARTELL, ELECTRICIAN AND
    INSTRUMENTATION MECHANIC, EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,
    ROCHESTER, NY

    	Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee.  My name is Teri
    Martell, and I am extremely honored that I have been given this opportunity to share my views on
    the importance of family time, and the need for Congressional action to allow working people
    flexibility in their jobs.

    	I have two full-time jobs.  I am, first and foremost, the wife of Robert Martell, who is self-
    employed, the mother of two sons, Donny, age 7, and Eric, age 10, and the owner of two dogs, both
    Labrador Retrievers.  We also own our home, which requires a lot of our time.  This job is 24 hours
    a day, 7 days a week.  It is a responsibility I have chosen, it will never go away.  We are a typical
    American family.

    	I am also employed as an electrician and instrumentation mechanic at Eastman Kodak
    Company in Rochester, New York.  I have worked for Kodak for 21 years now, and am the major
    source of income and health care benefits for my family.  My commute to Kodak Park in Rochester
    is 1 hour and 15 minutes away, one way.  Therefore, I spend two-and-a-half hours each day on the
    road.  Flexible work hours are part of my everyday life.  My job at Kodak has allowed me to be
    somewhat flexible with my work hours.  Most often, I work four 10-hour days, Monday through
    Thursday.  The company has been very good to me on my work schedule.

    	I am a dedicated and proud employee of the Eastman Kodak Company, and I have the
    reputation of someone who does what it takes to get the job done.  Often this includes working
    overtime during emergencies and scheduled shutdowns on our film manufacturing machines.
    When this happens, I have to make a choice between work and family.  And because I am the
    major source of my family's income, I choose to work even on my regularly scheduled days off.
    Saturdays and Sundays are the days when my children are off from school, and Saturdays and
    Sundays are typically family-time days for most American families, like ours.

    Also, my children get many more days off than I do, such as Columbus Day, Veterans Day,
    Martin Luther King Day, teacher conferences, and in up-state New York, snow days.  On these
    days we send them to a babysitter or my husband stays home.  And because he is self-employed, he
    does not earn money when he has to stay home.  It would be a great help to have a bank of hours to
    use for these situations.

    	Another example of needing flexibility with overtime pay and how it is paid is when the
    children are sick.  I remember a time when my son Eric was born, I used up 11 of my 20 vacation
    days that year to stay home with him and take him to the doctor, just in that one year.  Being a first-
    time mom, and needing to nurture him while he was sick was very important to me and to him, and
    as a working mother, it is very stressful to be at work when your children are in someone else's
    care.  In 1993, if I had been allowed to save up some of those overtime hours, I could have used
    that during those emergencies.  Just like Kodak needs me during machine breakdowns, my family
    needs me too, during health care breakdowns.

    	I have heard from coworkers who feel very strongly about the need for more flexible
    schedules, the kind that comp time would allow.  These are employees who are caregivers for their
    aging parents.  One colleague, in particular, told me of her need to balance work and family.  For
    her, comp time would mean allowing more flexibility and spending more time with her ill parent.
    The ability to save overtime as comp time, and use it in times of crises when needed, and to help
    you cope with day-to-day challenges.  Also, someone who has used up annual vacation hours may
    have a need for extra time later in the year.  Banking comp time could offer options instead of
    requiring employees to choose between working and taking time off without pay to address family
    needs.

    	Today, in my private sector job, I am not given the choice of paid time off instead of paid
    overtime compensation. The compensation I receive now is only of monetary value.  Money is very
    important; it is the reason I work.  But money does not solve all of my children's needs.  If I were
    given the choice to take paid overtime, I could do so for my family when I want, and at the time I
    need to take it.  Then I might be able to make up some of those lost family-time days or care for my
    sick child or parent.  The decision to permit comp time instead of overtime pay should be left to my
    employer and me to decide, not the Federal Government.

    	Over the last century, the make-up of our workforce has changed dramatically.  We are a
    blend of men and women, we are from different cultures, and have different spiritual beliefs.
    Because we are a diverse workforce, we all have different needs, which therefore make flexible
    work hours a must.  The more we as caregivers, employer, and employees work together, the
    stronger our families, our corporations, and our nation will be.

    	In closing, I support the Family Time Flexibility Act.  We need to give American families
    and the corporations they work for more flexibility in their work schedules, and how they are paid.
    This can only benefit our country and keep the family structure strong and cohesive.  Thank you for
    inviting me to give my testimony today.

    WRITTEN STATEMENT OF TERI MARTELL, ELECTRICIAN AND
    INSTRUMENTATION MECHANIC, EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,
    ROCHESTER, NY - SEE APPENDIX D

    Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Ms. Martell.

    	Ms. Bravo, you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF ELLEN BRAVO, DIRECTOR, 9 TO 5, NATIONAL
    ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN, MILWAUKEE, WI

    Thank you so much.  It is a pleasure to be here.  I am Ellen Bravo, the Director of 9 to 5,
    National Association of Working Women.  We are a national grass-roots organization that
    strengthens women's ability to win economic justice.  We have been around for 30 years.  Most of
    our members are low-wage workers, non-management workers. We also hear from thousands of
    people every year on a toll-free hot line.  Our members and these callers are desperate for more
    time with their families and more control over their schedules.

    	I am here to testify against H.R. 1119, because it will provide neither of these.

    	More than 50 years ago, workers, after a lot of struggle, won a family time flexibility act;
    it's called the Fair Labor Standards Act.  In response to people having to work inordinate hours, it
    set a limit, that said we would define the workweek as 40 hours, and there will be a price to pay,
    employers, if you make people work beyond that.  That was meant to discourage excessive hours.
    It was meant to be a disincentive.

    	I want to talk about four situations, and see how this bill would apply.  Number one is
    involuntary overtime.  I will tell you about nurses' aides in central city Milwaukee. They have to go
    in a van to the nursing home because it is way far away, and there are no jobs where they live.
    Sometimes the nursing home says to them, "We are short-staffed.  We need you to stay."  They
    say, "We cannot, child care, blah, blah."  The nursing home says, "Well, guess what?  The van is
    not coming back for you until the end of that second shift." It's a childcare nightmare.

    	This bill not only would not help that situation, it will give an incentive to employers to do
    that more often, to require people to stay overtime if, in fact, the employer has the choice of not
    paying for it.

    	Secondly, there are people who choose to work overtime because they need the money.
    Denise has a 9-year-old and a 12-year-old.  Those kids stay alone when she works extra hours.  She
    hates it.  But she has no choice because she makes so little money, she cannot pay her bills without
    it.  She is afraid if this bill passes, when she chooses the overtime pay instead of comp time, the
    foreman simply will not choose her to get the overtime hours.

