[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8776-H8791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 488 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2391.

                              {time}  1409


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2391) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 
compensatory time for all employees, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I take these 2 minutes since there was so much 
disinformation given on Friday. I do not believe that most of those 
Members read the legislation as it is at present.
  We made 20 changes since the legislation was introduced, all 
supporting the employee. There will be additional, in

[[Page H8777]]

the manager's amendment today, additional protection for the employee. 
So let me give my colleagues just a few things to correct the 
misinformation and the disinformation that was distributed Friday.
  First of all, the legislation has no effect on the 40-hour work week 
in calculating overtime pay. The choice to take overtime compensation 
in the form of paid time off must be voluntary and must be requested by 
the employee in a written or otherwise verifiable statement. The 
selection of comp time may not be a condition of employment.
  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. Employers violating this 
would be liable to the employee for double time and cash wages for the 
unused comp time hours accrued by the employee plus attorney fees. Comp 
time would be considered as wages and treated as unpaid wages in any 
bankruptcy action.
  H.R. 2391 prohibits an employer from coercing, threatening, or 
intimidating an employee to use accrued comp time. 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 operation of the employer. Now, the unduly disrupt 
standard has been part of the law for the public sector for many years 
and is the same standard used in the Family and Medical Leave Act.
  The bill, together with the manager's amendment, makes absolutely 
clear that all of the current law's remedies, including enforcement by 
the Department of Labor and through individual lawsuits, would apply if 
an employer failed to pay cash wages to an employee for accrued 
compensatory time or refused to allow an employee to use accrued 
compensatory time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this legislation which will provide an 
excuse to undermine the living standards of working families. The 
Republican comp time proposal should be called flimflam flextime.
  The rights of employees must be of paramount importance to any 
proposal affecting their time and compensation. This bill places the 
rights of bosses above the rights of workers. By its failure to provide 
employees a real choice, it enables bosses to defer paying employees 
for the work they perform.
  The Republican majority claims it seeks to provide workers with the 
opportunity to take paid time off instead of being paid for overtime 
work. But in return, all paid overtime could possibly be eliminated. An 
employer may arbitrarily decide to offer comp time to some employees 
while denying it to others. He may also arbitrarily decide to only 
offer overtime work to employees who choose comp time instead of paid 
time and a half.
  Under this bill, an employer can simply deny the leave on the basis 
that it will unduly disrupt his business.
  The Family and Medical Leave Act grants workers the right to take 
unpaid leave in the event of a family or medical emergency. Under the 
Republican bill even where an employee has a right to family leave, an 
employer may deny the employee the right to use comp time.
  Under current law, employers must pay workers in a timely manner for 
the work they perform. H.R. 2391 permits an employer to defer paying 
anything for overtime work for up to one year.
  This flimflam legislation invites employers to eliminate their paid 
medical and vacation policies. Why should an employer give paid leave 
when it can require employees to work overtime in order to earn paid 
leave instead? My Republican colleagues say they are interested in a 
voluntary comp time bill, but how voluntary is comp time if the only 
way an employee can earn paid leave is to take comp time instead of 
being paid for overtime?

  This bill provides no protection for employees when an employer goes 
bankrupt. It does not prevent an employer from using the payment for a 
terminated employee's unused comp time to diminish that employee's 
unemployment compensation. And it does not ensure that comp time will 
be treated similarly to overtime pay for pension and health benefit 
purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, our overtime laws are already widely violated. The 
Employment Policy Foundation, an employer-funded think tank, estimates 
that workers lose $19 billion a year in unpaid, earned overtime. The 
foundation estimates that fully 10 percent of the workers entitled to 
overtime are cheated out of it. In industries such as the garment 
industry, overtime violations are widespread. A Department of Labor 
investigation in southern California found that 68 percent of the 
employers were not paying overtime and more than 50 percent were not 
even paying minimum wages.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot support a bill that will undermine the living 
standards of American families. I urge defeat of this flimflam 
legislation.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick].
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, the Working Family Flexibility Act is pro-
family, pro-worker, pro-women, in its approach to provide relief to the 
hard-working men and women across our Nation who struggle daily to 
support their families. These men and women who support families and 
work, deserve the right to have their work schedules flexible enough to 
allow them time to devote to family responsibilities.
  As a wife and a mother and a grandmother and a former small business 
owner, I know firsthand how hard it is to balance work and family.
  The bill seeks to provide employees a choice and the option to renew 
and refocus the perilous difficult balance between family and work 
obligations by allowing flexibility in scheduling the hours they work.
  Dads could use the accrued time to make sure they are behind the 
dugout for that critical Little League game, and mom and dad could use 
their time to visit their child's school for the parent-teacher 
conferences, enabling and encouraging parents to participate in their 
child's education. Comp time allows parents to actively participate in 
family life, not just hear about the recollection at the dinner table 
that night or the next day.
  In 1994, a U.S. Labor Department survey found that 66 percent of 
working women with children believed that balancing time between family 
and work is their No. 1 concern. Even the President and vice President 
endorse giving workers the option to spend more time with families.
  Employees deserve the same rights that Federal, State and local 
employees have had since 1985.
  During my tenure as mayor of Charlotte exempt city employees enjoyed 
flexibility that comp time allowed in their lives. Simply put, and I 
know this from management experience, flex time works. It works for the 
employer, it works for the employee, and most importantly, it works for 
America's families.
  Support this commonsense family-friendly approach. Support the 
Workers Family Flexibility Act.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman I rise to oppose this legislation. I fully 
appreciate the demands of balancing family and work, as my colleague 
from North Carolina just mentioned. Tonight is my 3-year-old daughter's 
back to school night at her gymnastics camp. Her mother will be there; 
I will not because we are not always able to balance our work and time 
schedules easily.
  There are some flaws in this bill, though, that I think do not hold 
out the promise that my friend just talked about. First of all, is the 
bill truly voluntary? Is the choice truly voluntary?
  I believe that in the situation here where an employer systematically 
grants overtime to the employee who chooses comp time and 
systematically denies overtime to the employee who chooses cash, that 
the employee who chooses cash, the employee who chooses to have a few 
more dollars in his or her paycheck, is going to be denied a truly 
voluntary choice, and I think that employee has no meaningful or 
realistic remedy.
  I think the employee has a burden of proof that would be almost 
impossible to sustain. I think there are some legitimate question as to 
under which 

[[Page H8778]]

specific circumstances that employee could, in fact, recover her 
attorney fees or his attorney fees.

  I do not think this is truly a voluntary choice, and I think an 
employee who exercises his or her right to choose cash rather than comp 
time would not be able to achieve an effective remedy if the employer 
wanted to punish him or her for making that choice.
  Second, we hear comparisons about the public sector and the private 
sector, and we hear how employees in the public sector in many cases 
have had this situation for many, many years. I would say there is an 
important difference between the public sector and the private sector, 
and it is this:
  Most public sector employees are under some form of civil service 
protection, meaning if they are in fact singled out because of the 
choices they have made or because of some other reason on the job, 
there is a set body of law that provides for both substantive remedies 
and meaningful procedures in order to enforce their rights. That does 
not exist in the private sector.
  Finally, I think there are real questions as to what happens here. I 
think there are very significant questions as to what happens under 
this bill should it become law. If an employee chooses comp time and 
her comp time adds up and adds up and adds up, and then the employer 
files bankruptcy, the employer goes out of business, how realistic is 
it that that employee is going to be able to recover the cash that she 
or he is owed in response to having that comp time?
  Finally, I would say this to my colleagues. There is no question that 
working families in this country need help. Working women, in 
particular, in this country need help. What they really need is paid 
leave in many cases. They need to be able to take time off if they have 
a child, or a death in the family, or a need to pursue a family 
obligation with pay, not without it. What they really need is an 
assurance of health benefits so that the millions of Americans who go 
to work every day and have no health insurance coverage will have some.
  Now, there are a lot of different theories of proposals of how to 
accomplish that. I do not know which one is the best. But I would like 
to implore my friends and colleagues in the Republican leadership that 
maybe we ought to spend some more time talking about that before we 
adjourn in October. We ought to bring to this floor some ways that 
people can have paid leave and health insurance benefits instead of the 
bill that we see before us today.
  I oppose the bill; I urge its defeat.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] the author of this very fine 
legislation.
  (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that ever since I 
introduced H.R. 2391, I have tried to address the concerns that others 
have had with the legislation. I have tried to accommodate, as much as 
possible, suggestions to improve the bill since it was introduced in 
September 1995.
  There have been changes made to the bill at each step of the 
legislative process. The substitute amendment which I offered at 
subcommittee markup was accepted by voice vote. It included six changes 
which clarified and improved the protections for employees. Many of the 
changes were taken directly from recommendations made by the Democrats' 
witness who testified at a hearing on the bill. And yet, while the 
Democrats on the subcommittee voiced their opposition to various parts 
of the bill, there were no Democratic amendments offered.
  At full committee markup, I offered a substitute amendment which 
further strengthened the employee protections and directly addressed a 
number of the Democrats' concerns with the legislation. While the vote 
on final passage of the bill was along party lines, the substitute 
amendment was approved by voice vote. Again, no Democratic amendments 
were offered to the bill.
  And, now on the House floor, I have sponsored an amendment with my 
distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Johnson] which includes a number of clarifications and additional 
protections to ensure the voluntary use of comp time and to give 
employees greater control over their accrued comp time. Yet, many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to say that they 
have substantive problems with this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is commonsense legislation. We support it. Most of 
all, employees want it. Their counterparts in the public sector, many 
of whom are unionized, have used comp time for years and strongly 
support the use of it there. As of recently, President Clinton supports 
it. Although in May, when this legislation was to be tied to the 
minimum-wage increase, his chief of staff called it a poison pill. 
While I am baffled by labor and this administration's objection to the 
legislation, the opposition appears to be nothing more than election 
year politics.
  American workers want and deserve flexibility in the workplace to 
better deal with the challenges of balancing work and family 
obligations. The Working Families Flexibility Act removes obstacles in 
Federal law which prevent employees and employers from mutually 
agreeing to use alternative arrangements regarding compensation and 
scheduling. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which will 
allow American men and women to make the choice for themselves between 
extra money or paid time off.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill 
that will cut the pay of America's workers. This bill is yet another 
example of how this Congress continues to sell out working families.
  Overtime pay is vitally important to these families because wages 
have not provided a rising standard of living. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics reports that average hourly pay has fallen by 11 percent 
over the past 17 years, and working families rely on overtime pay to 
keep up with the costs of feeding their kids and paying the rent.
  This bill will take away the opportunity to earn overtime pay. 
Middle-income families will be hit hardest by this bill 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 annual family 
income of less than $40,000.
  On behalf of the hard-working families in Connecticut and across this 
country, I call on my colleagues to vote against this outrageous 
assault on working Americans.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewomen who just spoke is one of 
the leading advocates of choice in the U.S. Congress. Apparently, she 
is for choice for everyone but the American worker because, and, no, I 
will not yield, I do not have time; because of the fact that no one in 
America will have to take comp time unless they choose to. It is 
automatic that one gets time and a half pay overtime under the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, and under this bill unless they choose that, they 
would rather than doing that have some free time.
  In Wisconsin, we love to have free time in the summer on weekends to 
go up north, to go fishing, to go to the son and daughter soccer game, 
to go to Little League or to go do something else of our choice. That 
is not allowed today. Under this bill that will happen if the worker 
wanted it to.
  In addition, I want everyone to understand that this legislation in 
front of us will not affect one unionized collective bargaining 
agreement unless the leadership of that union in negotiations with the 
management agrees to add this to the existing collective bargaining 
agreement.
  All we are doing today is we are saying to the American worker in 
today's economy flexibility is key. It is flexibility for the 
workplace, flexibility for management, and, yes, flexibility for the 
worker to decide what works best for them at a particular point in 
time.
  Third, I want everyone to understand that this flex time cannot occur 
unless there is a written agreement, and, as my colleagues know, 
interestingly enough we talk about coercion. My good friend from New 
Jersey said that

