[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 112 (Friday, July 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8562-H8573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2391, WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY 
                              ACT OF 1996

  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 488 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 488

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2391) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938 to provide compensatory time for all employees. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Economic and 
     Educational Opportunities. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule 
     for a period not to exceed two hours. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Economic and 
     Educational Opportunities now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. Points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply 
     with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. Before consideration of 
     any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative 
     Goodling of Pennsylvania or his designee. That amendment 
     shall be considered as read, may amend portions of the bill 
     not yet read, shall be debatable for ten minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. If that amendment is adopted, the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
     amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
     purpose of further amendment. No further amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

                              {time}  0945

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentlewoman from Utah 
[Ms. Greene] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 488 is a modified open rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 2391, the Working Families Flexibility 
Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided 
between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities amendment in the nature of a substitute as an 
original bill for purpose of amendment, with each section considered as 
read. The rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires amendments 
to be germane, against this committee amendment in the nature of 
substitute. This waiver is necessary because the committee amendment 
includes a remedy provision to further enhance existing worker 
protections, and this provision is technically beyond the scope of the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for the consideration of the manager's 
amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, which amendment shall 
be considered as read. This amendment shall not be subject to amendment 
or to a division of the question, may amend portions of the bill not 
yet read, and is debatable for 10 minutes equally divided between the 
proponent and an opponent. If adopted, this manager's amendment shall 
be considered as part of the base text for further amendment purposes.
  In order to better accommodate members' schedules, the rule allows 
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes and reduce 
voting time to 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, there are only 26 legislative days left in this 
Congress, and there remain a large number of priority items that must 
be considered by the House, including the remainder of the 
reconciliation process and all 13 appropriations conference reports. 
Accordingly, the rule provides for a 2-hour limit on the amendment 
process. Given that no amendments were offered during the full 
committee markup of this legislation, and only one amendment has been 
filed, 2 hours

[[Page H8563]]

should be more than adequate time for amendment of this straightforward 
legislation.
  The rule provides for consideration only of those amendments that 
have been preprinted in the Congressional Record. Members have been 
given ample time and notice to get amendments printed in the Record. 
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2391 is important, commonsense legislation to give 
working families a much-needed option in balancing their work and 
family schedules. The Working Families Flexibility Act will permit 
private sector employees to have the option of choosing paid 
compensatory time in lieu of cash wages when they work overtime hours. 
Employees of the Federal Government, and of State and local 
governments, have already had this opportunity for years.
  As part of the House's new crop of working mothers, I am proud to be 
a cosponsor of this legislation. It's tough to be a good worker and a 
good mother, father, daughter or son. Millions and millions of us 
struggle with these competing demands every single day. This bill will 
bring relief to working families, especially working mothers and 
fathers who are bearing the brunt of balancing work and family 
obligations. This legislation will amend overtime rules for private 
sector employees that were established in 1938, as part of the Fair 
Labor Standards Act. It is important to note that the United States was 
a much different place in 1938--at that time, most women worked at 
home. Today, most women work both in their homes and outside of the 
home, and struggle to balance the time demands of work and family--
particularly those of children.
  We are trying to make the private sector provide workers the same 
options that public employees have today.
  Many men are recognizing their duty to be more than just a financial 
provider and want to be able to spend important family time with their 
children.
  The Working Families Flexibility Act seeks only to amend this one 
anachronistic aspect of the Fair Labor Standards Act that is hampering 
America's new generation of working families.
  Indeed, contrary to what this bill's alarmist critics will say, the 
Working Families Flexibility Act is humble in its ambition. It seeks 
only to give working families an additional tool in balancing work and 
family time. This bill seeks only to equalize how public and private 
sector employees are treated with respect to comp time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  This legislation does not change the fundamental worker protections 
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  This legislation does not change the 40-hour work week for purposes 
of calculating overtime.
  This legislation does not relieve employers from the obligation of 
paying overtime.
  This legislation does not give employers the means to coerce workers 
into taking compensatory time instead of overtime pay.
  What this bill does, is give workers the option of choosing more cash 
wages or paid time off for overtime work.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that working families are suffering from a 
time crunch. Things have changed since 1938--we have more working 
parents, more single parents, more divorces--we didn't plan it that 
way, but it's a reality. We also have more seniors living longer, 
needing the care and love of their children and grandchildren. The 
Working Families Flexibility Act will permit working parents to bank 
comp time, so that they can have time available to tend to a sick 
child, to go to a special event for that child, like a baseball game or 
dance recital, or to care for a fragile parent. If some of those 
workers prefer extra cash wages for overtime, they can still choose 
that. The point is that, under this legislation, the choice will be 
theirs, not Washington's.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a chance to help working families get a little 
more control over their lives by giving them greater choices and more 
flexibility. Let's let them choose.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again emphasize that this is a 
modified open rule, providing for fair consideration of the important 
issues contained in this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this 
open rule and the important underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Utah, Ms. Greene, 
for yielding me the customary half hour and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the concept behind this bill is a good one. But the 
execution is terrible.
  What is good for public employees should be good for private 
employees. If public employees can take comp time, private employees 
should be able to also.
  But this bill basically means that employees can be forced to take 
paid time off rather than overtime pay, and that is a significant 
problem.
  Because there is a big difference, Mr. Speaker, between private 
employers and the U.S. Government.
  For one thing, the Government is a nonprofit, it does not need to 
impress its stock holders with a good bottom line, although it probably 
should, and it is not likely to go bankrupt anytime soon.
  Furthermore, many Government employees work in white collar jobs and 
earn above average salaries, their salaries are probably adequate 
without overtime pay.
  So what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.
  And, once again, it is hard working, lower paid Americans who are 
getting hurt by this Republican Congress.
  Like many other bills we have seen this session, this bill takes care 
of the big guys but does not do much for the workers.
  In fact, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it seriously endangers 
workers, particularly workers who rely on overtime pay to support their 
families.
  This bill allows an employer to stop paying overtime, and say to 
employees, ``Sorry, I can't pay you overtime, but in return for your 
long hours, you can take a vacation when it's convenient for me, if I'm 
still in business.''
  Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of workers who earned overtime pay in 1994 
had family incomes of less than $40,000 per year. They averaged wages 
of $10 or less per hour and they relied on this overtime pay to feed 
their children and support their families. For those workers in 
particular, this bill could mean serious trouble.
  It not only enables the employers to decide whether or not to offer 
comp time but also provides no protections for when and how a worker 
can use their comp time.
  In spite of proponents' claims to the contrary, under this bill, 
workers have very little choice.
  Because Mr. Speaker, when your employer says ``we're doing things 
this way now'' you either go along or you get replaced. That is just 
the way it is and anyone who says an employee can significantly change 
the work environment is fooling themselves.
  This bill does nothing to prevent an employer from giving all or most 
overtime work to an employee who is willing to accept comp time and 
does not need the overtime pay.
  If an employee does take the comp time this bill does not give them 
the right to use that time when they want it. In fact, an employer 
could force an employee to use comp time whenever the employer wants.
  And, to make matters even worse, if a company goes out of business or 
goes bankrupt, employees left holding unused comp time have no 
protections at all. They worked overtime, they were promised comp time, 
but under this bill, they could be left holding worthless vouchers for 
comp time.
  By lowering the costs of scheduling overtime, this bill will actually 
encourage employers to hire fewer employees and work them longer hours.
  I for one have not been deluged with letters and calls or telegrams 
from employees clamoring for comp time, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the 
Employment Policy Foundation--an employer-based think-tank--estimates 
that 10 percent of employees who are already entitled to overtime pay 
do not receive it. That comes to $19 billion of overtime pay each year 
that American employees should be getting already but are not.
  Mr. Speaker, let us take care of American workers instead of taking 
away what few rights they have.