    	Now, you can tell her that she has that choice.  In fact, in most cases, non-union, hourly
    workers never negotiate anything with their employers.  I love to hear about situations where they
    do.  But for many workers, it is not a reality.  And if you tell her that she can take her employer to
    court if he treats her unfairly, she will laugh.

    	You heard the stories about the overtime violations right now.  Workers do not have the
    money to get lawyers and the time to wait two years to recoup losses.

    	The third situation is workers who already have comp time.  Lisa is a paralegal in L.A.
    Every day it seems the lawyers say, "Oh, we need you to stay another hour, we need you to do
    this."  She banks all this comp time, and every time she wants to use it because she needs to take
    care of her family, they say, "Sorry, too busy, cannot do it now."

    	Come November, when her kids are in school and no one else is off, they say, "Oh, things
    are a little slower. Take your time," when she doesn't want it.  And there are no guarantees or
    protections in H.R. 1119 that if a company goes bankrupt, the worker will be able to recover the
    comp time owed them.

    	The fourth situation exists right now.  It is allowable flexibility.  So, for example, a worker
    who works overtime when they want to, can save enough money so if they need to take some
    unpaid time, they can afford to do it.  It works the same way.  Nothing prevents employers from
    doing that right now.

    	Nothing prevents an employer from saying,  "Oh, your kid has a play tomorrow?  Take an
    extra day; come in early the next day.  It's not a problem within this week."  The problem is some
    employers do this, and they know that it works.  It is a best practice to do it.  It pays.  Only less
    than 3 in 10 workers have access to that kind of flexibility, and they are more likely to be
    professional workers and managers.

    	What does that mean in real life?  It means Tiffany, who tries to take her kid to kindergarten
    tests so that he will not have to wait a whole extra year to start kindergarten gets fired for doing it.
    It means Andrea, when the school calls and says, "your kid is being suspended, get over here now,"
    and she uses the channels and calls into work, gets a week suspension with no pay.  It means that
    today more then ever, more elementary school kids are going to school sick because there is
    nobody able to stay home with them.

    	If you want to give more flexibility and time to families, there are plenty of things that we
    know of that you could do, and we urge you to do them.  Expand the Family Leave Act so it covers
    more workers, so that they can use a few days a year for a routine school or medical appointment.
    Work for ways that the states can set up wage replacement funds so that people can afford to take
    that time.  Put limits on mandatory overtime.  Help set a floor for a minimum number of paid sick
    days, so people do not have to use their vacation when their kids are sick.  Adjust the minimum
    wage.  I do not say raise it, adjust it so it gets back the value that it has lost, and index it to
    inflation.  And create fair pay measures so that women do not have to work extra hours because
    they make so little money.

    	This is the trick of this law.  The choice for employees, which in itself is dubious, only goes
    into play when something that they have not chosen happens.  Namely, that they are forced to work
    overtime, forced to be away from their families.  That is why this bill gives neither time nor
    flexibility.  Thank you so much.

    WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ELLEN BRAVO, DIRECTOR, 9 TO 5, NATIONAL
    ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN, MILWAUKEE, WI-SEE APPENDIX E

    Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Dantico, you are recognized now.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN A. DANTICO, PRINCIPAL OF
    COMPENSATION/HR CONSULTING, HR GROUP, NORTHBROOK, IL,
    TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE
    MANAGEMENT (SHRM)

    Thank you, Chairman Norwood, and Members of the Subcommittee.  Good afternoon.  My
    name is John Dantico.  I am a Principal of Compensation/HR Consulting, currently with the HR
    Group, in Northbrook, Illinois.  I appear today on behalf of SHRM, the Society for Human
    Resource Management.

    	I have a rather long and extensive consulting history, working with both private and public
    sector organizations.  In general, I have worked with a broad range of clients, and I focus on things
    like base salary, productivity, sales incentives, executive compensation, organization structure,
    policy development, and long-term compensation planning issues. Along the way of course, I have
    conducted many, many employee interviews and/or interviews with employees, supervisors, and
    managers.

    	This hearing is a major step toward creating flexibility where today it is absent, yet where it
    is needed the most, in the workplace for the working families of this nation. The Subcommittee
    Members can create workplace flexibility by supporting H.R. 1119.  It answers the plea of working
    families who continue the struggle to achieve balance, and who are continually forced to make
    difficult choices between the needs of family, and the requirements of an increasingly
    uncompromising work schedule, as we just now heard from Ms. Martell.

    	H.R. 1119 allows private sector employees to voluntarily offer their non-exempt employees
    the choice to receive compensatory time off, which is accrued at time-and-one-half the regular rate
    of pay, for each hour of employment worked in excess of 40 hours.  It is a voluntary program.  It
    does not federally mandate that employers adopt comp-time programs.  H.R. 1119 clearly stipulates
    that if a non-exempt employee elects to receive compensatory time off in lieu of overtime
    compensation, he or she is entitled to accrue the comp time, or paid time off, at the rate at which
    the employee would accrue overtime:  one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay.  There is
    absolutely no change to the fundamental requirement under FLSA.

    	It is unfortunate that private sector employees do not share the same benefit that their public
    sector counterparts have enjoyed since 1985, and perhaps even prior to that.  The double standard
    between the public and private sector workforce simply should not continue.

    	An employer's comp time program must be offered in accordance with the provisions of the
    collective bargaining agreement.  Should there not be one, an individual agreement can also be
    made.

    	Electronic mail, or an employer's payroll system, would allow an employee to select their
    preference of comp time or overtime, by using an automatic check-off feature within for example,
    an automated software program.

    	The plan would operate over a 12-month period, and the employer and the employee define
    the period as either a calendar year, a fiscal year, or some other consecutive 12-month period to
    begin as soon as the employee becomes eligible, which is, essentially, after the employee has
    worked at least 1,000 hours continuously with that particular employer.

    	There are cash-out provisions, and these allow some staggered comp-time programs, which,
    in turn, allow employers to better manage payouts of the unused comp time.  For example, if an
    employer has 200 non-exempt employees hired at different times, and all have elected to accrue
    comp time, and the employer has designated the official start date of all comp time programs to be
    the completion of the requisite hours of service, let us say 1,000 hours, the cash-out of the unused
    comp time is naturally staggered, and would occur at different points throughout the year.

    	The employer is also prohibited from making a comp time program a condition of
    employment.  Non-exempt employees would not be subject to termination should they choose to
    decline an offer of comp time.  Again, there are no mandates here.