[[Page H8779]]

he does not think that this is really freedom of choice by the worker.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I know about work schedules and overtime 
from two perspectives. In fact, I am an expert on this issue. First, as 
a human resources/personnel manager for over 20 years.
  And, second, as a working mother. I have raised four children--now 
four wonderful adults. I know what its like to have a job and try to 
find the time to go to a parent/teacher conference or a child's plan or 
sporting event. I know what it means to get that phone call early in 
the morning that the babysitter is sick and will not be coming that 
day.
  Believe me, I know how important it is for working parents to have 
flexible work schedules.
  But this bill before us today, H.R. 2391, is not about flex-time for 
workers. It is about more flexibility for employers.
  As a human resources professional, I know how this can work. Like 
mandatory overtime, comp time can become just as mandatory because it 
allows the employer to restrict use of comp time to the employer's 
schedule--when it will not unduly disrupt the business.
  Let me tell you that means--plain and simple--the boss will stay the 
boss, not only in deciding on who works overtime and when, but, also 
when comp time can be used. That is flex-time for the employer.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so concerned 
about working families, they should use their influence as the majority 
party to make the use of comp time truly voluntary and to get a bill to 
the President increasing the minimum wage.
  In fact, my colleagues should work overtime on getting the minimum 
wage bill passed, and then take some comp time to get in touch with 
what working families really need--a livable wage and a truly flexible 
schedule.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I am glad we have the ``no coercion'' 
part in the bill in the bill.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Weldon], a member of the committee.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Working Families Flexibility Act.
  This bill allows private sector employees to have the same 
opportunities to work flexible hours that Federal, State, and local 
government workers have enjoyed for more than a decade. Most government 
workers I have talked to like and want this type of flexibility, and it 
is wrong to deny private sector employees these same rights.
  Back in 1938, when the current law was put in place most families had 
a parent who worked and another who stayed at home. Today, in 60 
percent of homes, both spouses work. This is up by over 36 percent in 
just the past 25 years.
  It is wrong to deny private sector workers the flexibility they want 
and need. This bill is about allowing parents to choose to spend more 
time with their children.
  Opponents of the bill have raised false claims that the bill does not 
protect employees. The bill before us offers private sector employees 
more protections than government workers have today. If the worker 
protection provisions are inadequate, why did not the opponents of the 
bill impose more protections for government workers when they were in 
the majority.
  The bill has built-in protections for employees. It is at the 
employee's discretion whether to take comp time or overtime pay. The 
employee decides.
  Also, the bill makes it illegal for an employer to pressure employees 
to take comp time rather than overtime pay. Any employer who engages in 
such pressure or forces an employee to take comp time rather than 
overtime pay is subject to penalties which include double the amount in 
wages owed plus attorneys fees and cost. Also, civil and criminal 
penalties apply.
  Clearly workers are protected.
  Let us stop denying private sector employees the same privileges that 
government workers have today.
  Let us support equality.
  Let us support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to quote from Bill Clinton 
when he said, ``You can choose money in the bank or time on the clock. 
With more Americans working more hours, simply spending more time with 
the family can be a dream.'' President Bill Clinton, June 24, 1996.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to correct the gentleman. The President said 
that about his bill, not about this bill that we are debating now. The 
President thinks this bill is a disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I support giving working 
families flexibility in their schedules, but I cannot support the 
Ballenger comp time bill because it seriously threatens the existence 
of overtime pay and the 40-hour workweek. This bill is just one part of 
a series of Republican bills that favor special interests over the 
public interest.
  All across this Nation, millions of working families are facing 
stagnant wages and the realization that for them the American Dream may 
be slipping away. Between 1979 and 1989, real wages either fell or were 
stagnant for the bottom 60 percent of the workforce. Moreover, while 
corporate profits were increasing during the first half of this decade, 
wages were continuing to lag far behind.
  For many struggling families, receiving overtime pay is often the 
difference between making ends meet and falling behind on bills. It is 
no wonder then that 64 percent of Americans oppose eliminating overtime 
pay.
  Equally important for struggling families is maintaining some 
normalcy in their lives by keeping the 40-hour workweek as our 
benchmark work schedule. Parents are finding they have less time to 
spend with their families given the increasing difficulty of staying 
financially afloat.

  Compared to the 1960's, the average person is working about an extra 
month more a year, and the number of mothers working has nearly tripled 
from 27.6 to 67.5 percent. As a result, polls show that most Americans 
believe their free, non-work time has been reduced nearly in half over 
the last two decades. Consequently, for 58 percent of families, working 
less the next week is not worth working more this week.
  Supporters of the comp time bill argue that their proposal would help 
these families by making voluntary, flexible work schedules available. 
But his bill would actually make matters much worse.
  There are no enforcement mechanisms in the bill to insure the 
voluntariness of any comp time arrangement. Workers would also have no 
power to refuse working longer hours, nor any clear ability to take 
time off when they need it. There are no record-keeping requirements, 
and unscrupulous employers would have a free hand to conveniently 
miscalculate comp time owed to workers.
  Additionally, this bill legalizes sweatshops because there is no 
exception for vulnerable industries. Under this bill, an unscrupulous 
employer who is violating wage and hour law will be able to say, ``My 
employees all opted for comp time instead of overtime pay, they just 
haven't taken their time off yet.''
  Therefore, under the Ballenger bill, it may be lawful for an 
employer: to move workers into a comp time arrangement by stressing a 
preference for that system; to retaliate against workers who insist on 
receiving overtime pay; to make employees work 60 hours 1 week, and 20 
hours the next with very little or no notice; and to effectively 
eliminate overtime pay all together.
  This is not what American families want or need. Workers are asking 
for higher wages, a predictable work schedule, and more time with their 
families. The Ballenger bill would not help families achieve those 
goals, and, in fact, would very likely make matters worse.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds, merely to say, 
his bill? I have not seen any bill from the President. We did not get 
any

[[Page H8780]]

amendments in full committee or subcommittee from the minority.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Barrett], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as more families have both parents working, families 
are making painful choices; either work, or risk their jobs and the 
income the family needs.
  H.R. 2391 is an attempt to ease this burden on families. It'll allow 
the employer to voluntarily offer, and for the employee to voluntarily 
accept, comp time instead of overtime.
  But, those who apparently support Government intrusion are opposing 
this legislation. They believe employers and employees should be forced 
to take comp time.
  H.R. 2391 does not force employers or employees to offer or accept 
comp time. It requires that any unused comp time must be made up with 
overtime pay. And, it maintains the 40-hour workweek.
  H.R. 2391 is a win-win for America's families. The House should pass 
this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, 
the gentleman from St. Louis, MO for allowing me to speak today, and 
for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the bill. I like the idea of 
employees being able to decide whether they are going to have overtime 
pay or comp time. In fact, when the President made his announcement in 
June, I thought we would see an effort to come out with real flex time 
and a compromise. In fact, as has been quoted from the majority side, 
nationwide polls show an overwhelming number of Americans support the 
concept.
  But also, from a different poll, it shows that an overwhelming number 
of workers expect to be forced by their employer to accept comp time 
instead of overtime pay. That is what is wrong with the bill. The bill 
should be addressing both concerns of the workers: First, the need for 
the flexibility, but also, the fear that they have that they may not be 
hired if they do not agree beforehand to take comp time instead of the 
pay.
  Before coming to Congress, I helped manage a business. We used comp 
time. It was successful, both for the business and for the workers. But 
every time it was the choice of that employee, more so than this bill 
ever does, because it worked. It was successful. I would hope that if 
this bill goes down, and if not this Congress, the next Congress we 
will really be able to come together and come up with one that not only 
allows the flexibility, but also provides the teeth to the bill that it 
needs.
  It would be so important to have a way to be clear whether it is 
employee choice or employer mandate. This bill was drafted to expect 
employers to do what is right and give that choice. Ninety-five percent 
of our employers will do that. The bill lacks the teeth because the 5 
percent of the employers, whether they be in the garment industry or 
any other industry, are the ones who will take advantage of this and 
take advantage of those workers. That is why about 60 percent of those 
workers are afraid they are going to be abused with that.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican comp time proposal is that the employer 
and not the employee decides who earns the comp time and who will earn 
the overtime pay. This bill does not contain clear provisions to 
prevent the employer from forcing workers to take time off in lieu of 
overtime pay. I know both the bill and the manager's amendment has some 
effort to try to prevent coercion, but we need more than just the 
statement in here. We need some real teeth in the law.

