[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.
____________________