    	Newly hired employees would be advised of the comp time option and the eligibility
    requirements.  This could be by notice, or by bulletin board, and probably would involve meetings
    with supervisors and managers if there were current employees and/or new employees.

    	Under H.R. 1119, no more than 160 hours of comp time during a 12-month period are
    allowed.  The employer is required to cash out any unused comp time 31 days after the end of a 12-
    month period.  Requiring the cash-out 31 days after also protects employers from incurring
    insurmountable long-term economic liability.

    	The provision provides an additional protection for employees, to ensure that they are
    compensated in overtime cash wages or paid time off.  Any unused comp time is cashed out at the
    highest regular rate.  H.R. 1119 applies the same provision to termination, voluntary or involuntary.

    	There is also a provision that the employer can pay for hours banked in excess of 80.  The
    employees can make requests.  My experience is when employees have an option; they have the
    opportunity and capacity to make decisions that, in fact, are best for them at that particular time.

    	To wrap up, consistency among the various laws that apply to the workplace is absolutely
    essential.  H.R. 1119 creates consistency with the regulations governing public sector employees'
    use of comp time.  And as to the argument about insufficient remedies, that is rather nonsensical.
    There are plenty of provisions in FLSA right now, and this does not destroy any of those in one
    way or another.

    	Thank you very much for listening.  SHRM appreciates this Subcommittee's efforts on
    behalf of working families.  I will be pleased to answer any questions, and thank you, once again.

    WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JOHN A. DANTICO, PRINCIPAL OF
    COMPENSATION/HR CONSULTING, HR GROUP, NORTHBROOK, IL,
    TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE
    MANAGEMENT (SHRM) - SEE APPENDIX F

    Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Dantico, and I apologize for mispronouncing your name.

    	I just want to remind the Subcommittee I am going to limit myself to five minutes for
    questions, as the rules call for, and ask all of you to do the same if possible.

    	Thanks to all four of you for your testimony.  In your own way, all four of you have
    convinced me even more that this is the correct thing to do for the working families of this country.
    It's as if all of you had been talking to our staffs that enjoy compensatory time and love it, and
    would not have it any other way.  And I am certain they must have helped convince all four of you
    that this is the right thing to do.

    Ms. Martell, let me first say that we are especially glad to have you here today.  And you
    are to be commended for the job you are doing balancing all of your different responsibilities, from
    being a breadwinner, to a wife, to a mother, and indeed even a Lab owner.  I know you are busy.

    	You spoke very eloquently about being a mother, and keeping the family strong and
    cohesive.  And I do not think there is any Member of this Subcommittee who would not totally
    agree 100 percent with that.

    	My question to you is fairly simple.  Why would you choose paid time off under the Family
    Time bill, instead of just simply more money in your pocket?

    Ms. Martell. Well, because money does not make up some of that lost time with my children.
    Love and the quality time spent with my children are more important than money.

    	Say I have to work Saturday and Sunday this week and I did not see them all weekend, and
    here comes Veterans Day, which I normally have to work.  And if I have that choice to stay home
    with them that day and try to make up some of that lost time, I would do so.  Right now, to do that,
    I have to use my vacation.

    Chairman Norwood. So you understand that in this bill, under your present circumstances, that
    would be your choice.

    Ms. Martell. Absolutely.

    Chairman Norwood. You could work overtime, but you could choose to take Veterans Day, or
    whatever time you liked.

    	Now, you understand in this bill that if, God forbid, something should happen in your
    family, and your entrepreneurial husband no longer had a job, you could continue to work for
    Kodak, and you could continue to work overtime.  But at that point it would be your choice,
    perhaps, to take the money, rather than the time off.

    Ms. Martell. Yes.  You know, your needs and your wants change with time, depending on your
    circumstances.  Over the last 60 years the workforce has changed.  There are more women in the
    workforce, and people like me, that have to balance family and work. I choose to sometimes have
    that quality time with my children.  Money does not always do it.

    Chairman Norwood. Sometimes it is odd about legal language.  My understanding of this bill is
    that clearly you get the choice.  And I would not be willing to support it if that were not the case.
    But you get to make the determination, as my staff does, based on the needs of your family.

    Mr. Williams, in your testimony, you spoke at some length about the benefits that you
    currently offer to your employees:  fully paid health care, vacation and personal days off, a 401(k)
    plan.  As an employer do you think being able to offer paid time off, such as the bill before us
    offers, would be perceived as a benefit by your employees?  Would your employees or potential
    employees value it?

    Mr. Williams.   Mr. Chairman, I think they would absolutely see that as a benefit.  Today, we do
    not have that flexibility to allow them to bank time.  And often times, our employees will use all of
    their vacation during the summer, and paid personal days off.  And usually at the beginning of the
    school year parents have programs to attend, there are teacher in-service days, and I can go on and
    on and on, that disrupt the babysitting activities for folks, and they need time off.  And often times
    when they do take time off it is without pay.  I would like to see them have the opportunity to bank
    that time and prepare for that eventuality, just as we do in our medical plan.

    Chairman Norwood.  I see the caution light is on. And in the spirit of camaraderie, I am going to
    stop now and recognize Mr. Owens for five minutes.

    Mr. Owens.  As a courtesy to my colleagues, I want to ask if one of them has to leave early and
    would like to go first in questioning.

    	An important question here is do you have choice, as an employee?  Is that a prerogative of
    the employer?  Nowhere in this legislation do we see the right being granted to the employee to
    choose when to take leave.

    	Are you aware that comp time does not provide paid leave, Ms. Martell?  You are being
    paid for the overtime you work, and not for the leave.  The only thing H.R. 1119 does is permit
    employers to delay paying you for overtime.  Do you think that helps workers in any way?

    Ms. Martell.  If I was going to be delayed in being paid?

    Mr. Owens. Yes.

    Ms. Martell.  I would be delayed being paid with time off.

    Mr. Owens.  You do not get paid in your paycheck for the time off, you do not get the overtime
    pay.

    Ms. Martell.  Right.

    Mr. Owens.  But later on, if an employer wants to give you time off, they will give you time off
    when they are ready.

    Ms. Martell.  When I am ready for it.

    Mr. Owens.  No, when they are ready.  The law does not give you the right to take it when you are
    ready.  That is at the discretion of the employer.

    Ms. Martell.  I understand that you would be able to bank up to 160 hours of comp time in a year.

    Mr. Owens. You could, but you get it off at the discretion of the employer, you cannot choose.