  In my district people depend on their overtime pay oftentimes to make 
ends meet. They should not have to live in fear of losing it, 
particularly some workers who are seasonal workers, who have to earn 
overtime for the period of time they can work because the rest of the 
year they cannot practice their trade, whether because of weather or 
because of whatever conditions.
  In H.R. 2391 employers maintain the ultimate control when to grant 
that worker the comp time. Regardless of the amount of notice the 
worker provides, employers can deny the use of comp time if the firm 
claims they would be unduly disrupted. Again, I think this is something 
we can work out, but we have not been able to. What good is it to earn 
comp time if the employer does not allow you to use it, or forces you 
to use it instead of your vacation time that you may have earned?
  Additionally, this proposal does not include the protections 
necessary to make sure workers receive their comp time when a business 
files bankruptcy. I know we have talked about that, but this bill does 
not deal with the Bankruptcy Code. Comp time should stay in the same 
place wages do in the Bankruptcy Code. This bill does not set that up 
on that level.
  H.R. 2391 does not give the employees the full remedies available 
under the law to an employer who violates the overtime law. Civil fines 
should be imposed on employers who operate comp time programs in 
violation of the overtime laws. Instead of this Republican proposal, I 
would hope we can work on a real bipartisan proposal giving employees 
real comp time.
  Comp time means employees have the choice of taking their time to go 
to the soccer games. I use it, Mr. Chairman, and I know how important 
it is, but I also want to make sure it is the employee's choice when to 
do it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds.
  Bankruptcy certainly is covered in the legislation, Mr. Chairman. 
Unused comp time is handled the same as unpaid wages, and therefore, is 
right at the top of the list in any kind of bankruptcy proceeding.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder].
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a fascinating debate, because a week or two ago 
nobody offered an amendment in committee, nobody showed any opposition 
to this bill. The President has said he supports this bill. All of a 
sudden, then, the labor unions jerked the chain and lap dogs become pit 
bulls to kill an effort, a modest effort, in non-union shops between 
employers and employees who agree voluntarily to take compensatory time 
as opposed to time and a half, and it is going to be tried to be 
stopped on this floor, the same as the TEAM Act in the Senate, because 
labor union leaders cannot stand it when employers and employees get 
along. They thrive on conflict. They create conflict. Then they come to 
the rescue.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a modest bill. It merely says if employers and 
employees want to get together and voluntarily agree on this, this 
should be legal. I do not understand this debate about adversarial 
relationships. I have built 7 businesses. If you are building 
businesses, you soon begin to understand that the most valuable 
resource you have is your employees. You cannot treat them this 
brutally as you are implying. They leave. It costs you twice as much to 
train a new one. You learn as a business owner. But if you get along 
with your employees and treat them right and reach voluntary agreements 
with them, they make you money. They are the most valuable things you 
have.

  Mr. Chairman, this is simply not about this bill, this is about big 
labor bosses jerking the chain, turning lap dogs into pit bulls to try 
to stop a convenient arrangement that already exists in many union 
contracts, and, indeed, throughout the Federal Government. Why can they 
not have, in the private sector, what we have in the Federal 
Government? This is a good bill and it deserves to be passed for the 
very reasons President Clinton said so.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, to the last speaker in the well, there are a lot of 
reasons why

[[Page H8781]]

the Democrats have not offered amendments to this bill as it came 
before us. First, when we do offer amendments, we never get them 
accepted anyway, so what is the use? Second, he mentions the businesses 
he was in and how benevolent they were.
  I have worked since I was 12 years old. In all that time--my 
colleagues have to understand that I am 67 now--in all that time, I 
found very few benevolent employers who had a greater concern for the 
employee than the bottom line profit. When it comes to the bottom line 
profit, they are going to do whatever they need to do in order to run 
that business so it is profitable, and there is nothing wrong with 
that. I agree with that. A lot of times when it weighs a little bit of 
profit against a little bit of consideration for the employees, they do 
not even do that.
  I will say that there are some employers who are benevolent, but as 
far as this bill is concerned, this bill sounds as if it is a wonderful 
thing, it gives choice to employees. I am for choice. In fact, I am a 
pro-choice person. I am especially pro-choice when it comes to 
employees. But the way this bill is written, it will never give that 
employee that choice.
  Let me make Members understand something about workers. Workers 
generally are not of the aggressive type, that they are going to 
challenge the employer on any of his decisions, especially when it 
means their job or long litigation which they may not win because they 
do not have the wherewithal to hire the kinds of lawyers the employer 
has. So they usually will take their lumps, go their way and go to 
another job and hope they are treated better there.
  If this were not the fact, there would be no need for organized 
labor. There would be no need for Government to pass labor laws. The 
truth of the matter is that there are more people out there who will 
take advantage of it than less.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill as it is written now will give the employer 
the right to decide whether it will be comp time or pay and when that 
employee will use that time. That employee would have to depend on the 
employer being benevolent, to understand his family situation, to be 
able to allow that employee to take advantage of that time when it 
would best suit him and his family. I doubt very much that that is 
going to happen.
  We are going to find that if this legislation were to pass and be 
signed into law, we would have exceeding litigation by those employees 
who do have the courage to stand up to their employer regardless if 
they lose their jobs or not. We already have that in a lot of different 
legislation.
  Let me close by saying that if there were not the need to protect 
that employee, even in this bill as it was written by the other side, 
they would not have put those kinds of restrictions on employers and 
those kinds of threats to action by the Department of Labor if they 
abused or violated the employees' rights. The second we write a piece 
of legislation like that, I guarantee there are going to be problems. 
So why write it at all?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, for too long parents have been 
forced to make tough choices between work and spending time with their 
children. In fact, a 1994 U.S. Department of Labor report found that 
the No. 1 concern for two-thirds of working women with children is the 
difficulty of balancing work and family.
  In two recent surveys, 3 out of 4 parents indicated that they would 
prefer the option to choose either overtime pay or compensatory time 
off for working overtime hours. Parents say this would enable them to 
find a better balance between their work and their family 
responsibilities.
  What are we really talking about? Mr. Chairman, in the late 1970's, 
when my sons were 6 and 8 years old, I found myself in a position to 
have to have a full-time job and still juggle the responsibilities to 
my family. Often I would have taken the choice, with a job that 
required some evenings and weekends and travel, to simply leave that 
job for a few hours and go to my children's school, talk with their 
counselors, or see their school plays. A mother should have that 
choice, Mr. Chairman.
  Under current law, too many working mothers lie awake at night 
worrying about whether or not they are giving their children enough 
quality time. We can do something to help those mothers and we ought to 
do it. This bill addresses exactly that problem. The legislation is 
balanced, it is commonsense, and it is a solution to the problem facing 
the hardworking parents of our country.
  Mr. Chairman, it is worth noting that Federal workers have long had 
this option, but the Government does not allow private employees to 
have this option. They should get the same consideration in the private 
sector that families in the Government have had since 1985.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation that 
supports the value of the family. On behalf of all the working families 
in this country, and especially the working mothers, I urge my 
colleagues to support this time legislation.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to H.R. 2391, the so-called Families Flexibility Act. This 
bad bill is just one more attempt by the Republican-controlled 104th 
Congress to weaken the rights of working men and women. I am very 
concerned that permitting employers to compensate hourly employees' 
overtime work in time off, rather than in cash, will in many 
workplaces, significantly reduce workers' take home wages.
  I oppose this bill because it would significantly weaken labor 
protections for the people who can least afford to lose them, such as 
construction workers. It is the carpenters, electricians, pipefitters, 
and sheet metal workers, in my district, who during the warm spring and 
summer months, work all the overtime possible so they can accumulate 
enough money to last them through the cold winter months. They know 
that in December, January, and February they are going to have more 
time off than they want. It is this core of the work force that no 
longer looks at the 40-hour work week as a standard, but rather a 
necessity.
  These are the same people who are the most likely to suffer coercive 
practices by their employers by being forced to accept compensatory 
time--which they do not want and can not afford--instead of benefiting 
from the premium overtime pay they have earned. In a perfect world, all 
businesses have the financial resources to cash out all employees at 
the end of every year for their unused compensatory time, as the bill 
would require. But this is not a perfect world. Many small contractors 
do not have the cash resources to even-up with their workers, and they 
would send them into the slow winter months without the money in their 
bank accounts that they and their families need to survive. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about ``pay as you go.'' 
A pay as you go policy is the only way companies should be able to pay 
their workers.
  What the authors of this bill would like you to believe is that this 
bill offers workers more control over their working lives. What it 
really does is take away an individual's right to choose. Under H.R. 
2391, workers do not have the ability to schedule their earned 
compensatory time when they need. it. In fact an employer can schedule 
compensatory time anytime he chooses without ever having to consult the 
worker. I am concerned about the steelworker in northwest Indiana, who 
has legitimately agreed to compensatory time and has been doubling up 
on shifts to earn overtime. He's going to approach his boss to request 
time-off at the end of the summer so he can plan some time together 
with his kids before they return to school in the fall.
  His boss may tell him, ``Sorry, but if I gave you your earned time 
off when you want, it would disrupt my operations. Don't worry I'll 
schedule your `comp time' in October when the blast furnace shuts down 
for a four-week re-line job.''
  That steelworker would have had that time off anyhow and his kids are 
already going to be back in school. Thanks a lot.
  In essence, H.R. 2391 gives employers a veto over their workers' use 
of their own earned hours off, opening the door to abuses such as 
making employees work 60 hours 1 week and then 20 hours the next, with 
little or no notice.
  Mr. Chairman, when the people back home in my district sit down each 
month to figure out financially how they are going to make it through 
the upcoming month, they take into account their expected overtime 
wages. Employers do not just hand out bonuses anymore. Today, you have 
got to earn them. I am