[[Page H8564]]

  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic 
and Educational Opportunities.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to understand 
how Members can stand in the well, face the American people and totally 
distort the facts. I cannot understand that. It does a disservice to 
them, it does a disservice to those of us who are serving our 
constituents. My committee has responded to what the American people 
said they wanted, once again. We have done that.
  The President took a poll, others took a poll and found out that 75 
percent of the working families want to have a choice between comp time 
or overtime. That is what we have given them. They are protected from 
the word go. Only the employee makes that choice; no one can make them 
make that choice.
  We have stagnation in wages and benefits now, not because of 
something of this nature but because there is an economy that is not 
growing. The Federal, State and local governments now have comp time, 
have had it for years. We here on this floor want to say, well, it is 
fine for our employees but we do not want the private sector to have 
the same opportunities that our employees have.
  We have crafted it in such a manner, realizing that there is a 
difference between the private sector and the public sector, to make 
very sure that it is the employee who makes that choice. It is the 
employee who may change their mind, and they have the opportunity to 
change their mind and take the money rather than take the comp time. It 
is the employee who makes every determination in relationship to 
whether or not they take comp time.

  First of all, it is totally incorrect to say that it has any effect 
whatsoever on a 40-hour work week. It does not in relationship to the 
calculation for overtime. This is what the legislation does.
  If the employee chooses comp time over cash wages, there must be an 
express mutual agreement in writing or some verifiable statement 
between the employer and the employee. Employees would not be able to 
pressure or force employees to choose comp time.
  Someone said, what if they go bankrupt the same as any other company 
now goes bankrupt? But in this case, they are first in line if a 
company goes bankrupt to claim anything from the assets of that 
company.
  Employees would only be able to accrue a maximum of 240 hours of comp 
time within a 12-month period; but employers and employees could agree 
to a limit accrual to less than that if they decide to do that. 
Employers would have to pay employees in cash wages for any unused 
accrued comp time at the end of each year.
  Nothing in the legislation precludes employees from changing their 
mind to choose cash wages instead of comp time or vice versa.

                              {time}  1000

  Comp time can only be provided at the request of the employee. So I 
think it is time to stop the nonsense of trying to confuse the American 
people. This is what the private sector wants because this is what the 
public sector has had and has enjoyed, and we should give them that 
opportunity to make that choice.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My dear friend who just took a seat I think would have to realize 
that the employer has to agree with the employee when it comes to the 
comp time and when that time could be taken.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for just a 
question?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, as someone who is not a businessman, and I 
have not been inundated with requests on this, but if I am working 30 
or 40 people in my plant, and they were trying to make a living on, in 
a lot of cases, very low wages and the employer says, ``Hey, we've got 
a deal here for you. You can either get overtime or you can get comp 
time, and I would suggest that comp time might be better for you,'' and 
if the guy does not really understand what is happening to him, he is 
going to pretty much have a tendency to go along with the employer.
  Would that be a logical conclusion?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I would say also the employer would tend to give the 
extra time to the fellow who takes comp time rather than the overtime, 
so if you say, ``I want overtime,'' they probably will not be 
designated as the fellow who is going to work.
  Mr. HEFNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I remember back 
the first job I ever had I was a young guy just out of school and I got 
a job for $18 a week, and I had some senior guys that were working in 
the place who were married and had families, and I went to the employer 
and I said ``Hey, I do the same work as these people do except I do 
delivery work, I cut glass, I throw pipe, I need to get a little bit 
more money, why can't I get a little bit more money?'' ``Because you're 
not married and you don't need the money,'' and the employer, do my 
colleagues know what, he was right, and I did not get any more money.
  But if I were working 20 or 30 employees and the employer comes in 
and say, ``OK, folks, here's the deal. You can get, if you're going to 
work 48 hours this week, we'll give you some overtime, but the best 
deal for you is comp time and I'll decide when you can take the comp 
time.'' Is that the way this bill works?
  The chairman said that people were demagoging here and absolutely 
misrepresenting it, and I think it can be misrepresented from both 
sides the way I read this legislation. I want to do what is right for 
my small business people.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Just stated the case as it is.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on my friend from 
North Carolina and look at this from another dimension, the person who 
is applying for a job. He or she goes to an employer and tries to get a 
job, and the employer is interviewing that person and suggests to them, 
or at least ask them:
  ``What would you prefer in your work life here with us at this 
company: comp time or overtime wages?''
  Of course, the employer is going to make their case that they would 
prefer them to have comp time. They are going to be persuaded by that, 
or they are not going to get the job.
  They hold all the leverage, they hold all the power in that 
situation, and that is why this bill is bad.
  The idea of flextime is a good idea, but this is not flextime, this 
is comp time, and comp time means they lose overtime wages and pay, and 
that is what is wrong with this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we have just heard in this colloquy is why 
we ought to vote against this rule and get this bill out of here.
  We hear about cruel and unusual punishment, but this is going to be 
cruel and outrageous legislation because it is made to sound so 
wonderful and soft, but let me tell my colleagues, every employer in 
America will be really stupid if, when someone came to get a job, they 
did not say, ``And by the way, when we have overtime, wouldn't you like 
to sign this little form saying that you really don't want to be paid 
for it, you'll just take comp time?''
  And then, of course, the whole thing is that they only get the comp 
time when the employer says they can have the comp time.
  Well, now, let us assume that things are so tough that the employer 
has to hire a few people who will not sign that. Well, what is he going 
to do when it comes time to hand out overtime? If they did not sign it, 
they are never going to get it.
  So this is really terribly disruptive. We keep pretending like 
employees have exactly the same leverage that Michael Jordan does when 
he is out negotiating with his employer, and anyone who has been in an 
employee situation knows that is not true. And so

[[Page H8565]]

what we are really doing is tilting the scale 100 percent in favor of 
the employer, and we are really going to end up cutting the pay, 
because so many families depend on this extra money that they get, and 
if they do end up having the comp time, they are not going to get the 
comp time when they need it to go to the child's school or anything 
else. They get the comp time whenever the employer says they can take 
it, and that is no deal at all.
  So I really hope that we should strip off the name ``family 
friendly.''
  I hope many Members in this body who have small companies that, as 
employers, will benefit by this legislation will not vote on this 
legislation. I think it is a conflict of interest, and I think we ought 
to be talking about whether people who have companies that might be 
able to do this should be even able to vote on this legislation.
  Do not call it ``family friendly.'' Vote ``no.'' Get it out of here. 
This is ridiculous, and this is the ``employer reward'' bill.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] to correct some misperceptions about 
the legislation.
  Mr. GOODLING. Again, Mr. Speaker, another total distortion of the 
facts. If an employee is coerced in our legislation, they can collect 
double overtime and attorney fees, and the Secretary of Labor can do it 
for them, they do not even have to do it themselves, and they can 
always cash out their comp time if they want, and this does not happen 
to be some outrageous Republican proposal. The President of the United 
States, who is not a Republican, has indicated that he supports this 
kind of legislation.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, while our Olympic 
athletes may start their day with a bowl of Wheaties, our Democrat 
colleagues started the day by trying to serve up a bowl full of 
balderdash sprinkled with horse feathers. That is what we are trying to 
spoon out during their speeches on comp time: Distortions, 
prevarications, and untruths.
  This is really a simple bill designed to give hourly employees the 
opportunity to have more flexibility in their work schedule so that, 
for example, they can better meet the needs of their working family.
  The bill allows an employee, when the employer agrees, they have to 
agree together, to take overtime pay in the form of comp time rather 
than cash wages.
  The bill does not, I repeat, does not affect the change in the 40-
hour workweek. Some of the unions are sending letters, phone calls, 
saying that it does affect the work week. Under this bill, a worker 
would still earn overtime in the very same way he or she does by now, 
by working 40 hours in a 7-day week. In that, this bill would simply 
allow workers to choose, by agreement with the employer, to receive 
time-and-a-half comp time instead of wages. Workers in the 
public sector, State, local, Federal employees, have had the option of 
taking comp time for many years, and many union members do, too.