    Ms. Martell. At Kodak I believe I could choose.

    Mr. Owens. Well, you would be lucky.  And you can be lucky; you can have a good employer who
    is generous, and so forth.  But right now, the Wage and Hour Act says you have to be paid
    overtime after you work 40 hours.

    Ms. Martell. Right, as it stands now.

    Mr. Owens. You get the pay, and it comes in your next paycheck.

    Ms. Martell. Yes, it does.  Right now, that is absolutely how it happens.  I get paid the next week
    for the overtime I worked last week.

    Mr. Owens. But you understand you will not have any law to back you up.

    Ms. Martell. Right now?

    Mr. Owens. No.  If this provision goes through, H.R. 1119, you will not have any law to back you
    up on your overtime and your choice.  You cannot take it when you are ready.  There is nothing in
    this legislation now that says you can take it when you are ready to take it.

    Ms. Martell. I guess I do not fully understand what you are getting at.  The way I understand it, I
    could bank my overtime hours at time-and-a-half.  If it was a Saturday, say, I would get paid time-
    and-a-half, and I would take that when I needed it as my own personal day, at my leisure.  It is my
    choice.

    Mr. Owens. No, it is not.  The law would not give you that choice.

    Ms. Martell. So you are saying my company would say, "Okay, December 24th."

    Mr. Owens. It is up to them, not you.  I just want to let you know you do not have a right to take it
    when you want it.

    Mr. Williams, how does overtime law stifle creative scheduling?  You know, you made it
    appear that it did.  Beyond delaying when you must pay workers for their overtime, what can you
    do under H.R. 1119 that you cannot do now?  You could do creative scheduling now.  What does
    H.R. 1119, in terms of creative scheduling add?

    Mr. Williams. In the State of California, there are limitations on creative scheduling.  Creative
    scheduling to me means for example, my employees can choose to work on a particular project
    four 10-hour days.  And that project happens to be a public project.  I can't work four 10-hour days
    on a public project in the State of California. I just cannot do that.

    Mr. Owens. Well, that is California law, this would not override California law and give you the
    right to do anything that California law prohibits you from doing now.  This bill would not help.
    It would not override California law.

    Mr. Williams. But on other than public projects, I could allow for much more flexible scheduling
    in support of my employees.  They would determine how many hours they want to bank, and when
    they want to use those hours.

    Mr. Owens. You have that power right now.

    Mr. Williams. I have that power right now?

    Mr. Owens. Yes.

    Mr. Williams. But I would like to have a situation, as we try to do in almost every situation with
    our employees; we try and give them as much flexibility in our schedule as possible.

    Mr. Owens. Let me just take a minute to go back in history to H.R. 1, which passed the House of
    Representatives but never passed the Senate, and was very similar to this bill, almost identical.

    	I contended then that it would hurt a great deal of people who were low wage earners.
    Minimum wage people would be greatly hurt, and wage earners in general, people who are not on a
    salary, at a certain level.  The popularity of comp time is greatest as you go up the ladder, in terms
    of level of wages.

    Ms. Bravo, do you know anything about how this would impact on minimum wage
    workers, or people at the lowest end of the wage scale?

    Ms. Bravo. People who have the lowest pay also have the lowest amount of power, and therefore
    would be least likely to be able to get comp time when they needed it, to be covered if it were
    denied them, to do anything about a violation.

    	A good employer who wants flexibility right now can say, "If you need to take some unpaid
    time, and you have earned enough money from overtime to pay for that, that's fine with me.  I will
    help you schedule it."  A good employer right now can be more generous in how much paid time
    off, or can be generous about flexibility within a week of when you start and end your day, just like
    Teri has four 10-hour days, or letting somebody come in later, leave early, et cetera.  There is no
    limit right now on that kind of flexibility.  Employers have that right.

    	This, unfortunately, puts all the power in the hands of the employers.  The employer decides
    whether to force you to work overtime in the first place.  The employer decides whether to offer
    comp time.  The employer decides when you can take it, whether to agree to let you take it when
    you want to, and the employer decides whether to cash it in.

    Mr. Owens. Thank you very much.  I am out of time. I just want to note that the person on
    minimum wage working 40 hours a week, provided they work all year long, et cetera, on the job,
    makes less than $12,000 a year.  So many of those people are dependent on overtime pay in cash in
    order to be able to make ends meet for their families.  Thank you.

    Mrs. Biggert. [Presiding]  Thank you, Mr. Owens.

    Mr. Dantico, it is my understanding, that under the Family Time Flexibility Act, there are
    new protections added to the law to ensure that the choice and use of compensatory time by the
    employee is truly voluntary, and that employers would be prohibited from requiring employees to
    use accrued compensatory time solely at the convenience of the employer.

    	Employees may use accrued compensatory time within a reasonable time after making a
    request, and this is the test, so long as its use would not "unduly disrupt" the operations of the
    business.  Now, that is not even true with vacation.  An employer can turn down vacation, and they
    are not required to meet that standard.  Is that your understanding?  Is there a difference?

    Mr. Dantico. Yes, particularly your reference to vacation.  There is no question.  I would agree.

    Mrs. Biggert.  Mr. Williams, can you think of a situation where an employee came to you and
    asked for family leave and you said no?

    	Mr. Owens brought up the case of someone that had a family member in the hospital, and
    they were going to have to spend three days with them.  Would there be time at which you as an
    employer would refuse that employee that time off?

    Mr. Williams. It would be extremely difficult for us to refuse employees time off.  There is one
    situation I can imagine we could find ourselves in where we might refuse an employee.  We have a
    project-oriented environment, and we have a time schedule to work within in terms of what the
    client wants us to get done.  We would still try to do everything we could to allow individuals on
    that task team to take time off if they need it.  But that is about the only situation I can think of
    where I would turn down an opportunity for someone to take comp time off.

    Mrs. Biggert.  In any event, the employee would have the right to go to the Department of Labor
    and use any of the means there are to remedy a situation.

    Mr. Williams. Absolutely.  Yes, ma'am.

    Mrs. Biggert.  Have employees in your company ever said that they had been forced to work
    overtime?

    Mr. Williams. I have no documentation or recollection of any of my employees complaining that
    they have been forced to work overtime.

    Mrs. Biggert. Okay.  Ms. Martell, have you ever felt that you have been forced to work overtime?

    Ms. Martell. Never, never.

    Mrs. Biggert. Can you think of any situation where you might ask for time off and it might be
    reasonably refused and you would not be able to take it?

    Ms. Martell. I do not think I have ever run into that situation.  I have never been refused vacation
    time; I have never been told I could not take a day off for any reason.