[[Page H8782]]

voting against this misguided bill because without overtime pay, many 
of my constituents cannot afford to send their kids to college, buy a 
reliable car for work, or provide themselves and their families with 
adequate health care. This bill guts the protections of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act and undermines living standards for workers. H.R. 2391 is 
not designed to give workers more control over their working lives. It 
is, instead, an attempt to snatch hard won rights out of the hands of 
this country's workers and deny them basic, simple needs, like respect 
for their hard work, a decent living wage, and a chance to provide for 
their families. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2391.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Graham], a member of the committee.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, to begin with I would like to congratulate 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] and our committee 
chairman for working on some legislation for a long period of time that 
really will help people.
  This Congress has been historic in the sense we have done two good 
things: We have applied all of the laws in America to the body itself. 
I think that is going to make the laws in this country better because 
we have to live under them as an employer, the U.S. Congressmen and 
their offices themselves. But what we have done here is we have 
extended to the private sector some options that people that work for 
the Federal Government have. If you want the time off rather than the 
money for working overtime, it is your option as an employee. That is a 
good thing. That is what we do in the Federal Government. The private 
sector should have that same right. But it is up to the employee.
  It is true that when you schedule the compensatory time, that the 
employee has to work with the employer, just like we do here in the 
Federal Government. That is the way business works, that is the way it 
works here, that is the way it works in the private sector. We have 
extended some benefits to the private sector that we in the Government 
have had for many years. I think that is a good thing to do. It is time 
for us to take on the burdens of the private sector. I ask for support 
for this bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, last week I said to Cass Ballenger, the primary 
sponsor: How could anyone oppose this legislation? The employer makes 
it available. He does not have to. He makes it available. It does not 
have to be activated. The employee has the option to activate this 
proposal. Once he enrolls in it and decides he wants to disenroll, it 
shuts down. The employee is in control.
  This, Mr. Chairman, provides comp time flexibility which may be paid 
in any time period during the calendar year, and must be paid out at 
the calendar year's end. I repeat, to my friend from North Carolina, 
how could reasonable people not agree with this?
  They keep talking about employees being afraid. If employees read 
this bill, they will not be afraid. If they listen to the rhetoric 
coming from this hall, they will run to the high ground for fear 
because it is laced with fear. This bill is generous and the employee 
is the direct beneficiary of the generosity.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, there is a movie showing in theaters right 
now called ``Multiplicity.'' It is about a man who has himself cloned 
several times so that he can meet all the responsibilities of home, 
family, work, and personal relationships. It's a great idea, but 
unfortunately, in the real world, we don't have that option.
  As a working mother, I learned the hard way that you can't be in two 
places at once. Whether it is due to a Little League game; a case of 
chicken pox; a visit to the doctor or caring for an elderly parent--
sometimes the needs of a family require a flexible working schedule. 
With comp time, employees can prepare for the unexpected. H.R. 2391 
will make striking a balance between work and family easier, providing 
increased freedom and empowering workers.
  Since the 1930's when the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, the 
American workplace has changed tremendously. Today both parents in a 
family must often work, necessitating a real juggling act between their 
professional responsibilities and the needs of their families.
  If we really want to put families first, this is a good first step. 
H.R. 2391 does not impose taxes on working Americans; it does not spend 
taxpayer dollars or add to the deficit; it does not mandate benefits or 
rely on a one-size-fits-all Washington model; and it does not impose an 
unfunded mandate on business. It is a commonsense measure that helps 
working families by adding some flexibility to an outdated law, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe everyone would agree that all of us who work 
would love flexibility at the workplace. Whether you are the employee 
or you are the employer, you want to know you have a chance to make use 
of your vacation time, your benefits, and obviously do the best job you 
can while you are on the job.
  With the realities that today's families must face, two working 
parents, kids off to school, kids trying to be able to participate in 
recreational activities, it is difficult. Let us give employees that 
flexibility, but let us give them the flexibility of doing what they 
wish with their time and the money they have earned through their 
wages.
  The problems I have with this bill are that it does not do that. Let 
me give some quick examples.
  The issue of coercion. We have people who work here who have graduate 
degrees, who oftentimes find themselves picking up laundry for Members 
of Congress or shuttling family members to and from offices because the 
Member says, ``I need to have it done.''
  If we can see that happening here in the halls of this place, think 
what happens in the workplace where someone is working for $7 an hour 
and the employer says, ``I need you to do this this way. I need you to 
take comp time versus the overtime pay you could get on Saturday.'' 
What is the employee going to say? ``Sorry, I think I would rather take 
my overtime and not agree with you''?
  Chances are there is going to be a lot of pressure on that employee 
to do what the employer wants. This bill gives the employer that kind 
of leverage.
  Slow periods. When I was working my way through college, I worked as 
a construction worker on highways. It is seasonal work and it is 
unpredictable work. If it rains, you do not work because you cannot go 
outside and work in the mud.
  What happens in the case of seasonal work, slow periods, where the 
employer says to himself, ``I know I don't need any workers next week, 
I've got a slowdown in my jobs, in my contracts, so I'm going to tell 
everyone who has got comp time to use it rather than have them come in 
to work and not do as much work.'' It is great for the employer but it 
is terrible for the employee, because the employee is not expecting 
necessarily to have to use the comp time on that occasion.
  What you do is give employers a way to slough off some of their 
obligation to their employees where they would otherwise have to pay 
them to go to work.
  Finally, let us just leave it at this. On bankruptcy, the chairman of 
the committee says that there are provisions in the bill that deal with 
it. I say to the chairman, he cannot have that in there because this is 
a bill that deals with the Fair Labor Standards Act. We are not dealing 
with bankruptcy law, so there is nothing to address the concerns of 
those who say, ``I have got comp time and it is not taken care of 
because an employer goes out of business, I will not get my money.''
  There is nothing in the bill that would protect the employee beyond 
what is in current law, and the changes that we have in this bill do 
not address the bankruptcy laws that we currently have in effect. 
Therefore, an employee who finds himself or herself working for someone 
who goes out of business

[[Page H8783]]