  The bill extends this option to private sector, un-unionized private 
sector as well. Surveys have shown that there is strong support among 
hourly employees for having this option. Obviously not every employer 
will use it, but it will fill in a need for many workers. By allowing 
the employees to take comp time, they can bank extra hours at the time-
and-a-half rate and use that time for extra vacation time, personal 
leave or whatever they want.
  As I mentioned, the public sector and many unions have the option of 
using comp time now. We would extend that to the rest of the private 
sector.
  I started out with simply using the same language that is in the law 
for the public sector and applying it to the private sector. Then 
Democrats started raising issues that frankly have not been problems in 
the public sector, and I doubt it would be in the private sector. But 
in order to help sell the bill, we made several changes that give 
private sector employees more protections against coercion and taking 
comp time or taking advantage of it if they do take comp time. We 
specified that the employee must choose comp time voluntarily, and it 
indicates so in writing. We have said that the employee that takes comp 
time but then changes his or her mind for whatever reason and wants 
cash, the employer has to cash out the employee's accrued comp time 
within 30 days of the request. We put in protections against coercion 
and special, specific penalties for employers who coerce employees into 
taking comp time. We specify that the employee may take comp time 
whenever he or she wishes as long as he or she gives reasonable notice 
to the employer and takes the leave that does not disrupt the 
employer's operation.
  We have said to the employer that he has to cash out all the unused 
comp time at the end of the year and show it. I think we have 
accommodated every reasonable concern and some that were not so 
reasonable.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my colleague from North 
Carolina. They made the point that if they are coerced or they have a 
problem, that they have remedies for this, and all I wanted to ask was 
where would they go to make their complaint and who would decide if it 
was coercion or whatever?
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Ballenger] to respond to the gentleman.
  Mr. BALLENGER. They can go to court on their own or they could go to 
the Secretary of Labor, who is not a friend of business, and he will do 
it for them to enforce that law.
  Mr. HEFNER. I am just curious how many people would have on their own 
the resources to go to court and how many people on their own would 
know where to go to go to the Secretary of Labor.
  Mr. BALLENGER. That is the reason the Department of Labor is 
involved; to give them the authority does not cost anything. The 
gentleman's labor leader Mr. Reich, I am sure, would be happy to do it.
  Mr. HEFNER. I have an idea that 90 percent of the people in our 
district in North Carolina do not have any idea who Mr. Reich is. I 
just think this is not a very good deal for the average working folks 
in the country.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I do not know who my friends on the other 
side of the aisle think they are fooling today with this bill.
  As my colleagues know, over the past 20 months the Republicans in 
this House have voted to cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, cut student loans, 
close nursing homes, raid pension funds, block health care reform, 
weaken health and safety laws, but labor laws, weaken the right to 
organize, block an increase in the minimum wage and eliminate the 
minimum wage altogether for literally millions of Americans. Yet today 
they come to the floor and they try to convince us that they are the 
champions of working men and women.
  Now, I swear, if shamelessness were an Olympic event, the Gingrich 
Republicans would take the gold.
  We all know that this bill is not about compensation, it is not about 
flexibility, and it is certainly not about helping working families. It 
is about cutting people's pay. It is about changing the law so the 
employers no longer have to pay overtime wages for overtime work.
  This bill takes away the only real raise most people have seen for 
the past 20 years and have earned with their own sweat and hard work.
  We live in a country today where 80 percent of our families have not 
seen a raise since 1979, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, we 
also live in a country where violations of overtime laws are so common 
that one study found that workers are getting cheated on $19 billion 
each year. Yet this bill takes away the overtime cops off the beat; it 
completely wipes out the law that says they have to pay time-and-a half 
for overtime work.
  We are all for flextime because flextime allows us to arrange our 
schedules to spend more time with our families. But that is not what 
comp time is. Comp time is a pay cut, pure and simple. If this bill 
becomes law, a single mom who puts in 47 hours a week earns five bucks 
an hour, will lose 50 bucks a

[[Page H8566]]

week. Someone who works in a factory, works the same amount of time, 
$10 an hour, he or she will lose $110 a week. That is about a 22-
percent cut in their pay.
  No wonder this is called the comp time bill: because if this becomes 
law, workers are going to need comp time to find a second job to make 
up for the money they lost in overtime pay.
  Why do you think that so many people are working overtime today? 
Because they like working long hours? No; it is because they need the 
money and it is because wages have been stagnant and they need the 
work, and they work hard for that.
  So do not come to the floor and tell us that this bill is meant to 
help families spend more time with their families. Because if 
Republicans are really concerned about helping people spend time with 
their families, they would not have opposed the medical and family 
leave law. It supporters of this bill really wanted to help families, 
why do they give employers instead of the employees power to decide 
when and if comp time can be taken?
  No wonder that 66 percent of working men and women say they fear that 
employers will use this law to avoid overtime pay. No wonder nearly 7 
in 10 working people prefer overtime pay to forced comp time.

                              {time}  1015

  This bill does not give employees more control over their lives, it 
gives employers control over the lives of the people who work for them. 
Working people all over this country today are working hard, they are 
working longer hours just to make ends meet, and we should not take 
away the one sure path they have toward earning a better living for 
their families. Vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], my colleague on the Rules Committee.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Utah for yielding me 
this time. I rise to express my strong support for this rule and for 
the Working Families Flexibility Act.
  First, this is a fair rule. The modest conditions outlined in the 
rule will ensure that Members have the opportunity to review all 
germane amendments prior to their consideration.
  Second, as a cosponsor of the bill, I support restoring some 
flexibility to the American workplace. Today more than ever before in 
the history of America, both parents of a family find themselves in the 
workplace. As this percentage steadily grows, employers find that 
current law hampers their ability to provide workers the flexibility 
that they want and need to balance family and work interests.
  H.R. 2391 would restore flexibility by simply allowing overtime 
compensation to be given in the form of comp time off, and only if the 
employee wants this form of compensation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is 1996. We are near the start of a new century. It 
is time for American labor law to catch up from the conditions and 
perspectives of the 1930's that helped shape landmark laws like the 
Fair Labor Standards Act. No matter how well-intentioned their 
creation, labor laws today simply must be reformed to reflect the 
changing nature of the modern workplace.
  Over the past 25 years, the American economy has rapidly expanded. 
Competition has increased, and more women are working today than ever 
before. As a result, employees are looking for support and fairness as 
they struggle to balance family needs and job responsibilities. by 
freeing workers and their employers from the arcane 1930's standards, 
H.R. 2391 recognizes that a productive workplace can be achieved while 
also giving employees the flexibility to care for their families, 
creating a more family-friendly work environment and making it easier 
for the households where both parents work.
  Allowing comp time is a good step toward revamping Depression-era 
labor laws. This bill is a winner for employers, employees, and 
families alike. The big union bosses and my colleagues on the other 
side should put the American worker first and stop playing 
paternalistic big brother. American workers are perfectly capable of 
deciding whether they want to be paid for their overtime service in 
dollars or in comp time. In this day and age, to many families, time is 
more valuable than dollars. I urge support for this important pro-
family legislation and a vote for this very fair rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities where this bill originated. I have expressed it during 
the committee that I like the idea of workers choosing between earning 
overtime and comp time as long as it is the total choice of the 
employee with teeth to prevent the coercion. This bill does not protect 
that employee choice. National polls show that an overwhelming number 
of workers expect to be forced by their employer to accept comp time 
instead of overtime. But the central issue here is clear, it is either 
employee choice or employer mandate. That is the concern about the 
bill. That is why the bill is flawed. H.R. 2391 does not contain a 
strong provision to prevent the employer from forcing workers to accept 
time off in lieu of overtime pay. In my district many people have to 
have overtime pay just to make ends meet. In H.R. 2391, employers 
maintain the control when to grant that comp time regardless of the 
amount of notice that the employee gives. What good is it to earn comp 
time if your employer makes you use that instead of your vacation you 
may earn? This needs to be addressed. Comp time should be treated just 
like any other wages in bankruptcy. This bill does not touch that. It 
should be at the same level in bankruptcy filings, so comp time is the 
same as lost wages in bankruptcy. This proposal does not ensure that 
the full remedies available to employees for violation of the overtime 
law are available where the employer violates the law. Strong civil 
fines should be established where employers who operate comp time 
programs violate the law and coerce employees. Instead of this flawed 
Republican proposal, we should work on a bipartisan proposal giving 
employees real flex time. I urge defeat of the rule, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended on 
speaking on this particular issue today but sitting back in my office 
listening to some of my colleagues speak, I had to come over here and I 
had to say a few words. As a Republican who supports labor a good deal 
of the time, as a Republican who voted against NAFTA, who voted for the 
antistrikebreaker bill, who cosponsored the family medical leave bill, 
I have got to respond to some of the assertions made by my colleagues 
on this side about what Republicans have done to working people in 
America.
  It was Bill Clinton who jammed NAFTA down the throats of this 
country. It was Bill Clinton who told us the side agreements were going 
to raise up the working conditions and the environmental laws in 
Mexico.
  Where are those side agreements, Mr. Speaker? And to all those rank-
and-file workers out there, you ask your union leaders, what has this 
President done to enforce those side agreements? Zero, zilch, nada. The 
jobs are going south.
  It was Bill Clinton, Mr. Speaker, who said he was for the 
antistrikebreaker bill which I voted for. But, Mr. Speaker, tell the 
workers of this country that it was Bill Clinton who would not lobby 
one of his two Senators from Arkansas to vote for cloture when it only 
needed one vote, because the votes were there to pass it, but he would 
not use his ability to get one of the Senators from Arkansas to vote to 
invoke cloture so that bill could become law, and I voted for it. Where 
is the outrage there?
  And, Mr. Speaker, where is the outrage on the other side at those 1 
million UAW workers, those 1 million machinists, those 1 million 
electrical workers who have lost their jobs in defense plants all 
across this country because of Bill Clinton's cuts?
  Where is the outrage from the union leaders and from this side of the 
aisle on those losses? There has been total silence on those issues. 
And they have