    Mrs. Biggert. Okay.  And what would you do if you were?

    Ms. Martell. If I was told that I could not take a day off?

    Mrs. Biggert. Yes.

    Ms. Martell. Well, at Kodak we have our human resource department.  I could go talk to one of the
    HR professionals.  We have a couple of different avenues I could pursue about a refusal of time off.
    We have an ombudsman office for concerns like that, and we also have a council of employees to
    resolve that.

    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.

    Mr. Dantico and Mr. Williams I'll ask you both the same question.

    Mr. Dantico, in your testimony, you indicated that where federal employees enjoyed
    flexible schedules by way of comp time, the operation increased productivity and reduced
    absenteeism.  Could you expound on that?

    Mr. Dantico. That is my understanding from different articles and people I have talked to in
    different government capacities.  I could not cite an immediate reference right at this point in time.

    	I would like to add one thing, though.  The gist of the conversation tends to center on choice
    by the employee.  Granted, there are some "bad apple" employers in this world, but fortunately
    there are very few.  However, there is a situation you run into, particularly when you are a
    consultant.  When you talk to a supervisor who says, "We have been through a heck of a crunch.
    My folks want a little time off; they do not want the cash.  I am handicapped."  So it is not just a
    one-way street.  The employer, in many cases, wants the handcuffs off in order to help the
    employee, perhaps not unlike what we just heard about Kodak.

    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much for adding that. In fact, we all talk about "R&R", and
    everybody needs it.

    Mr. Williams, could you address that quickly? Would this reduce absenteeism or increase
    productivity, if employees did have the opportunity to take more time off?

    Mr. Williams. I feel that it really would.  Based on friends that I have working in the Post Office,
    and other arms of the Federal Government, they swear by it.  They are there every day, and from
    my observations they take great pride in taking their 30 days off, going to Hawaii, and taking their
    family with them.

    	So, yes, I would think it would encourage people to come to work, because they know they
    would have that flexibility.

    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.

    Mr. Owens. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record three articles that I referred to in my
    opening statement.

    Mrs. Biggert. Without objection, so ordered.

    	Mr. Bishop is recognized for five minutes.

    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all of you for coming before us this
    afternoon.

    	One of the concerns I have about this piece of legislation is the potential for employers to
    discriminate against their employees with respect to those to whom they will grant overtime and
    those that they will not.

    	If a company has 10 employees, and eight of them are willing to work overtime for
    compensatory time, and two of them are not, I think the potential for the eight receiving
    preferential treatment in the awarding of overtime is relatively high.  And because of that potential,
    it seems to suggest that the enforcement mechanisms that would be required to protect workers
    need to be well in place.

    	This is a question for either Mr. Dantico or Mr. Williams.  The Labor Department's Wage
    and Hour Division is already under funded.  The budget for next year, fiscal year 2004, has been
    cut by $10 million from the fiscal year 2003 budget, in terms of enforcement. And my question to
    both of you is do you agree that this legislation will require an enhanced level of enforcement, and
    do you believe that the budget that is proposed for fiscal year 2004 is adequate to support that
    enforcement?

    Mr. Dantico. Mr. Bishop, I cannot comment on the budget adequacy, but I can tell you that I have
    worked with companies, I am from the Chicago area, and I have suggested that companies call the
    Department Wage and Hour Division.  And in recent years I have been able to get answers, I do not
    know if my clients can, within a day or two.  And that often clears up a problem.

    	Now, in terms of actual enforcement, I do not know if there is a need for additional
    enforcement.  You still have to keep records.  That has not changed.

    Mr. Bishop. Would you not agree that the potential for abuse is heightened by this legislation?
    And would you not agree that if that abuse were there, that greater enforcement would need to be in
    place?

    Mr. Dantico. I cannot answer.  I really do not know.

    Mr. Bishop.  Mr. Williams?

    Mr. Williams.  I could not agree to that, Mr. Bishop.  But we have existing guidelines and rules
    under the Fair Labor Standards Act that allow employees to be protected, and I think those
    resources would be available to them under this new legislation, as well.

    Mr. Bishop. So you do not believe that there is a temptation here for employers to choose those
    employees who will take compensatory time?

    Mr. Williams. No, I do not.

    Mr. Bishop. Okay.

    Mr. Williams.  In most of our environment, we maintain lists that say, "Here are the people that
    will take the overtime," and we take care of everybody, up and down the list. The higher you get on
    the overtime list, you fall back to the bottom and give everybody else an opportunity to take
    overtime in the event that they want to take it. So, they have option to take it, or they have an
    option to turn it down.  And they are not penalized.

    Mr. Bishop. My fear is that not all employers are as enlightened as what you just described.  But I
    applaud you for having that type of approach for your workers.

    	I have another question for you, Mr. Williams.  I believe you are here representing the U.S.
    Chamber of Commerce.

    Mr. Williams. That is correct.

    Mr. Bishop. This piece of legislation has been proposed as something that would help working
    mothers.  I am married to a working mother, who spent the 24 years during which we have had
    children working full-time, and I have two daughters who, someday, will be working mothers.  So I
    am very interested in that.

    	One of the concerns that I have is that we are making it more difficult for working mothers.
    The fiscal year 2004 budget cuts money for after-school care by 40 percent. And my question is
    what is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce position on such a draconian cut in such an important
    area?

    Mr. Williams. I do not know the up-to-date position on that issue, Mr. Bishop.

    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.  I yield back the rest of my time.

    Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman yields back.

    The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Kline, is recognized for five minutes.

    Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair.

    There has been, at least in my own mind, some confusion over what this time is that you
    buy by working overtime.  And it seems to me, as a sort of simple way of thinking about it, that it
    is like buying vacation time, except that it is super-vacation time or vacation time that your
    employer is, in fact, going to provide.

    	So, if you work overtime, Ms. Martell, and you bank these hours, do you think of that as
    vacation time, for example?

    Ms. Martell. I would think of it as personal time. I would like to think vacation time is vacation
    time, and my banked comp time is more like personal time.

    	In the public sector, some companies and school districts there are personal days.  We do
    not have personal days.  But I would almost look at comp time as being a personal day to take care
    of my household, and a day to take care of my children when they do not have school.

    	I know people at work that like to golf, and they would love to have more opportunities to
    golf.  Up in New York, we do not have the longest summers.  And people that like to boat would
    do that then.  I work with a lot of people that would like to bank comp time to use it at their leisure.
    So in my mind I would call it a personal day.

    Mr. Kline. Thank you.  I am from Minnesota.  And I know something about restricted golf days.