takes the risk of not getting money from the employer, and that is not 
fair.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I stand today in strong 
support of this legislation and I say it is about time.
  For nearly 15 years I worked with mainly middle-aged women trying to 
juggle family and jobs and build a career, and as I hired them, so 
often it became real clear that we need to adjust. We needed to be able 
to let family and work have some latitude, and we find now that with 
the Fair Labor Standards Act it is very, very difficult.
  The flexibility that we need, and yes, gentlemen, I will say, as 
women, often is stopped by law. I have not in my 15 years of managing a 
business found that often I could coerce employees very long before 
they wanted to go somewhere else. I think that that particular argument 
falls on the fact that we need good employees. We want to make it work 
for them, not take advantage of them.
  I encourage my fellow colleagues to finally give women a chance. Give 
us the chance to balance work and family, put it all together and work 
with our employees in a way that makes sense. I urge my colleagues to 
strongly support this bill. It is about time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this antifamily 
legislation. Let us face it, the Republican record has been hideous on 
workers rights, and this bill is just their Medusa of antiworker 
proposals.
  In my 3\1/2\ years in Congress, I have never seen a bill more 
insidious than this attempt to lengthen the workweek with no 
corresponding increase in pay. Contrary to what the Republicans say, 
this bill abolishes overtime pay, period.
  Does anyone believe for 1 minute that workers were consulted on this 
bill? The so-called Working Families Flexibility Act allows employers 
to suddenly 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.
  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. Chairman, workers can be forced to 75 hours a week and 
not see any comp time for 13 months. If the company goes bankrupt in 
that 13 months, too bad, the worker gets no comp time and no overtime 
pay. In effect, this bill forces workers to give their employers 
interest free loans until the boss says it is OK for them to use their 
accrued comp time.
  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. Chairman, this bill legalizes the extraction of unpaid 
labor from workers at a time when people are already working longer and 
harder for less pay.
  Finally, employers can already give workers comp time as long as it 
is used in the same week that the overtime is worked.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not mind being a pit bull for the working men and 
women of this country.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut, [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe this debate. I simply do 
not believe this debate. This is really a debate between union leaders 
and rank-and-file members. The union leaders tell me they do not want 
their employees to have the choice, their union workers to have the 
choice between getting time and a half pay for time and a half 
vacation. The employees, the union members tell me they want the 
choice. It just seems to me logically that we would give them the 
choice.
  What this bill does is simply allow for them to get time and a half 
pay or time and a half off. So, if an individual works 10 days, they 
would get 15 days off. If they worked 20 days overtime, they would get 
30 days off. Their choice. If they chose not to, they could get 10 days 
of work. They could get 15 days of pay, 20 days of extra work. They 
could get 30 days of pay.
  Tis is basically a choice to the individuals who work to allow them 
to decide for themselves. They are not idiots. They are not fools. Give 
them the choice.
  What I cannot understand is the protections we have for these 
employees are the same as we have under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
under the Family and Medical Leave. They can go to court directly or 
they can go to the Labor Department and the Labor Department can go to 
court against an employer who basically coerces a worker.
  We have all the protections. Why should people in the private sector 
not have the same right that exists in the State, local, and Federal 
Governments?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has 8\1/
4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] has 
5\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to again make a couple of points. One is 
that there are adequate employee protections built into the Working 
Families Flexibility Act and that explicit language in the bill 
prohibits an employer from compelling an employee to take compensatory 
time, or time off, in lieu of overtime compensation. So no employee in 
any occupation in any industry can be compelled to take compensatory 
time off in lieu of overtime compensation.
  This is a good and fair bill. It is balanced. It is a bill that is 
designed to relieve some of the pressure, some of the strain that 
working families, particularly two-income families face today in 
America, and it is a bill that is designed to help families attend to 
their unique circumstance and needs.
  This is a practice that has been working well in the public sector 
for years and years and years and I can speak to that from personal 
experience, and I really do not understand when we have the President 
on record as in favor of this concept, at least in favor of this 
legislation, conceptually saying, ``You can choose money in the bank or 
time on the clock. With more Americans working more hours, simply 
spending more time with the family can be a dream in itself.''
  When you have the President of the United States on record as 
supporting this legislation conceptually, I cannot understand the kind 
of reckless claims that have been made about this legislation on this 
floor. This is sensible legislation.
  We are not attacking the 40-hour workweek and we are not intent on 
eliminating overtime pay. This kind of extreme rhetoric does a 
disservice to the American people following this debate, and it is 
flat-out wrong. As I said before, this legislation does not eliminate 
or change the traditional 40-hour workweek. It simply provides 
employees with another option in the workplace, time off instead of 
overtime pay.
  Mr. Chairman, today as we consider the Working Families Flexibility 
Act, we have a unique opportunity to do something good for America's 
working families. We have the chance to revolutionize an employee's 
ability to balance the growing demands of work and family.
  While the concept of comptime may be revolutionary to some, to 
America's workers, who are increasingly frustrated about coping with 
the demands of contemporary life, it is an important and long-awaited 
reform. In fact, this is an issue that we should have acted on long 
ago.
  Simply put, the Working Families Flexibility Act gives employees more 
power and control over their lives by allowing them take home pay or 
time off to help balance work, family, and personal responsibilities.
  Surprisingly, because of an outdated labor law which was written in a 
time when issues such as a two-income family and child care were 
unheard of, employers and employees today do not have these options.
  Common sense dictates that both employees and employers benefit from 
the ability to

[[Page H8784]]

make flexible arrangements about compensation. By passing the Working 
Families Flexibility Act, we will give employers the ability to offer, 
and workers the ability to choose, either cash wages or paid time off 
for any overtime worked. At long last, working men and women will be 
able to achieve the elusive balance between work and family that they 
have long sought. They will be able to work, make a living, and spend 
more time with their families.
  Unlike the irresponsible claims that opponents of this legislation 
are espousing, this bill does not attempt to eliminate overtime pay. 
However, it does provide employee protections to ensure that employees 
will not be forced to take comptime and to ensure that employers 
actually pay for any overtime accrued by a worker.
  Those same opponents would have you believe that this legislation 
destroys the 40-hourweek. Wrong. This legislation protects the 40-hour 
workweek. Employees will continue to receive time-and-a-half pay for 
hours worked over 40 hours a week. If the employer decides to offer 
comptime--the employee gets the choice of whether to be paid in time 
off or cash.
  The bottom line is this--working families win with the passage of the 
Working Families Flexibility Act. Over 60 percent of employees surveyed 
said that they would like to have the option to choose comptime instead 
of paid ovetime. Why? To be able to spend precious time with their 
families. To go to school events with their children, to attend parent-
teacher conferences or to even take a long-awaited family vacation. It 
is as simple as that. Families need more time together. The last thing 
families need are rigid, inflexible, and outdated Federal laws making 
basic family activities more difficult.
  Working families and working conditions are going through major 
changes today. At the very least, we can make the simple changes that 
will allow them to build and enjoy strong and loving families.
  We have a rare opportunity here today. I urge my colleagues to ignore 
the outrageous rhetoric that we have heard here today and listen to 
working Americans. Support this H.R. 2391 and support America's 
families.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record extraneous material on the 
Working Families Flexibility Act.
  The legislation has no effect whatsoever on the 40-hour workweek for 
the purposes of calculating overtime. Employees who are covered by the 
Fair Labor Standards Act will continue to receive overtime pay for any 
hours worked over 40 in a week. If an employer decides to make comp 
time available as an option, then the employee will have the choice of 
taking overtime pay in the form of paid time off or overtime wages.
  If an employee voluntarily chooses comp time over cash wages, then 
there must be an express mutual agreement in writing or some other 
verifiable statement between the employer and the employee, which must 
be retained by the employer in accordance with the recordkeeping 
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  Accrued comp time could be taken by the employee when the employee 
chooses to take it, so long as reasonable notice is given and its use 
doesn't unduly disrupt--the same standard used in the public sector and 
under the Family and Medical Leave Act--the operations of the business. 
Employers would be prohibited from requiring employees to take their 
accrued comp time solely at the convenience of the employer.
  Employees would be able to accrue up to 240 hours of comp time within 
a 12-month period; however, employees and employers could agree to set 
a lower limit. Employers must pay employees in cash wages for any 
unused, accrued comp time at the end of each year.
  Employees may request in writing, at any time, to be paid cash wages 
for accrued comp time. Employers must comply with the request within 30 
days.
  Employees may withdraw from a compensatory time agreement with an 
employer at any time. However, employers are required to provide 
employees with at least 30 days' notice prior to discontinuing a policy 
of offering comp time to employees.
  Employers must provide at least 30 days notice before cashing out an 
employee's accrued comp time. However, employer may only cash out 
accrued comp time in excess of 80 hours.
  The legislation allow double damages to be awarded against employers 
who coerce employees into choosing compensatory time instead of 
overtime wages or into using accrued comp time.
  The legislation would require the Secretary of Labor to revise the 
Fair Labor Standards Act's posting requirements so that employees are 
notified of their rights and remedies regarding the use of comp time.
  If an employer failed to pay cash wages to an employee for accrued 
comp time or refused to allow an employee to use accrued comp time, all 
of the current remedies under the Fair Labor Standards would apply, 
including enforcement by the Department of Labor and through individual 
lawsuits.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] is 
recognized for 5\1/4\ minutes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding me this time, and I especially thank the gentleman from 
Missouri for his long, long, long battle in the trenches with me for 
real family leave.
  The gentleman from Missouri understands this, and I have scars all 
over our bodies for having been beaten by many on this floor for having 
introduced over 9 years ago the Family Medical Leave Act, which is now 
passed and has been very, very positive.
  Let me tell my colleagues when we finally got it passed and we 
finally got a President to sign it into law we only had 40 votes on the 
other side of the aisle to help us. Everyone else voted against family 
leave on that side of the aisle. Know what? Family leave has been a 
phenomenal help for America's families. It has been a phenomenal help 
in that it has allowed people to have unpaid leave at the time of birth 
or adoption of a family member or a serious illness of a family member.
  So suddenly we have a Presidential election where everybody is 
talking about working family issues, because people are realizing the 
incredible strain America's families are under as they are trying to 
juggle their caregiver roles and their employer-employee roles and that 
stress is forcing American families every day to run faster and faster 
and faster, their tongues are hanging out; they feel like a squirrel in 
the wheel. They are more and more tired and they never get out of the 
bottom of the wheel.
  So now we are getting ready to go into the campaign mode and we have 
to figure out what we did if we are one of those many people who did 
not vote for family leave that has become so successful.
  We just finished a whole 2-year study showing that none of the 
terrible things they predicted would happen, happened. So the folks who 
did not vote for it have to find a way to cover their backsides. This 
is the bill, and this is a bill that I think any employee who works for 
the wage and hour provisions understands very seriously that this bill 
is the wrong way to go.
  We hear people saying, oh, employers will not compel employees to say 
they would rather have time off than pay, time-and-a-half pay. Oh, 
yeah? Show me the employer that would rather give you money than time 
off. Employers are going to say, ``You want to work here, this is a 
voluntary decision. If you voluntarily decide you want to work here, 
then you better bloody well volunteer to sign this thing saying if 
there is any overtime you will take time off rather than get money.''
  Let us be real clear about this. When people are working at those 
kinds of levels of jobs, they cannot negotiate with their employer like 
Michael Jordan. If they say I am not going to sign that, one of two 
things will happen: Either they will never get overtime, or they will 
not get hired at all. And employees know this. Who are we kidding here?
  Now, let us go to the next level. So let us say a person has signed 
one of these and they are adding all this time that they are going to 
be able to use. The next part of the bill is they only get to use it 
when it is convenient for the employer. Now, if they have a working 
family, like I had for many years, let me tell my colleagues that is no 
good.
  What we need is predictability. We need to be able to predict when we 
have to work and predict when we are going to have time off so that we 
can tell the school we can be there to help with the kids, or we can 
tell our mom that we can help her go shop for groceries, or

[[Page H8785]]

we can do whatever our family's responsibilities are. If we do not have 
that predictability, we do not have anything that is worth anything.