[[Page H8567]]

the gall to come to this floor and say that somehow a bill that allows 
workers the ability to decide whether they want some time off when they 
voluntarily have agreed to it is hurting labor. I am outraged and 
disgusted by what I hear on this side as someone who supports labor and 
supports working people.
  Mr. Speaker, I say get real. I say this is solid legislation that we 
should all get behind. And as a prolabor Republican I am going to vote 
for it, and I am going to challenge my colleagues on that side to match 
their actions to their rhetoric. They have not stood by labor on NAFTA, 
they have not stood by labor on antistrikebreaker, they have not stood 
by labor on the millions of jobs that have been lost in defense 
contract cutbacks by this President and this administration. We have a 
fair and an ideal dialog that benefits working people in this country, 
instead of the Beltway labor leaders that are totally in bed with the 
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who have placed $35 
million running ads on every TV station in America, with none of those 
ads against right-to-work Democrats. We have right-to-work Democrats 
with zero voting records and there is not one dime of that money going 
against any of them. Why? Not because the rank-and-file labor workers 
disagree but because the leadership in Washington has targeted all of 
that money against Republicans. That is the outrage I feel and I am 
going to lead the effort to have this bill become law.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, my colleague can be outraged but the fact 
of the matter is that with this piece of legislation, this is a repeal 
of the 40-hour workweek. Make no mistake about it. It is a reward to 
the rich special interests. That is what this piece of legislation is 
about.
  Wages for working Americans in this country have been stagnant for 
too long, and what this bill will do is to cut workers' incomes by 
billions of dollars. That is right, billions of dollars. This bill 
makes radical changes in our Nation's laws.
  Under the bill, the employer can deny an employee overtime pay and 
can coerce the worker into taking time off. The burden of proof is on 
the worker to find that memo, which will be nonexistent, that says they 
intended to cut their wages. They are never going to find that memo. It 
will be a silent action.
  It can deprive working families of the change to earn overtime. Today 
that is one of the very few tools that working Americans have in their 
struggle to keep their families together in our current economy. The 
Bureau of Labor Statistics says that average hourly pay has fallen by 
11 percent over the past 17 years, and despite working longer and 
longer hours and throwing every member of their family into the work 
force, Americans, working families, are falling further and further 
behind.
  What was the response of this Republican-led Congress? Stall the 
minimum wage. Eighty percent of the American public wants to see an 
increase in the minimum wage. They say that 90 cents is too much, 
because they make over $133,000 a year, but we cannot have the minimum 
wage increase.
  Now what they want to do is to cut people's overtime and to cut their 
pay at the same time as holding up a minimum wage increase. Let me say 
in that delaying tactic on the minimum wage, in my State of Connecticut 
$4.8 million has been lost to workers in wages. Understand what this 
legislation is about: an assault on working families.
  Mr. Speaker, today Republicans will continue their assault on working 
families. I am a Member of this body who voted against the NAFTA 
agreement. Middle-income families, understand that, will be hit the 
hardest because overtime pay is a much larger percentage of their 
income. In 1994, two-thirds of the workers who earned overtime pay had 
a total family income of $40,000.
  This is a repeal of the 40-hour wage week. I urge my colleagues, vote 
against this bill.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the chairman of the Committee on Small 
Business.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on this important 
legislation. I hope all of my colleagues will support the rule and vote 
for the bill.
  I have here some responses to the concerns that have been expressed 
this morning, and I will enter them into the Record at the conclusion 
of my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. It is a commonsense 
solution to a problem which faces today's workers, and that is how to 
balance the time that must be spent working and the amount of time 
available for family matters, personal responsibilities, recreation and 
leisure.
  But, unfortunately, once again the opponents of change are 
misrepresenting the intentions as well as the effects of this 
legislation. I continue to be amazed by some who believe that all 
employers are bad people who are always looking for ways to cheat their 
employees.
  As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, and the impact of 
this is going to be great on small business, I have worked with many 
small and some large businesses. I know firsthand that most employers 
have a deep and genuine concern about the people who work for them, and 
they want to do everything they can to satisfy their employees' needs.
  Why? Because they have learned that this concern is reciprocal. 
Employers who treat their employees with kindness and respect are paid 
back with loyalty and a commitment to do the very best job possible.
  Under current law, private sector employees are prohibited from 
allowing employees to take compensatory time off for overtime. The Fair 
Labor Standards Act, originally enacted in the 1930's when most women 
did not work outside the home, requires that employees be paid at the 
rate of 1\1/2\ times the regular rate for any time worked over 40 hours 
per week.
  This bill permits employers to offer their employees a choice: They 
can continue to be paid for overtime, or they can elect to take 
compensatory time off at the rate of 1\1/2\ hours for each hour of 
overtime.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize that the choice is 
exclusively that of the employee, not the employer, and there are many 
protections in the bill for employees in the event they do work for an 
unscrupulous employer. I believe we all can agree that the demands of 
family and work today are difficult to balance. We have Members of this 
body continually calling for more family friendly hours. Why should our 
constituents not be able to choose to take a Wednesday afternoon off 
rather than getting an extra hour's pay if they want to? We all know 
that spending a few hours with our children can sometimes be worth more 
than money.
  Let us give American workers, our constituents, just a choice. That 
is what we are asking, is a choice. Support this rule and this much 
needed change in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

  Responses to Arguments Against the Working Families Flexibility Act

 (Page references refer to substitute to be offered by Representative 
                               Ballenger)

       Opposition: Employers will pressure or force employees to 
     be compensated for overtime in comp time instead of cash 
     wages.
       Response: The choice to take overtime pay in the form of 
     comp time must be requested by the employee in a written or 
     otherwise verifiable statement (Page 2, lines 11-17).
       H.R. 2391 specifically prohibits employers from ``directly 
     or indirectly'' threatening, intimidating, or coercing an 
     employee into choosing comp time in lieu of cash wages (Page 
     3, lines 10-18). Employers violating this would be liable to 
     the employee for double time in cash wages for the unused 
     comp time hours accrued by the employee (Page 7, lines 8-16).
       Opposition: Employees do not have control of when to use 
     their comp time. Employers will force employees to use their 
     accrued comp time when it's convenient for the employer.
       Response: H.R. 2391 prohibits an employer from coercing, 
     threatening, or intimidating an employee to use any accrued 
     comp time (Page 3, line 19-20).
       The employee may use accrued comp time at any time he or 
     she requests, if the use is within a reasonable period of 
     time after the request and the use does not unduly disrupt 
     the operations of the employer (Page 6, lines 15-23). The 
     ``unduly disrupt'' standard has