    [Laughter.]

    We are still waiting for that first blade of green grass.

    Ms. Martell. That is right.

    Mr. Kline. I guess my point is that with vacation time, when you want to take that time, it is
    something you discuss with your employer.  Not every employee at Kodak, or anyplace else, can
    take all their time off at once, but you do not have any difficulty working out that time off with
    your employer, is that right?

    Ms. Martell. No, not at all.

    Mr. Kline. Okay.  Thank you very much.

    Mr. Dantico, a concern has been raised here and in the past about the bill's provision that
    employees may take paid family time off, so long as it does not "unduly disrupt the operations of
    the employer."  You have tremendous credentials and experience.  In your experience, have you
    ever known this to be a significant problem?

    Mr. Dantico.  A significant problem, no.  You cannot just do it; you have to run a business.  So
    there are obviously some natural obstacles to decisions of that nature.

    	The Department of Labor has regulations on this, and there are court cases on it.
    Essentially, we already have a body of decisions that pretty well govern what that statement means,
    and it is pretty narrowly construed.

    Mr. Kline. It is not a disruption in the public sector now, for example?

    Mr. Dantico. Well, the public sector has been dealing with it for seven-plus years, and I certainly
    have not heard any outcries.  Their commitment to their customers, us, is certainly no different than
    customers in the private sector, and the obligations thereto.

    Mr. Kline. So you would agree then, I assume, based on your testimony and your answers to
    questions here, that this Act would, in fact, give flexibility to employees and employers and it
    would not be disruptive to the employer. Is that right?

    Mr. Dantico. Yes.  That would be my statement, and scheduling vacations fits right into that.  To
    me the payout has not changed, you just simply have a choice:  cash or time off.  I do not want to
    make it any more difficult than that.

    Mr. Kline. So simply put, in your judgment, this does, in fact, add to flexibility for the employee?

    Mr. Dantico. Oh, without question, yes.  My earlier comment about supervisors wanting to be able
    to do something but being handicapped happens all too many times.

    Mr. Kline. Thank you.  I yield back.

    Mrs. Biggert. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Woolsey, is recognized for five minutes.

    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Madam Chairman.  I know about work schedules and overtime from two
    personal perspectives.  First, from my professional experience of 20 years as a human resources
    professional consultant, and a human resources manager, and second, as a working mother.  I
    worked full-time and raised four children.  So I know what this is about.

    	And as a human resources professional I would tell my clients that if they would take care
    of their employees so that the employees could take care of their families, then that family would
    work hard for them, would be loyal.  And one way to do that would be to provide real flextime for
    the needs of the employee and the employee's family.

    	And I have to tell you that if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanted this to be
    possible, they would be more concerned about working families, and would make sure, as the
    majority party, that they make comp time truly voluntary, and not have a flexible schedule.

    Ms. Martell, what would happen to your schedule?  I mean, how disruptive would it be if
    one week Kodak said you worked three days and you worked five days the next week, and the next
    week you worked two, and then you worked six, because you would be getting your comp time, it
    would be banked.  What would you do if that happened, because that is possible under this bill?

    Ms. Martell. I suppose if I worked for a company like that, I might be looking for another job.

    Ms. Woolsey. Well, there you go.

    Ms. Martell. But my company does not do that.

    Ms. Woolsey. See I am assuming that all of you know good employers or work for good
    employers, or represent good employers.  But you know, there is a reason for the National Labor
    Relations Board, and that is because not all employers are that good.  So we need to protect.  And
    what we are trying to protect against is using employees.  So I guess I should ask some questions,
    shouldn't I?

    	Ms. Bravo, have you ever heard of a law that would prevent an employer from giving time
    off?

    Ms. Bravo. None.  Zero.  Right now, those supervisors you care about, tell them to call me, I will
    tell them how to do it.  It is really easy.

    	The problem is if any of you believe that this flexibility is not an issue, come sit on the 9 to
    5 hot line for one day or one week.  You want to meet someone who was told they could not take
    time off when their loved one was in the hospital?  Come to us.  You want to meet someone who
    was fired while they were in the hospital?  Come to us.

    	My husband was a factory worker for 18 years.  Many times he had to work forced
    overtime.  The problem is that people cannot choose when to work overtime, that they are required
    to do it in the first place, and to be away from their families. Then we try to figure out, "Well, what
    will we do to compensate for that?"

    	Let us make it so that they do not have to be forced.  That is where they need choice.

    Ms. Woolsey.  We know that every business cannot have people saying "willy nilly", "I am going
    to show up this day, I am not tomorrow."  I mean, there has to be some scheduling, and of course, it
    has to be around the business's needs.

    	But when you bank comp time, if using that comp time is based on not unduly disrupting
    the business, when does it say that that comp time is available for when an employee really needs
    it?  And why should it be for when it is really needed?  It should be when the employee wants to
    take it.  They have worked for it; it is theirs.  They need to take it when they schedule it.

    	And this bill does not make that possible.  It is a step backwards.  I was part of the system
    for 20 years.  I know it absolutely.  And we should not be supporting it until we make it right.  We
    can make it right, so it works for the employee, as well as the employer.  And it will be fair, all the
    way around.  Then it will be more flexible.

    	So, Mr. Dantico, why don't you if you can, tell us about creating flexibility for families,
    when, indeed, they can only take it when it is in the best interest of the business?  How does that
    work for the family?

    Mr. Dantico. Well, I don't know that I would phrase it quite that way.  The situations I run into are
    where the supervisor is simply handicapped and cannot give the time off.

    	There are always scheduling problems, and overtime exists.  It is a characteristic of business
    that things go up and down.  If the employee needs the cash, they can get it through this bill,
    basically get their overtime pay, if they wish.

    	In terms of the employee trying to take the time when they need it, if you have a halfway
    decent employer, the employee is going to ask, and most employers are going to allow the
    employee, with a reasonable amount of notice, to take the time off when they need it.

    Ms. Woolsey. But how do you have reasonable notice if your kid breaks his arm, and you have to
    get up and leave?

    Mr. Dantico. I would simply call in and say, "I cannot do it," and forego the pay for the day.  That
    is what happens.  There would be no such thing as a bill that can cover all those situations.

    Ms. Woolsey. But why are we fiddling around with something that works now?

    Thank you.

    Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, is recognized for five minutes.

    Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would like to personally acknowledge that I am very proud to have Eastman Kodak in my
    district.  It is a great company, and Ms. Martell, I know you are from New York, but we are
    delighted to have your facility in Atlanta, and appreciate what you do.