  So basically what this bill does, let us just put it right out there, 
if you are a minimum-wage worker and you work 47.5 hours a week, this 
bill mandates you get a 22-percent pay cut and time off whenever the 
employer finds that you can have it. But we cannot really program it. 
We cannot really plan it because we do not know when it is going to be.
  If this side of the aisle were really serious about doing something, 
they would get on the bill that the gentleman from Missouri and many of 
the others of us are now trying to push, and that is let us give family 
medical leave for people who work for companies of 25 or more. When we 
passed this bill, we put it at 50. It has worked so well, let us lower 
the threshold to 25 or more. So people upon the birth of a baby or the 
adoption of a baby can have that ability to say I get time off to try 
to stabilize the situation.
  Oh, no, they do not want to do that because they still really have 
not even bought into the family medical leave bill we passed that is 
working so sell.
  This bill also allows people to take uncompensatory time off a couple 
times a year to work in their child's school or to help in some 
community institution. It is kind of a community reinvestment kind of 
thing. This is what the President is for. But this is time the employee 
controls.

                              {time}  1515

  If my child is going on a field trip, that is when I need to have the 
time off, not 3 weeks later when it is a convenience for the employer. 
That is why this bill is a joke, and let us be perfectly clear about 
that.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues want to make the 
workplace more family friendly, I urge them to vote for the Working 
Families Flexibility Act. This bill provides working mothers and 
fathers with the choice of comp time pay or overtime pay. This option 
empowers employees to balance family needs and career needs.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some things that money simply cannot buy: 
time with your children, your parents, or your spouse. Comp time allows 
workers to choose more of all these things.
  If Members believe that Congress should live under the same laws that 
govern the private sector, vote for the Working Families Flexibility 
Act. Since 1985, Federal, State, and local governments have been able 
to offer their employees comp time. Do not private sector employees 
have the same option? This bill says yes. Support the Working Families 
Flexibility Act for our families, our workers, and our children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would say to the gentlewoman that just spoke, 
yes, in the public sector it can be a condition of employment but in 
the legislation, if she would read it, she would find that no way can 
it be a condition of employment.
  This is not some wild Republican idea. The President himself endorsed 
the concept. He has not sent us any legislation but endorsed the 
concept. Since most people apparently that I have heard speak over 
there have not read the legislation since we made 20 changes all geared 
to protect the employee, and there will be some more offered in an 
amendment to do the same, I would like to just tell my colleagues what 
is in the bill so if the American public is confused, at least they 
will know what is in the legislation.
  The legislation has no effect whatsoever on the 40-hour workweek for 
the purpose of calculating overtime. Employers who are covered by the 
FLSA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, will continue to receive overtime 
pay for any hours worked over 40 in a week. If an employer decides to 
make comp time available as an option, then the employee will have the 
choice of taking overtime pay in the form of paid time off or overtime 
wages. If the employee voluntarily chooses comp time over cash wages, 
then there must be an express mutual agreement, in writing, or some 
other verifiable statement from the employer and the employee which 
must be retained by the employer in accordance with the recordkeeping 
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  Accrued comp time would be taken by the employee when the employee 
chooses to take it, so long as reasonable notice is given and its use 
does not unduly disrupt, which is taken from the standard used in the 
public sector and under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the operation 
of the business.
  Employers would be prohibited from requiring employees to take their 
accrued comp time solely at the convenience of the employer. Employees 
would be able to accrue up to 240 hours of comp time within a 12-month 
period; however, employers and employees could agree to set a larger 
limit. Employers must pay employees in cash wages for any unused 
accrued comp time at end of the year.
  Employees may request in writing at any time to be paid cash wage for 
accrued comp time. Employers must comply with the request within 30 
days. Employees may withdraw from a compensatory time agreement with an 
employer at any time. However, employers are required to provide 
employees with at least 30 days' prior notice to discontinuing a policy 
of offering comp time to employees. Employers must provide at least 30 
days' notice before cashing out an employee's accrued comp time. 
However, employers may only cash out accrued comp time in excess of 80 
hours.

  The legislation allows double damages, I repeat double damages to be 
awarded against employers who coerce employees into choosing 
compensatory time instead of overtime wages or into using accrued comp 
time and, I might add, also pay the attorney's fees.
  The legislation would require the Secretary of Labor to revise the 
Fair Labor Standards Act, posting requirements so that employees are 
notified of their rights and remedies regarding the use of comp time.
  If an employer failed to pay cash wages to an employee for accrued 
comp time or refused to allow an employee to use accrued comp time, all 
of the current remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act would apply, 
including enforcement by the Department of Labor and through individual 
lawsuits.
  It also makes it very clear that unused comp time in the case of 
bankruptcy is unpaid labor time and, therefore, moves it to the very 
top of the ladder when dealing with a bankruptcy situation.
  The bill states unpaid comp time is considered the same as unpaid 
wages; accrued comp time has the same priority in bankruptcy as any 
other unpaid wages.
  We have given Members an opportunity to give choice to the American 
worker, to those who are not members of a union. Of course, the union 
remains the same as it is. They negotiate whether they get comp time or 
whether they do not. But for all of the other, which is the largest 
percentage of the employees, they finally have an opportunity to do 
what 75 percent of all working Americans said they would like to do: 
have a choice; have a choice between compensatory time or overtime 
wages.
  Now, I am sorry to hear, secondhandedly, that the Secretary of Labor 
has indicated that this might be something that he would have the 
President veto. I think it is very clear the President has to make a 
choice. He has to make a choice as to whether he represents the 75 
percent of the Americans who would like to have this time or whether he 
wants the $36 to $46 million available for the campaign.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
2391, the so called Working Family Flexibility Act, which will severely 
undermine long-standing protections for working men and women in this 
country.
  The overtime requirement in the Fair Labor Standards Act was 
established to protect workers in this country from being forced to 
work excessive hours. The development of the right to premium pay--the 
time-and-a-half standard--for overtime compensation was intended to 
establish a market incentive to spread work among more employees and 
prevent employers from assigning excessive work to a fewer number of 
employees.
  Along with the minimum wage this is a basic protection for workers in 
this country against potential abuses. H.R. 2391 would create a massive 
loophole for employers, which would

[[Page H8786]]