[[Page H8568]]

     been part of the law for the public sector for many years. It 
     has been defined in regulations by the Department of Labor as 
     more than ``inconvenience'' to the employer.
       Under the regulations for the public sector, the employer 
     has to be able to show that the leave would cause an 
     ``unreasonable burden on the agency's ability to provide 
     services of acceptable quality and quantity to the public.''
       The courts have also made clear that the ``unduly disrupt'' 
     standard does not permit an employer to unilaterally schedule 
     use of comp time by employees. Heaton versus Missouri Dept. 
     of Corrections 43 F 3d 1176 (8th Cir, 1994).
       In addition, the same standard--unduly disrupt the 
     operations of the employer--is used in the Family Medical 
     Leave with regard to the scheduling of leave to attend to 
     foreseeable medical treatment.
       An employer who threatens, intimidates, or coerces an 
     employee into using accrued comp time would be liable to the 
     employees for cash wages for the comp time which the employee 
     was forced to take (Page 7, line 8-16).
       Opposition: Employees won't be able to change their mind 
     and choose wages once they've chosen comp time.
       Response: Nothing in the bill precludes employees from 
     changing their mind to choosing cash wages instead of comp 
     time or vice versa. Comp time can only be provided at the 
     request of the employee.
       Employees can make a request in writing, at any time, to be 
     paid cash wages for their accrued comp time. Employers must 
     comply within 30 days (Page 4, lines 13-18).
       Comp time must be cashed out at the highest rate paid to 
     the employee during the time period in which the comp time 
     was accrued or at the employee's current rate, whichever is 
     higher. Thus, there is no financial benefit to an employer to 
     delay payment for accrued comp time.
       Opposition: Comp time should only be available to employers 
     who provide a certain number of sick leave and annual leave 
     to their employees. Otherwise, employers will eliminate or 
     reduce paid sick and/or annual leave and offer comp time 
     instead.
       Response: Employees must request comp time. Allowing 
     employees to receive comp time has not had the effect of 
     eliminating other leave for public employees. Employers are 
     not now required to provide employees a certain number of 
     days as paid sick leave and/or annual leave; the fact that 
     employees may receive comp time for overtime worked does not 
     change the situation.
       Opposition: Employees who work at seasonal industries or 
     short-term employment will not be able to use comp time 
     before their term of employment is over.
       Response: The bill gives all employees the option to choose 
     comp time, if their employer offers it. There is no reason to 
     deny the option to comp time for part-time, seasonal, or 
     ``low wage workers.'' Low wage workers are often in families 
     where both parents work, and thus may particularly desire the 
     flexibility of comp time. Similarly, seasonal workers may 
     want to use comp time in order to ``even out'' fluctuations 
     in income.
       Opposition: Enforcement of the law will be difficult if 
     employers who offer comp time don't have a written policy 
     available to employees.
       Response: An agreement by an employee to receive comp time 
     must be in writing or some other form of verifiable statement 
     by the employee as defined by the Department of Labor (Page 
     2, lines 11-17). The reason for allowing agreements in other 
     than written instruments is that many companies maintain 
     payroll records or computer or other electronic means. 
     However, the Secretary of Labor can prescribe what kinds of 
     records of employee agreement must be maintained.
       Opposition: Employees will be able to accrue too many hours 
     of comp time which they may not be able to take.
       Response: Employees can only accrue 240 hours of comp time 
     in a 12 month period (Page 3, lines 21-21). Employees may at 
     any time make a written request to receive cash for their 
     accrued comp time and the employer must pay the employee 
     within 30 days (Page 4, lines 13-18).
       Employers would be required to annually cash out employees' 
     accrued comp time (Page 3, lines 24 through page 4, line 8).
       Opposition: Comp time should be counted as ``hours worked'' 
     for the purposes of calculating overtime. For example, an 
     employee could take Monday as a comp day and the employer 
     could require the employee to work 40 hours Tuesday through 
     Saturday, without having to pay overtime. Thus, the employee 
     didn't really get a ``day off.''
       Response: The standard for calculating ``hours worked'' has 
     been in place under the Fair Labor Standards Act since the 
     1930s. The only house which may be counted in the calculation 
     of overtime pay are hours which the employee has actually 
     worked. Comp time would fall under the same category as 
     annual leave, sick leave and leave under the Family and 
     Medical Leave Act and more of which are considered ``hours 
     worked'' under the FLSA. Comp time in the public sector has 
     not been considered ``hours worked.''
       Opposition: Employees will accumulate comp time and then an 
     employer will go out of business, thus never having to pay 
     the employees for their overtime.
       Response: Unused comp time would be considered ``wages owed 
     to an employee'' for the purposes of enforcement (Page 6, 
     line 11-14). Wages are protected under bankruptcy code as a 
     priority for payment, thus comp time would be in the same 
     category.
       Opposition: Employers should be required to pay employees 
     cash for overtime hours worked past a certain number of hours 
     (e.g. 50) in a work week, no matter what the employee wishes.
       Response: If employees have to work excessive overtime, 
     they can always choose cash wages over comp time if they do 
     not think they will be able to use their accrued comp time. 
     Likewise, employees have the right to request in writing 
     payment for accrued comp time.
       Opposition: H.R. 2391 does not protect employee's claim to 
     unemployment benefits if they cash out accrued comp time.
       Response: H.R. 2391 requires the employer to ``cash out'' 
     all accrued comp time upon termination of employment (page 5, 
     lines 12-23). Depending upon state laws, such payments might 
     reduce the initial week or weeks' unemployment benefits but 
     those benefits are deferred not lost for the employee. In 
     other words, the employee would be eligible for the same 
     amount of unemployment benefits whether or not he or she 
     receives ``cashed out'' comp time.
       Opposition: Comp time is cheaper for employers than paying 
     cash wages for overtime, and therefore employers will (1) 
     force employees to take comp time, and (2) increase overtime 
     and hire fewer employees.
       Response: First of all, the employee chooses whether or not 
     to take comp time over cash overtime, and the bill protects 
     the employee's right to make that choice free of coercion 
     from the employer. The bill also protects the employee's 
     right to choose when to use comp time, subject only to the 
     safeguard that doing so does not ``unduly disrupt'' the 
     employer's operations.
       Comp time is not generally cheaper for the employer than 
     cash overtime. Besides the administrative costs of keeping 
     the ``comp time bank'' records, the bill provides that when 
     accrued comp time is used or cashed out, it is used or cashed 
     out at the employee's current rate of pay, or the average pay 
     during the period of time the comp time was accrued, 
     whichever is higher. Thus the comp time will cost the 
     employer at least as much or more when it used or cashed out 
     than when it was earned.
       Opposition: H.R. 2391 weakens the overtime protections for 
     employees, which are already too weak. (citing Wall Street 
     Journal article, Monday, June 24, 1996, quoting the 
     ``employer funded'' Employment Policy Foundation estimates 
     that ``fully 10% of the workers entitled to overtime are 
     cheated out of it'').
       Response: H.R. 2391 does not in any way weaken the overtime 
     obligation of employers. It simply allows employees and 
     employers to agree that overtime compensation will be taken 
     in the form of compensatory time. The bill includes 
     provisions to insure that employee's rights are protected 
     (employee protections):
       Requires that comp time may only be given mutual agreement 
     of the employer and employee.
       Requires that employee's agreement to take comp time be 
     ``knowing and voluntary.''
       Prohibits employer from making acceptance of comp time a 
     condition of employment.
       Requires agreement, affirmed in writing or otherwise 
     verifiable form, by employee to take comp time.
       Prohibits employer from directly or indirectly coercing or 
     threatening, or attempting to coerce, and employee into 
     taking comp time or using accrued comp time.
       Requires annual cash out of accrued comp time.
       Requires cash out of accrued comp time be at employee's 
     current rate of pay or average rate during time it was 
     accrued, whichever is higher.
       Allows employee to cash out accrued comp time at any time 
     with 30 days notice to employer.
       Requires cash out of accrued comp time upon termination of 
     employment.
       Specifies that unused comp time is treated as unpaid wages 
     for purposes of enforcement and collection.
       Allows employee to use comp time whenever he or she 
     pleases, unless use ``unduly disrupts'' operations of the 
     employer.
       Provides penalty for illegal coercion of employee with 
     regard to choosing or using comp time.
       The estimates of unpaid overtime in the Wall Street Journal 
     article of June 22 included, as the article itself said, 
     those employees not paid overtime because the employer 
     believes they are exempt or the employer can't figure out the 
     complicated federal rules and so `takes a chance' by ignoring 
     them. The confusing and ambiguous rules about who is exempt 
     and who is non-exempt is an issue which Republicans have 
     sought to address and will continue to seek to address in 
     other legislation. But, H.R. 2391 does not affect that issue, 
     nor does it change or weaken the overtime obligation. It 
     establishes the option for employers and employees where 
     overtime is paid.
       Opposition: Despite Democratic efforts to work out an 
     acceptable comp time bill, the Republicans have refused to 
     make changes.
       Response: It is true that supporters of comp time met and 
     attempted to negotiate the details of a comp time bill with 
     Mr. Clay, the Ranking Member of the Committee. Those 
     discussions were broken off by Mr. Clay's staff in late May 
     (after the bill was temporarily considered as the vehicle to 
     allow a vote on the minimum wage). We have