    	I guess this is a comment that maybe begs a question.  I am a co-sponsor of this bill, so I am
    for it.  Ms. Woolsey does not sound like she is convinced yet.  But I do want to make a statement.

    There are bad people, there are bad employers, there are bad employees, there are criminals,
    there are speeders, and there are all kinds of things in the world.  If we did not allow ourselves to
    do anything for fear that there was a bad person, we would never do anything.  That is my first
    comment.  Second, I thought the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board
    were the people in charge of seeing to it that working lives were not violated in the first place.

    	But I do want to tell you all something about running a business.  Overtime is a good thing,
    because it means you have got a lot of business.  It means your customers are either increasing their
    orders, or they are doubling up on an order, or service.  It means you are doing business.  And if
    you are doing business, it means you are employing people.  And if you are employing people, it
    means you are paying them.  And if they have families, it means children are fed, they have
    clothes, and they have an education.

    	So, I understand the arguments on the other side, but we just cannot castigate the demand
    for business of a businessman or businesswoman or a corporation that is providing meaningful
    employment to families. Had I not been in business, I could not have sent my kids to college.  I
    could not have enriched their lives.  And I worked a lot of long hours to do that.

    	So, business is not a bad thing, overtime is a symptom of a very good thing, and that means
    that you have a lot of business.  But I acknowledge that there are bad actors, and I acknowledge
    that is why we have the National Labor Relations Board, but I just wanted it to be said that all
    businesses are not bad.

    	I think most businesses care more about their employees than the owners care about
    themselves, because without their employees, they would not even have a business.  And I know of
    many occasions where corporations and businesses have gone out of their way to accommodate a
    tragedy, whether it is a broken arm in the back yard on the swing set, or whether it is a diagnosis of
    cancer, or whether it is a tragic death.

    	So, while we are castigating business in a general broad-brush manner, because somebody
    might not get off because their child broke their arm, which I think would be a very rare occasion,
    let us remember children are being fed, clothed and educated because businesses are providing jobs
    and income and health insurance.  And that is a good thing.

    	While overtime is tough if you are working it, the truth of the matter is, if you are doing
    overtime, then you are doing a good job, your business is up, you are going to have more
    employees and more income for those employees and that is not a bad thing.  So, I just felt like the
    other side of the story needed to come out a little bit.

    	Ms. Bravo.

    Ms. Bravo.  Thank you.  I just wanted to add I certainly know there are good employers.  I have
    written a book on job-family challenge; I have cited a lot of good employers, Kodak being one of
    them.

    	The problem is the good employers do not need a law to be flexible.  They can do it right
    now.  This law will not transform bad employers into good employers.  We need laws that set a
    floor and that protect against abuses, and we need to make sure that we are not cutting the budgets
    of the agencies that enforce the law, which unfortunately, right now, is what is happening.

    Chairman Norwood. Would the gentleman yield?

    Mr. Isakson. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman Norwood. I would like to follow up on that just a little bit.  Does everybody agree that
    the employers can do that now?  What I mean by that is if an employee works 44 hours or 48 hours
    in one week, I do not think employers have a choice about what they can do; they have to pay time-
    and-a-half.

    Ms. Bravo.  Yes. Oh.

    Chairman Norwood. Well, my question is, is that right or wrong?  Are you saying they don't have
    to pay time-and-a-half?

    Ms. Bravo.  Yes, they have to pay time-and-a-half.  On the other hand, if the employee says, "Gee,
    next week, I would like to take a day off after working so much," there is nothing to prevent them
    from saying, "Sure, go ahead."  And now that I have banked the extra money, I can afford to take
    the time off, if that is what I choose to do.  And you can work with me to do that.

    Chairman Norwood.  But it is also equally important that the employer and the employee can
    agree.  I know the U.S. House of Representatives has been way ahead on this, by the way.  We
    passed it in the 104th and the 105th Congresses.  The happy news is we have a better Senate.  We
    are liable to get this done, and the employer and the employee ought to be able to make this kind of
    decision without any help from us.

    I yield back.

    Mr. Isakson. Oh, I think you are doing well, Mr. Chairman.

    [Laughter.]

    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman yields back.

    I request that a press release from the U.S. Department of Labor dated December 18, 2002,
    entitled, "Labor Department Enforcement Reaches 10-Year High: Wage and Hour Division
    Recovers $175 Million for Workers" be put in the record. This is about the $175 million in back
    wages collected for 263,593 workers in fiscal year 2002, the largest amount collected by the
    Department in 10 years.

    Without objection, so ordered.

    The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, is recognized for five minutes.

    Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.

    Ms. Martell, you are very fortunate.  Kodak is a very reputable company, and I am not
    surprised that things work well there.

    	However, I think that laws are not usually made for the good guys; they are usually made
    for people who violate the laws.  And I think we have heard about this rosy picture of employers.
    However, it took a lot of laws to bring bosses into line.  They had women and children who worked
    12 hours a day.  They had doors locked, the great fire in Chicago, where IOGW women were
    burned at the terrible fire.

    	So the reason that government is best which governs least is if you had all good guys, if
    everybody was like Kodak, you would not need these laws.  But you should go to some of the side
    streets in my town, or over in New York City.  You do not have the Kodak-type employer.  I am
    glad that everybody on the other side only knows good people.  I know bad people, people that
    abuse people, people that take advantage of people, people who are strong and powerful who take
    advantage of the weak people.

    	Now, if I was a boss and I said to four of you, "I want you to take comp time," and three of
    you said, "Okay," and the other one said, "No, I cannot take it," that fourth person would be a guy
    that I put on the list as "non-cooperative," "a problem."  When any kind of advantage or promotion
    would come up, I would say that is a less-than-cooperative individual, you know, we asked for
    comp time and they said no.

    	I think that also, the whole question of overtime as it relates to comp time is if you have
    people that will take the comp time and not ask for overtime pay, you are going to do away with
    overtime as we know it.  And the time is only going to be given when the corporation feels it can
    afford to give the time.  And I think it was made very clear by Mr. Owens early on that it is less
    flexibility for the worker.  They are telling you when they want you to work overtime, and you
    have a right to do it or not.

    	However, you have got to ask when you can take the comp time, and they have the right to
    deny you the comp time.  So it is not more flexibility, it is actually less flexibility for the worker.
    And anyone that tries to paint this as more flexibility because the employer, the boss, does not have
    to give you the time off when you decide you want the time off, whereas you have a right to deny
    overtime, but you do not have a right to get your comp time.  So that is not equal footing.