allow them to deny employees their right to overtime compensation. 
Republicans argue that employers only have their employees best 
interest in mind and want to provide comp time so that employees can 
take time off to attend to family business. I have no doubt this is the 
case for many employers in this country. But evidence clearly points 
out that there are a significant number of employers who would not have 
such noble objectives.
  Even the Employment Policy Foundation, an employer-funded 
organization, admits that workers are currently cheated out of overtime 
pay. They estimate that workers lose $19 billion a year in unpaid 
overtime. The foundation also estimates that 10 percent of workers 
entitled to overtime are not paid for the overtime. Other organizations 
believe that estimate is low. H.R. 2391 would make it easier for 
employers to get around the overtime law.
  The majority claims that under this bill comp time would be purely 
voluntary for employees, yet the provisions of the bill provide no such 
assurances and in fact would allow employers to coerce workers to 
accept comp time instead of overtime pay.
  The assignment of overtime work is purely at the discretion of the 
employer, this is the case under current law. This bill goes one step 
further and allows employers to decide what kind of compensation 
workers will receive for overtime work, and if such compensation is in 
the form of leave time, when they can take that leave. Nothing in the 
bill prohibits an employer from substituting current annual and 
vacation leave policies with comp time. And nothing in this bill 
prohibits employers from assigning overtime work on the basis of an 
employee's willingness to take comp time.
  Under H.R. 2391 any employer could deny a worker the use of their 
comp time if the employer determines that it unduly disrupts the 
business. Even if the employee provided a month's notice to make a 
parent-teacher meeting or to attend a school play, the employer could 
deny the use of comp time. In fact, nothing in the bill assures workers 
that they can use their comp time to attend such events. It is all in 
the hands of the employers.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2391 does nothing to assure that the comp 
time provisions will be applied in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. 
Employers can apply the comp time provisions in a purely arbitrary and 
capricious manner, which could subject employees to discrimination and 
even coersion by their employers.
  We would all love workers to have family-friendly work policies, but 
this bill is not family-friendly. It seriously erodes long-standing 
labor protections for working families in this country. Family-friendly 
means assuring that workers in this country are treated fairly and are 
compensated adequately so they can provide a decent standard of living 
for their children and this the core of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2391.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
Working Families Flexibility Act, H.R. 2391. While skillfully titled, 
this legislation will not, in fact, help today's working families cope 
with the struggles they face. Instead, this legislation will make life 
harder for those who toil each week to provide for their families. 
Perhaps it is unintentional, but unfortunately this bill represents yet 
another proposal put forth by the majority which will increase the 
strain on working families and jeopardize our nation's basic workplace 
protections.
  This legislation attempts to offer workers a choice between overtime 
pay and compensatory time off when they work greater than 40 hours per 
week. However, the bill does not assure that the employer-employee 
agreements on this subject will be truly voluntary. Employers who wish 
to offer compensatory time rather than overtime will find a way to 
impose this choice on their employees. Today's workers, who face a 
climate of reduced job security and corporate downsizing, will find it 
difficult to reject their employers stated preference for time off 
rather than overtime pay. For example, employers could screen job 
applicants or assign overtime to employees according to their 
willingness to accept comp time.
  Reducing opportunities for overtime pay in this way is particularly 
damaging for the many workers in today's economy who depend on overtime 
to maintain a decent standard of living for themselves and their 
families. Fully two-thirds of the workers who earned overtime in 1994 
had a total family income of less than $40,000. For these many workers 
at the low end of the wage scale, the extra dollars earned from 
overtime can mean the difference between family self-sufficiency and 
government dependence. At a time when we are rightly demanding that 
people move from welfare to work, we must not remove a basic 
safeguard--overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week--that 
has allowed low-wage workers to stand on their own.
  Mr. Chairman, the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
have served this Nation well. They protect workers from demands for 
excessive work, reward, in a financially meaningful way, those who put 
in extra time for their employer, and by requiring premium pay for 
overtime, provide an incentive for businesses to create additional 
jobs. Weakening these overtime provisions and giving employers 
additional authority over the work schedules of their employees is not 
the way to help today's working families. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, this bill is another example of a good idea 
gone bad in the hands of the Majority, and that is why I will vote 
against it.
  I support workers choosing compensatory time off instead of overtime. 
Moreover, I recognize the need to give employees greater flexibility, 
particularly in light of the number of families in which both parents 
must work. And, I also support giving workers the opportunity to take 
care of family issues, and that is why I fought for the Family and 
Medical Leave Act.
  While the legislation before us today may sound like it embraces 
these concepts, it fails to expand employee options. Indeed, the bill, 
for all its efforts, would be a false promise to millions of hard-
pressed workers, who want time off in lieu of overtime.
  First, the bill does not establish universal access to comp time. It 
would be up to an employer to determine which workers are eligible for 
compensatory time off. In fact, an unscrupulous manager could deny comp 
time to an employee on any basis, while offering comp time to another 
worker performing the same job. Contrary to the protestations of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, an employee in this 
situation would have no choice, no resource, and no chance at comp 
time.
  Second, an employee would not sufficiently control the use of their 
comp time. Unlike overtime, an employee would not have comp time in 
hand. Instead, an employee would have to ask an employer when they 
could use their compensation. And, an employer can simply buy this comp 
time back.
  Third, the amount of compensatory time that can be earned or banked 
is so great that it lessens the likelihood of an employer offering 
vacation. Currently, there is no law mandating vacation. However, this 
bill would provide yet another disincentive for paid leave, by allowing 
managers to tell their employees to earn comp time if they want 
vacation time. Obviously, an employee would lose out on both vacation 
and overtime under this scenario.
  Finally, this bill fails to address the unique circumstances of 
certain workers. For example, a carpenter, a temporary employee, or a 
garmentmaker who works overtime is currently paid time-and-a-half. That 
is the law, but, under this legislation, if these workers accept comp 
time, they may never get to use it because of the nature of their 
industry. Indeed, these kind of workers often move from employer to 
employer, and I am skeptical if their future employers would honor a 
previous employers comp time. The same question arises if an employer 
goes bankrupt.
  Simply put, H.R. 2391 is not universal, does not provide choice, 
jeopardizes existing leave policies, and fails to address the unique 
circumstances of certain workers.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a better way. The President has proposed a 
sensible alternative to this poor second cousin, and I support the 
President's plan.
  Mr. Chairman, America's hard working families deserve the choice 
between overtime and comp time. Regrettably, H.R. 2391 fails to deliver 
it.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ballenger comp 
time bill for many of the reasons that have already been cited during 
the limited amount of committee and floor debate on this measure. It 
fails to count used comp time as hours worked as part of a 40-hour 
week. It lacks any real penalties for employer coercion of workers. And 
it emphasizes employer, rather than employee, choice in numerous areas, 
including the critical question of when and if comp time can be used.
  Mr. Ballenger approached me soon after the committee mark-up and 
asked me why I opposed it. I told him that one of my concerns centered 
on the provision that allowed employers unilaterally to ``cash out'' an 
employee's entire accrued comp time without warning. The bill now 
before us is much improved in that regard, and I do appreciate both 
those changes and the gentleman's effort to solicit my views.
  However, approaching selected Members after the committee has already 
considered the bill is decidedly not the same as attempting to work out 
a compromise that all Members could support. And in this case, there 
was a real opportunity to do that. Earlier this year, Mr. Clay began an 
effort to put forth a genuine counterproposal which would be the basis 
for negotiations. That process ended, however, when the Republicans on 
the committee scheduled, and then cancelled, an emergency mark-up of 
the bill, designed to rush the bill to the floor without substantive 
debate.
  I truly wish that had not happened. This bill is better than the 
committee bill, which itself

[[Page H8787]]

was better than the seriously-flawed subcommittee version. But it still 
has troubling shortcomings.
  The concept of comp time seems straightforward. But the practical 
details and implications of allowing comp time are numerous and 
complex. If that weren't the case, we could have changed the law long 
ago.
  Forcing workers to work overtime not only keeps them away from their 
families, it can also diminish the number of jobs available. Time-and-
a-half pay for overtime work was intended to limit required overtime 
for these very reasons. By diminishing that deterrent--by, in effect, 
selling required overtime work as a positive employee benefit--this 
bill could actually encourage the very exploitative behavior that the 
Fair Labor Standards Act was intended to prevent.
  It does not have to. But we need to think through carefully the 
practical details of what this bill would actually do. We have not had 
the opportunity to do that in an open forum. We owe it to the American 
people to delay consideration of this proposal until we have done so.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
bill which changes the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  Today working overtime and the money it provides in pay have become 
regrettably a necessity, not an option, for many workers. Now some want 
to take away, the premium and make it flexible for the employer.
  For over 50 years these basic rules of the 40 hour workweek have 
ensured fair treatment and pay for working men and women. There is no 
need to change them now other than to weaken and undercut workers' 
rights and benefits. No matter how you package these changes, the 
bottom line is that workers are shortchanged and pushed to a work 
schedule in line with the employers' interests. The fact is that the 
current FLSA is working. Workers don't need the help purported to be 
extended in this measure.
  Once again during this Congress, I come to the floor of this House to 
oppose the Republican majority's efforts to strip away the longstanding 
and hard-fought rights of working men and women in this country. The 
bill before us today is a direct assault on the Fair Labor Standards 
Act and the traditional 40 hour workweek with premium compensation for 
work beyond the 8-hour day. Workers don't need to be defined into lower 
pay checks.
  H.R. 2391, the so-called Working Families Flexibility Act, would 
allow employers to grant compensatory time to workers instead of 
overtime pay as long as there is a so-called mutual agreement or 
understanding. Although this may seem like a reasonable concept at 
first glance, take a good long realistic look at this legislation's 
predicate. Apparently, my Republican colleagues intend to rely on the 
good nature of employers and assume an equal authority between employer 
and employee since this measure does absurdly little to protect workers 
from obvious pressure and abuse that could and would occur if this 
measure is implemented. It makes me wonder if the advocates are 
connected to the real world of work. Many employers are fair and 
evenhanded. That some are not is or should be readily apparent.
  The bill before us today is so deficient as to be considered nothing 
other than antiworker, antilabor legislation. The bill does precious 
little to stop employers from coercing their employees to accept 
compensatory time instead of pay--its anticoercing provisions are weak 
and unenforceable; it does nothing to stop employers from giving 
overtime hours only to workers who will choose compensatory time; it 
even puts restrictions on the use of compensatory time by workers; and 
it does nothing to prohibit employers from hiring only workers that 
will accept compensatory time as a condition of their employment. So 
much for safe guards.
  Working families in this country are struggling to make ends meet. 
Many families depend on the additional income of overtime pay to get 
by. So when these families are forced to mutually agree to accept 
compensatory time, they go without. Compensatory time does not pay the 
bills nor fairly pay for the inconvenience of working beyond the 
defined day.
  Finally, it amazes me how my Republican colleagues can claim this 
measure is pro-working families. Why do you think that every major 
labor group opposes this measure--if this bill were truly positive for 
the American workers, that wouldn't be the case, labor groups would 
favor such. Well, labor unions do not support, they oppose--strongly 
oppose this legislation. Let's identify this bill for what it is; yet 
another break for the Republican Party's big corporate friends at the 
expense of the American working men and women.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 2391, I thank 
you for recognizing me in support of this important legislation, the 
Working Families Flexibility Act.
  In San Diego County, families work hard to make ends meet. They have 
some of the county's longest commutes. They struggle to make time with 
their children. According to a Yankelovich poll cited in the June 16, 
1996, Wall Street Journal, 62 percent of parents ``believed their 
families had been hurt by changes they had experienced at work, such as 
more stress or longer hours.'' And the Department of Labor finds that 
70 percent of working women with children cite balancing work and 
family responsibilities as their No. 1 concern.
  Families want more flexibility in their work schedules, to help 
accommodate soccer games, school awards, or just time with the 
children.
  That's why the Working Families Flexibility Act is so important. 
Given the fact that many employees are working overtime, the Working 
Families Flexibility Act brings the Fair Labor Standards Act into the 
1990's. It gives employees a choice: get paid time-and-a-half, or take 
time-and-a-half off with the family. All that's needed is a mutual 
agreement between the employer and the employee. Workers can accumulate 
up to 240 hours of comp time. Any comp time that is not taken must be 
paid at time-and-a-half. And all comp time must be cashed-out once a 
year into time-and-a-half pay.
  This is the right thing to do. Three out of five workers working 
overtime would like to take comp time instead of time-and-a-half pay.
  Interestingly enough, Congress granted similar flexibility to public 
sector employers 11 years ago. But the private sector and small 
businesses are prohibited by the FLSA from offering this kind of 
family-friendly flexibility to their own employees. If this kind of 
flexibility is good enough for Government employees, it's good enough 
for the rest of America.
  Last Month, President Clinton joined the bandwagon in support of more 
flexibility in family work schedules. But the President's proposal does 
not do the job for America's working families. It creates unnecessary 
bureaucratic paperworker for employers. And it does not allow employees 
to bank any sizeable amount of their comp time, as the Working Families 
Flexibility Act does. Nevertheless, we appreciate the President's 
interest.
  The Working Families Flexibility Act gives working families a better 
chance to get what they want and what they need: time with their 
children, with their family, friends and loved ones. It includes 
important protections for employees and employers. It is a balanced, 
reasonable approach to the work and family environment of the 1990's. I 
urge all members to support it, because families support it, too.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule for 2 hours. The committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2391

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Working Families Flexibility 
     Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. COMPENSATORY TIME.