[[Page H8569]]

     in fact made many, many changes to the bill since it was 
     introduced, mostly to address concerns which the Democrats 
     have raised, and many of some of which were taken directly 
     from suggestions made by Democratic witnesses during 
     Subcommittee hearings on the bill.
       Following some of the changes which have been made to H.R. 
     2391 to address opponents concerns:
       1. Clarify that the provisions providing for individual 
     agreements apply only where employees are not represented by 
     a collective bargaining agent.
       2. Require that employee's agreement on comp time be 
     affirmed in a written or otherwise verifiable statement.
       3. Provide that agreement to take comp time in the private 
     sector may not be a condition of employment.
       4. Prohibit employer coercion of employees for purposes of 
     (1) interfering with employee right to request or not the 
     request, or (2) requiring any employee to use comp time.
       5. Require annual ``cash outs'' of accrued comp time.
       6. Allow employee to ``cash out'' accrued comp time at any 
     time.
       7. Establish a new remedy under the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act for employers who coerce, or attempt to coerce, an 
     employee into taking or using comp time.
       The following additional changes are included in a 
     Manager's amendment to be offered to be the bill.
       Require employers to provide 30 days notice before 
     terminating policy of allowing comp time.
       Require employers to provide 30 days notice before cashing 
     out accrued comp time, and allowing such cash out only for 
     time in excess of 80 hours.
       Provide that employer coercion of an employee may be 
     actionable even if not willful.
       Clarify that an employee may withdraw from an agreement in 
     which he or she has requested comp time at any time.
       Opposition: The bill limits the remedies available for 
     unpaid comp time by only allowing private lawsuits for 
     redress, as compared to unpaid overtime under current law, 
     which allows both private suits and enforcement actions by 
     DOL, as well as criminal charges.
       Response: As the Committee report makes clear, the intent 
     of the legislation is that all current remedies for violating 
     the FLSA apply, and in addition, a new remedy for 
     ``coercion'' in connection with choosing or using comp time 
     is created. This intent will be further clarified in the 
     manager's amendment.
       Opposition: Comp time does not truly belong to the employer 
     because under the bill an employer may deny an employee's use 
     of comp time by paying off the accrued comp time hours.
       Response: First of all, this is certainly an ironic 
     objection to the bill: Democrats who oppose comp time and 
     want to keep the status quo that only allows cash overtime 
     payments object to a provision that allows employees comp 
     time in favor of the cash overtime payment.
       Second, the bill is premised on flexibility for employers 
     and employees--thus either the employer or the employee may 
     decide to cash out accrued overtime. Third, under the 
     manager's amendment, a provision will be added that says that 
     the employer must give 30 days notice to employees before 
     cashing out any accrued comp time (in the absence of an 
     employee request to do so), and provides that the employer 
     option to cash out accrued comp time applies only to time 
     accrued in excess of 80 hours.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill and I frankly oppose the rule because 
there are some unanswered questions about this legislation that we are 
rushing to judgment and ignoring.
  The first question is, How do we assure that it is truly voluntary 
for the man or woman who chooses comp time over cash? This bill, I do 
not think, provides for that. It says to an employee who feels that he 
or she has been coerced into this choice that they must meet an 
unmeetable burden of proof. They must prove that the employer intended 
to deny them that choice. I would submit to you that there will be very 
few employees anywhere who will be able to meet that burden of proof it 
is not truly voluntary.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, what happens to buy-back provisions? What 
happens if the employer owes you hours and hours of comp time and then 
goes out of business and does not have the cash to pay you back the 
cash value of the comp time? Unanswered question. We hear from our 
friends on the other side that well, this works in the public sector so 
it will work here in the private sector. There is a difference. The 
first difference is that most public sector employees are protected by 
civil service protections. If you believe that the employer in the 
public sector is coercing you, you have a hearing, you have the ability 
to process a grievance. Most private sector employees do not have such 
a right, and except for this one, most governments are not on the verge 
of going out of business because of bankruptcy. So I would suggest to 
you there is a very important difference there.
  Finally, this is really, with all due respect, citizen Dole's rush to 
close the gender gap. That is what this is really all about. I would 
suggest to you if the majority wants to speak to working women in 
America, let us talk about expanding the family medical leave that most 
Members opposed. Let us talk about getting health insurance for all 
working women, which most of the Members had very few ideas about.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say it is astonishing to me that we are 
having attempts to mire this in gender war language.
  Mr. Speaker, it is long past time that men and women assumed equal 
responsibility for raising children. This bill is addressed not only to 
working mothers who have had a difficult time balancing work and 
family, it is also geared to working fathers who are having that same 
difficulty while they are trying to assume more responsibility not just 
for the economic well-being of their children but for the emotional 
well-being of their children.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this is not just about time off to help 
children. That is critical and it is important. But it is also about 
time to care for aging parents. It is about time to go back to school 
to get some additional skills. And most important, it is about letting 
workers choose whether they want additional time off or additional pay.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Ballenger].
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see the gentleman from New 
Jersey has left because he raised the question of willful being one of 
the proving points for the employee. We recognize that problem and we 
changed it. We removed the word ``willful'' in our bill.
  For those people that are not sure what changes we have made in the 
description of the bill here on the report, we have in there the 
changes that we made at the request of the Democrats on the committee.
  Also, again I would like to say as far as bankruptcies are concerned, 
the first claim that will be applied against any assets of any bankrupt 
company are wages and these are classified; that is, in the same manner 
as wages and will have first choice on any money that is left in that 
bankrupt company.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let us be straight about this, ladies and 
gentlemen. Comp time is not flex time. If employers want to give 
employees all these benefits and all these opportunities to care for 
children and loved ones, they can do it now. It is called flex time. 
Come in early, leave early, come in late, leave late. That is possible.
  This is comp time and this denies people basic income. I do not want 
to hear that oh, well, they can go to court and we lowered the legal 
standard. The fact of the matter is minimum wage workers are not going 
into anybody's court. They are not going down the street to see Robert 
Reich to talk about a labor violation. Those remedies are not 
practicable.
  Let us talk about the real world. In the real world, wages have 
stagnated over the last 20 years. People need overtime to make ends 
meet. In 1995, the average full-time worker in manufacturing worked 
about 4.4 hours of overtime to make an additional $3,800 a year. They 
need that money. Now, they are going to tell employees well, this is 
optional, it is up to the employee if they want to take it.
  Let us talk about this so-called option. The reality of the workplace 
is that most employees want to keep their jobs and therefore go along 
with their employer. That means that when