    	And so, I just think that if you had a good employer like Kodak, from what I know about
    Kodak and how you have talked about it, you could do all the things now without this law at
    Kodak.  You shake your head.  They would not give you time off if you needed to take some time
    off?

    Ms. Martell. If I wanted comp time, no.

    Mr. Payne. Well, what makes you think you are going to get it under this law?

    Ms. Martell. Because I am going to have a choice.

    Mr. Payne. A choice of what?

    Ms. Martell. I am going to have a choice to either get paid that time-and-a-half, or I am going to
    have the choice to take that comp time.

    Mr. Payne. Well, that is when you have got it banked.  I am talking about next week, when you
    want the time off.  You cannot take the comp time before you earn it, next week, not now.

    	You have a right not to work overtime, and therefore, do not make any additional money, or
    work overtime and do not get paid.  I am talking about next week; you decided to take off to go see
    your daughter in the play at school.

    Ms. Martell. See, I believe the company I work for, I could do that.

    Mr. Payne. See, that is what I am saying.

    Ms. Martell. Should we punish the good companies and the employees that work for those good
    companies?  Or should we be going after the companies that are forcing others to work?

    Mr. Payne. Oh, well, like I said initially, the only reason that we put in laws is you would not need
    traffic lights if everybody just stopped and looked around, made sure another car was not coming,
    and then went.

    	I mean, all kinds of things are put in because of the one that breaks the law, the one that is
    incorrigible, and it is the same thing with business.  I just contend that there are measures in the
    current system, and I think that it is unnecessary, and I would hope that it is defeated.  I yield back.

    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.  In closing, let me just say that we have worked on this bill for a long
    time, and it has been in several of the Congresses, and we have tried to address the issues from the
    other side of the aisle.

    	One of the things is that this has worked in the public sector for over 20 years.  And we
    have heard from the firefighters, we have heard from the FOB, the police union, and they seem to
    like it.  Any time that we ask an employee what they would like, they would like to have the
    flexibility.  And it is voluntary.  If it does not work for an employee, they can cash in and go back
    to the overtime pay.  It is not a rigid situation at all, and the public sector likes it.

    	There is also a sunset provision in here for five years.  If it does not work, then we will
    review it then and change it.  But from what we have heard, it is flexible for the company to offer
    it.  There are certain situations where a company will not offer this because they know that in their
    type of business that it is not going to work.  But once they decide to offer comp time, any
    employee has the choice of either taking comp time or time off or overtime pay.

    	So, I would think that we would continue this discussion, and I really thank both the
    witnesses and the Members for their valuable time and participation.

    Mr. Owens. Madam Chair?

    Mrs. Biggert. Yes?

    Mr. Owens. Madam Chair, I just wanted to say that when H.R. 1 was offered years ago, I did offer
    an amendment on the floor to take care of the concerns of those people who were making twice
    minimum wage.  It exempted them from this, and allowed people who are professionals, who seem
    to look at it more favorably, to go ahead, and I will be offering an amendment again.

    	I hope, in your wisdom and compassion, we can work together on that amendment.

    Mrs. Biggert. We will take a look at it.  I have not seen it.  Thank you.

    If there is no further business, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.

    APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN
    CHARLIE NORWOOD, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE
    PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

    APPENDIX B - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF VICE-CHAIR JUDY BIGGERT,
    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON
    EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

    APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF HOUSTON L. WILLIAMS,
    CHAIRMAN AND CEO, PNS INC., SAN JOSE, CA, TESTIFYING ON
    BEHALF OF THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

    APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF TERI MARTELL,
    ELECTRICIAN AND INSTRUMENTATION MECHANIC, EASTMAN KODAK
    COMPANY, ROCHESTER, NY

    APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ELLEN BRAVO, DIRECTOR, 9
    TO 5, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN, MILWAUKEE,
    WI

    APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JOHN A. DANTICO,
    PRINCIPAL OF COMPENSATION/HR CONSULTING, HR GROUP,
    NORTHBROOK, IL, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY FOR
    HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (SHRM)

    APPENDIX G - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, STATEMENT OF
    CONGRESSWOMAN LYNN C. WOOLSEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
    WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
    WORKFORCE

    APPENDIX H - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, "LABOR DEPARTMENT
    ENFORCEMENT REACHES 10-YEAR HIGH," ESA NEWS RELEASE, U.S.
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 12/18/02

    APPENDIX I - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, "SUITS SAY WAL-MART
    FORCES WORKERS TO TOIL OFF THE CLOCK," GREENHOUSE,
    STEVEN, THE NEW YORK TIMES, 6/25/02

    APPENDIX J - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, "MANY LAID-OFF
    SILICON VALLEY TECHIES WORK FOR FREE TO BRUSH UP ON
    SKILLS," SWARTZ, JON, USA TODAY

    APPENDIX K -SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, "ALL IN A DAY'S
    WORK," VALENTI, CATHERINE, ABC NEWS.COM

    APPENDIX L - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO CHAIRMAN
    NORWOOD, FROM R. BRUCE JOSTEN, U.S. CHAMBER OF
    COMMERCE, MARCH 31, 2003

    APPENDIX M - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO
    CHAIRMAN NORWOOD, FROM DAN DANNER, NATIONAL FEDERATION
    OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS (NFIB), APRIL 1, 2003

    APPENDIX N - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO CHAIRMAN
    NORWOOD, FROM SUSAN R. MEISINGER, SOCIETY FOR HUMAN
    RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (SHRM), APRIL 3, 2003

    APPENDIX O - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO CHAIRMAN
    NORWOOD, FROM DANIELLE RINGWOOD, ASSOCIATED BUILDERS
    AND CONTRACTORS, INC. (ABC), March 28, 2003

    APPENDIX P - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO
    REPRESENTATIVE, FROM LEE CULPEPPER AND ROB GREEN,
    NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, APRIL 7, 2003

    APPENDIX Q - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER TO
    CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER AND MEMBERS OF THE
    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, FROM THE UNION
    OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA, APRIL 2,
    2003

    125

    Table of Indexes

    Chairman Norwood, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 29
    Mr. Bishop, 22, 23, 24
    Mr. Dantico, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27
    Mr. Isakson, 27, 29
    Mr. Kline, 24, 25
    Mr. Owens, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 32
    Mr. Payne, 30, 31
    Mr. Williams, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
    Mrs. Biggert, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32
    Ms. Bravo, 19, 26
    Ms. Martell, 9, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 26, 30, 31
    Ms. Woolsey, 25, 26, 27

    cxxii

    121