[[Page H8570]]

the employer suggests comp time, they are going to take it.
  This so-called option does not really work. The employee does not 
have a choice because the employer has to approve the comp time. He has 
to approve when they can take it. They can spend their overtime anytime 
they want to. They cannot spend their comp time anytime they want to, 
only when the employer allows it. Preferential allocation of overtime 
already occurs. There are complaints about that now.
  My colleagues better believe that if we have this comp time option, 
those who will take comp time will get comp time. Those who want 
overtime will be out of luck. That is what is wrong with this bill.
  There is a lot of rhetoric here about how we want to help people, but 
the fact of the matter is in the private sector, there is a fundamental 
profit motive, and that is to reduce the amount of overtime pay. That 
being the case, there is a strong incentive to discourage overtime and 
encourage comp time at the expense of the American worker. That is what 
we want to discourage. We believe the current system provides true 
flexibility but not the false rhetoric of the Republican proposal.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is critical that we address this issue of 
enforcement. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle think it is 
necessary to track down personally the Secretary of Labor to bring a 
claim where an employee feels that they have been coerced. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the enforcement 
mechanisms of this legislation are identical to the enforcement 
mechanisms that we use to battle age discrimination, race 
discrimination, and gender discrimination in the workplace.
  I do not hear my colleagues from the other side of the aisle saying 
that we should not have laws prohibiting age and race and gender 
discrimination because the enforcement mechanism is not going to work. 
Instead, we defend those laws. We enforce those laws through a 
mechanism that has been established under Federal law, and that same 
mechanism would be used to enforce this law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for a time check to see 
where we are.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Greene] has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
  My colleagues, let us call it the way it is. The Republican majority 
in this Congress has spent the better part of a year and a half 
assaulting the rights of workers in this country. I have served on the 
committee, I know what is happening. They steadfastly refused the 
minimum wage. We had to practically pry it out of them. OSHA, safety 
for workers in the workplace, they want to gut OSHA laws. Davis-Bacon 
to pay workers prevailing wage, they want to eliminate that, too.
  Mr. Speaker, they have slashed funding for the National Labor 
Relations Board which guarantees and safeguards workers' rights and 
protections. They want to bring back company unions so that the 
employers will control the unions, not the employees. The first thing 
they did when they received the majority, the Republicans removed the 
name ``labor'' from the Committee on Education and Labor to punish 
supposedly punish the labor unions. It is now the Committee on Economic 
and Educational Opportunities and the word ``labor'' has been purged 
from both the committee and subcommittee names.
  The campaign finance bill which went down yesterday had an antilabor 
provision in it. So make no mistake about it, this is just another 
assault on working men and women in America by the Republican majority.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, everybody understands that employers and employees 
are not equal and there will be coercion. Employees will be coerced 
into accepting these kinds of things. We do not believe that American 
workers ought to continue to be assaulted by this Republican majority, 
but again it is consistent.
  They tried to gut Medicare to give huge tax breaks for the wealthy. 
They want to give us the biggest education cuts in American history. 
They want to gut environmental laws. This is a direct assault on the 
middle class in this country and on working people by the Republican 
majority. This is just an extension.
  The Democrats, in filing the dissenting views accompanying this bill 
said, and I quote: ``This legislation encourages employers to hire 
fewer employees and to work them longer hours by freeing them from 
having to pay cash for overtime, potentially reducing both workers' 
incomes and employer labor costs by billions of dollars.''
  Let us reject this and not continue to assault American workers. The 
Republicans' platform is exposed by this bill.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to quote a claim by the 
AFL-CIO where it says the penalties for coercion are too weak. The 
response for that, the penalties in the bill for coercing are the same 
as those for unpaid overtime; that is, the amount of pay owed us, plus 
an equal amount of liquidated damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs. 
If the employee has already used and been paid for comp time, then the 
amount is deducted from the award since they have already received the 
overtime pay, but he or she may still receive the liquidated damages.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the other remedies such as civil and 
criminal penalties and injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act may apply. Either the Department of Labor or the employee can file 
suit, and I wish somebody on the other side would read the actual bill 
itself so they can understand what they are really talking about.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, last week the new majority was talking 
about encouraging work. Now with this bill they seem to be encouraging 
taking time off.
  Mr. Speaker, despite strong economic indicators, millions of 
Americans, many of them single mothers, are working harder and longer 
for less money. This bill strips them of even that right. The majority 
of low-wage workers are women. They count on their overtime pay to feed 
their children and to make ends meet.
  The underlying bill allows employers to offer comp time to workers 
instead of overtime pay. It requires a voluntary agreement with the 
employee, but we all know that in the real world employers may bully 
employees into accepting whatever the employer wants.
  The practical effect of this bill will be to allow employers to force 
an employee to take comp time instead of paying overtime. While that 
person is using comp time, the employer can pay another employee 
regular wages instead of time and a half. The bottom line is, employees 
could get paid less.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not progress, it is a step in the wrong 
direction. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Owens] is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the message of this bill this morning is to 
the workers of America, ``The Republicans want your overtime pay,'' 
from the same people who brought us streamlining, downsizing, the 
tremendous gap in income. The same people who have attacked the 
National Labor Relations Board, who have attacked OSHA, who refused to 
pass a minimum wage bill, they now want your overtime.
  As the ranking member of the committee responsible for this 
legislation, I have listened to the hearings. We have debated at 
markups, and the bill is flawed at its center, and that is the

[[Page H8571]]

assumption that you can have mutual consent between the employer and 
the employee as to whether they want overtime in terms of dollars or 
whether they want it in terms of comp time.
  In my State, we recently passed a law which said that any female who 
is assaulted in a prison is automatically considered to be a rape 
victim. Any-time there is a sexual relationship between a female inmate 
and a prison guard, the prison guard is automatically charged with rape 
because in a relationship where all the power is on one side and the 
other person is powerless, automatically there is no mutual consent 
possibility.
  There is no mutual consent possible when the employer has an 
incentive to keep the money. You can invest the money that you do not 
pay in overtime. Overtime wages that are not paid can be invested. So 
the great incentive will be to keep the money and to force all workers 
to take comp time. Ninety percent of the employers will want workers to 
take comp time. Any worker who does not take comp time when the 
employer obviously wants him to take comp time will be labeled as a bad 
team player. You are not a team player and sooner or later they of 
course will find themselves without a job. In a job market and in a 
situation where people are under tremendous pressure, who will choose 
to exercise their right to take overtime had they known the employer 
wants comp time?
  At the heart of the bill, the assumption is wrong. This will not 
work. It is another attempt to make war on American workers. We have 
had enough of it in this Congress. We have tried to stop them from 
raiding the National Labor Relations Board's authority. We have stopped 
them from taking away the safety provisions of OSHA. Now we have to 
stop them where it matters most; that is, taking money out of the 
pockets of American workers in terms of overtime pay.
  The Republicans want your overtime pay, and the Democrats are here to 
guarantee that we do not have more assaults on working people and 
working families. You need your overtime pay. The overtime pay buys 
shoes, it buys clothes, it buys refrigerators. It buys what workers 
need.
  Workers, on the other hand, cannot afford to provide an investment 
pool for the employers. There will be no escrow accounts where you have 
to put all the overtime pay into an escrow account and know that it is 
there. No; the employers can invest that and they will. And you will 
have billions of dollars already that is unpaid for overtime under the 
present rules and regulations, where it is pretty clear that employers 
have to pay overtime in dollars. How are we ever going to police a 
situation where it is comp time, taken at the pleasure of the employer?
  There can be no mutual consent. There is no mutual consent between a 
slave and a master or an inmate and a prison guard. There will be no 
mutual consent between an employer and an employee. The employee is at 
the mercy of the employer, and we do not need to do any more harm than 
we have already done to the workers in this area. This is a year where 
war has been declared on workers by the Republican majority. No, Mr. 
Speaker, it is now time to stop the war on workers.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that the working families of this 
country are experiencing time crunch the likes of which we have never 
seen before. When President Clinton spoke in Nashville several weeks 
ago, he endorsed the concept of having flexibility so that workers can 
choose the time off they need to be able to be with their families for 
important events, but while President Clinton managed to grab a few 
headlines several weeks ago with an alternative and much more 
restrictive proposal, the administration never sent his proposal to 
Congress in legislative form, nor has any Member, to my knowledge, 
attempted to introduce the administration's proposal.
  Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been 
complaining vociferously about the provisions of this bill. We are even 
now hearing employers and employees likened to prison guards and 
prisoners, even to slaves and masters.
  But in fact, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, the Democrats, were given the opportunity in the Committee on 
Rules to offer any amendment to this legislation they wanted to. We 
gave them the opportunity to offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute so that they could bring forward their own version of how 
this concept should work. And the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the 
Democrats chose not to introduce any legislation, any amendment to this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is this legislation does not change those 
fundamental worker protections of the Fair Labors Standards Act. This 
legislation does not change the 40-hour workweek for workers. It does 
not relieve employers from their obligations of paying overtime. It 
does not give employers the means to coerce workers. This bill does 
preserve the concept of time and a half for overtime. The workers 
choose whether to get time and a half in cash or time and a half in 
comp time.
  This bill does provide the same kinds of enforcement mechanisms that 
we use today to enforce worker protections on race, age, and gender. 
This bill provides those same types of protections to make certain that 
workers are not taken advantage of.
  This bill does protect employees if their company goes bankrupt by 
giving them first priority against any remaining assets of that 
business to get their overtime, their comp time cashed out.

  This bill, Mr. Speaker, gives workers the flexibility that they need 
to be able to balance those competing considerations of work and 
family.
  Members of Congress may not need comp time, Mr. Speaker. We make over 
$130,000 a year and we control our own schedules. This is just one more 
example where people who are opposing this bill are out of touch, 
because most of the people in this country struggle to get control over 
their own time. They struggle to be at home when they need to take a 
sick child to the doctor or be with an aged parent. They struggle 
because they do not have the ability to get the time off that they need 
at the time that they need it.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, gives them that opportunity. They are allowed 
more control over their lives. They are given the opportunity to be 
able to choose for themselves, in the circumstances for each of their 
families, whether more money or more time off makes sense for their 
family.
  Let us give workers that choice, Mr. Speaker. Let us respect their 
ability to choose for themselves what is best and not dictate it from 
Washington as we have for the past 60 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and this 
legislation.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
bill that is designed to take away the rights of workers guaranteed to 
them under the Fair Labor Standards Act. These rights were not easily 
won. The Dole-Gingrich Republicans and their cohorts are always a well-
funded, business oriented lobbying force--as is demonstrated by this 
bill. Let's be clear about one very basic false assumption about H.R. 
2391: it does not provide a worker with the right to compensatory time 
or overtime wages on a voluntary, worker controlled basis. An employer 
and employee are not in level bargaining positions.
  The overtime protection in the Fair Labor Standards Act both protect 
workers from excessive demands for overtime work and, by requiring 
premium pay for overtime, time and a half, provide an incentive for 
businesses to create additional jobs. Nowadays, millions of workers 
depend on overtime pay just to maintain a decent standard of living for 
their families. Two-thirds of the workers who earned overtime in 1994 
had a total annual family income--including spousal income--of less 
than $40,000. A recent poll by Peter Hart found that American workers 
prefer pay over compensatory time for overtime by a whopping margin of 
64 to 22 percent.
  The idea that there can be a truly voluntary agreement, as is 
heralded by the Republicans in this bill, is a cruel hoax. Any employer 
who wants to pay for overtime in terms of compensatory time instead of 
cash, will find a dubious way to encourage workers to accept 
compensatory time. Workers know this. Half of those in the Hart poll 
said they believed employers would be able to force them to take 
compensatory time instead of overtime pay.
  Further, this bill does not in any way guarantee workers the right to 
use their compensatory time whenever they want it. An employer may deny 
the request on the grounds that it would unduly disrupt business 
operations, or could refuse the request for any given, specific day and 
instead offer a different day that is more convenient for the employer, 
but less so for the worker.

[[Page H8572]]

  I oppose this bill because it would permit a severe disservice to a 
worker's right to choose compensatory time voluntarily instead of cash 
compensation for overtime work that was accomplished for the business 
owner. It clearly attempts to gut the protection of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act and undermines living standards to the detriment of 
workers, the economy, and the Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this ill-conceived legislation.
  Ms. McKinney. I rise today in opposition to this rule, and in 
opposition to this anti-family legislation. Let's face it, the 
Republican record on workers' rights is hideous and this bill is the 
ugliest of them all.
  In my 3 years in Congress, I have never seen a bill more insidious 
than this attempt to lengthen the work week with no corresponding 
increase in pay.
  Contrary to what Republicans say, this bill abolishes overtime pay. 
Period.
  The so-called Working Families Flexibility act allows employers to 
coerce workers into taking comp time instead of overtime pay. Employers 
will use this legislation to hire workers who agree to accept comp time 
instead of overtime pay. This bill allows employers to promote workers 
who acquiesce to comp time in lieu of overtime pay.
  And unlike overtime pay, workers can only use their comp time when it 
is convenient for their employers, not their families. So much for 
family friendly legislation.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, workers can be forced to work 75 hours a week 
and not see any comp time for 13 months. And if the company goes 
bankrupt in that 13 months--too bad, the worker gets no comp time and 
no overtime pay.
  In effect, workers will be giving their employers interest-free loans 
until the boss feels like letting them us their comp time.
  And for families who rely on overtime pay to supplement their low 
salaries, they will be comforted in knowing that they might get some 
time off in the next 13 months.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill legalizes the extraction of unpaid 
labor from workers at a time when people are working longer and harder 
for less money.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, employers can already give workers comp time as 
long as it is used in the same week in which the overtime is worked.
  This bill should not be called the comp time bill, it should be 
called the chump time bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule 
and reject this Republican attempt to lengthen the work week with no 
increase in pay.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
rule and to this bill.
  There has been talk on this floor of the so-called protections for 
workers who may be owed compensatory time by companies that go out of 
business. Employees of bankrupt companies are protected, they say, 
because they can get what is owed them by going against the assets of 
these bankrupt companies.
  I say these so-called protections amount to a handful of dust. We 
know companies that have gone out of business, leaving no assets 
whatsoever. What happens to these employees and their families then? 
They are cheated out of their wages, that's what.
  This has happened time and time again in the area of retirement 
benefits, when companies go bankrupt and leave their retirees with no 
pensions. Congress would be foolish to allow this to happen to overtime 
pay.
  Overtime pay is more than a luxury for working people--it is income 
that their families depend on, especially lower income working people.
  Proponents of this bill say that workers are protected because the 
agreements must be voluntary. Who will determine if they are voluntary? 
The clogged Federal courts? We know that justice delayed is justice 
denied.
  Who will pay the workers' legal fees if they lose their case? 
Certainly not the employers.
  The idea of a truly voluntary agreement will be a cruel hoax for many 
workers. Many employers will find a way to force employees to accept 
compensatory time instead of cash because they know the employees don't 
have the resources to fight this coercion.
  I say, protect working families--vote down this bill.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mt. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 175, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 367]

                               YEAS--228

     Allard
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--175

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

[[Page H8573]]



                             NOT VOTING--30

     Archer
     Baker (LA)
     Berman
     Bevill
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Chapman
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Doggett
     Ewing
     Ford
     Gejdenson
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Holden
     Hutchinson
     Laughlin
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McDade
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Peterson (FL)
     Quillen
     Scarborough
     Seastrand
     Studds
     Torricelli
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1113

  Mr. FARR of California changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________