       Subsection (o) of section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) through (5) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) An employee may receive, in accordance with this 
     subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime compensation, 
     compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-
     half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime 
     compensation is required by this section.
       ``(2) An employer may provide compensatory time under 
     paragraph (1) only--
       ``(A) pursuant to--
       ``(i) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining 
     agreement, memorandum of understanding, or any other 
     agreement between the employer and representatives of such 
     employees, or
       ``(ii) in the case of employees who are not represented by 
     a collective bargaining agent or other representative 
     designated by the employee, an agreement or understanding 
     arrived at between the employer and employee before the 
     performance of the work if such agreement or understanding 
     was entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee;
       ``(B) in the case of an employee who is not an employee of 
     a public agency, if such employee has affirmed, in a written 
     or otherwise verifiable statement that is made, kept, and 
     preserved in accordance with section 11(c), that the employee 
     has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of overtime 
     compensation; and
       ``(C) if the employee has not accrued compensatory time in 
     excess of the limit applicable to the employee prescribed by 
     paragraph (5).

     In the case of employees described in subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     who are employees of a public agency and who were hired 
     before

[[Page H8788]]

     April 15, 1986, the regular practice in effect on such date 
     with respect to compensatory time off for such employees in 
     lieu of the receipt of overtime compensation, 
     shall constitute an agreement or understanding described 
     in such subparagraph. Except as provided in the preceding 
     sentence, the provision of compensatory time off to 
     employees of a public agency for hours worked after April 
     14, 1986, shall be in accordance with this subsection. An 
     employer may provide compensatory time under paragraph (1) 
     to an employee who is not an employee of a public agency 
     only if such agreement or understanding was not a 
     condition of employment.
       ``(3) An employer which is not a public agency and which 
     provides compensatory time under paragraph (1) to employees 
     shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or 
     coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any 
     employee for the purpose of--
       ``(A) interfering with such employee's rights under this 
     subsection to request or not request compensatory time off in 
     lieu of payment of overtime compensation for overtime hours; 
     or
       ``(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.
       ``(4)(A) An employee, who is not an employee of a public 
     agency, may accrue not more than 240 hours of compensatory 
     time.
       ``(B)(i) Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, 
     the employee's employer shall provide monetary compensation 
     for any compensatory time off accrued during the preceding 
     calendar year which was not used prior to December 31 of the 
     preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An 
     employer may designate and communicate to the employer's 
     employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in 
     which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 
     31 days after the end of such 12-month period.
       ``(ii) The employer may provide monetary compensation for 
     an employee's unused compensatory time at any time. Such 
     compensation shall be provided at the rate prescribed by 
     paragraph (6).
       ``(C) An employee may also request in writing that monetary 
     compensation be provided, at any time, for all compensatory 
     time accrued which has not yet been used. Within 30 days of 
     receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the 
     employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with 
     paragraph (6).
       ``(5)(A) If the work of an employee of a public agency for 
     which compensatory time may be provided included work in a 
     public safety activity, an emergency response activity, or a 
     seasonal activity, the employee engaged in such work may 
     accrue not more than 480 hours of compensatory time for hours 
     worked after April 15, 1986. If such work was any other work, 
     the employee engaged in such work may accrue not more than 
     240 hours of compensatory time for hours worked after 
     April 15, 1986. Any such employee who, after April 15, 
     1986, has accrued 480 or 240 hours, as the case may be, of 
     compensatory time off shall, for additional overtime hours 
     of work, be paid overtime compensation.
       ``(B) If compensation is paid to an employee described in 
     subparagraph (A) for accrued compensatory time off, such 
     compensation shall be paid at the regular rate earned by the 
     employee at the time the employee receives such payment.
       ``(6)(A) An employee of an employer which is not a public 
     agency who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be 
     provided under paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or 
     involuntary termination of employment, be paid for the unused 
     compensatory time at a rate of compensation not less than--
       ``(i) the average regular rate received by such employee 
     during the period during which the compensatory time was 
     accrued, or
       ``(ii) the final regular rate received by such employee,

     whichever is higher.
       ``(B) An employee of an employer which is a public agency 
     who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be 
     provided under paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or 
     involuntary termination of employment, be paid for the unused 
     compensatory time at a rate of compensation not less than--
       ``(i) the average regular rate received by such employee 
     during the last 3 years of the employee's employment, or
       ``(ii) the final regular rate received by such employee,

     whichever is higher.
       ``(C) Any payment owed to an employee under this sub-
     section for unused compensatory time shall, for purposes of 
     section 16(b), be considered unpaid overtime compensation.
       ``(7) An employee--
       ``(A) who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to 
     be provided under paragraph (1), and
       ``(B) who has requested the use of such compensatory time,

     shall be permitted by the employee's employer to use such 
     time within a reasonable period after making the request if 
     the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the 
     operations of the employer.''; and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (8) and (9), respectively.

     SEC. 3. REMEDIES

       Section 16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 216) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``(b) Any employer'' and 
     inserting ``(b) Except as provided in subsection (f), any 
     employer''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of the following:
       ``(f) An employer which is not a public agency and which 
     willfully violates section 7(o)(3) shall be liable to the 
     employee affected in the amount of the rate of compensation 
     (determined in accordance with section 7(o)(6)(A)) for each 
     hour of compensatory time accrued by the employee and in an 
     additional equal amount as liquidated damages reduced by the 
     amount of such rate of compensation for each hour of 
     compensatory time used by such employee.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Before consideration of any other amendment it shall be 
order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 104-704 if 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], or his 
designee. That amendment shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for 10 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.
  If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
  No further amendment is in order except those printed in the 
appropriate place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments shall 
be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on amendment; and reduce to 5 minutes the minimum 
time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
another electric vote without intervening business, provided that the 
minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of 
questions shall be 15 minutes.


                   amendment offered by mr. goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Page 3, line 20, insert 
     ``(4) or'' after ``paragraph''.
       Page 5, line 10, insert ``in excess of 80 hours'' after 
     ``time''.
       Page 5, insert after line 12 the following:
       ``(iii) An employer which has adopted a policy offering 
     compensatory time to employees may discontinue such policy 
     upon giving employees 30 days notice. An employee who is not 
     an employee of a public agency may withdraw an agreement or 
     understanding described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) at any 
     time.''.
       Page 5, line 11, insert before the period the following: 
     ``after giving the employee at least 30 days notice''.
       Page 7, beginning in line 12, strike '', for purposes of 
     section 16(b),''.
       Page 8, line 9, strike ``willfully''.
       Page 8, insert after line 15 the following:

     SEC. 4. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall revise the materials 
     the Secretary provides, under regulations published at 29 
     C.F.R. 516.4, to employers for purposes of a notice 
     explaining the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to employees 
     so that such notice reflects the amendments made to such Act 
     by this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies and adds a 
number of employee-protections which will ensure that the choice of 
comp time is truly the employee's choice and to give employees control 
over when comp time is used or cashed in.
  First, the amendment requires a private sector employer to give an 
employee 30 days notice prior to cashing out the employee's accrued 
comp time. However, employers may only cash out accrued comp time in 
excess of 80 hours, unless the cash out is in response to an employee 
request.
  There has been some concern expressed about the fact that would an 
employer could cash out comp time. But, an employer is not required to 
offer comp time--so to offer it and then, in effect retract it, in the 
absence of a very compelling reason to do so, would not be a very 
sensible policy for an employer. The amendment addresses this concern 
by assuring that the employer could not cash out the first

[[Page H8789]]

80 hours of accrued comp time, unless the employee requests it.
  Second, the amendment clarifies that an employee may withdraw from a 
comp time agreement with an employer at any time. Nothing in the bill 
currently prohibits an employee from doing so, but I have added 
language which explicitly gives the employee that right.
  Third, the amendment would require employers to provide employees 
with 30 days notice prior to withdrawing a policy of offering comp 
time. There may be instances where an employer decides for whatever 
reason that providing comp time is not a workable option for that 
particular business. This would accommodate that type of situation by 
allowing the employer to discontinue the program, so long as the 
employees are provided with 30 days notice.
  Fourth, the amendment requires the Secretary of Labor to revise the 
posting requirements under the regulations of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act to reflect the comp time provisions of the bill. This will help to 
ensure that employees are informed of the circumstances under which 
comp time may be provided and their rights regarding the use of comp 
time.
  Fifth, the amendment would eliminate language which limited a private 
sector employee's remedies against an employer to willful violations of 
the anti-coercion provision. I know that this particular issue was of 
concern to my colleague on the Economic and Educational Opportunities 
Committee, Congressman Andrews. By removing the willful requirement, 
the remedies in the bill would be available to an employee who is 
directly or indirectly coerced by an employer into selecting or using 
comp time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, under rule VIII, which talks about 
conflicts of interest and members and their votes, my question is, can 
Members of this body who own substantial parts of businesses that are 
under the Fair Labor Standards Act vote on this bill, since obviously 
this would affect very much their bottom line on their balance sheet?
  The CHAIRMAN. Rule VIII commends questions of that sort to individual 
Members. It is under the discretion of individual Members.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. The 
Chairman is saying it would depend on that Member's business.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is stating that it is left to the discretion 
of individual Members.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a little puzzled about this debate this afternoon. 
All during the debate, Members of the other side have been quoting the 
President as being in favor of this in concept. Now the floor manager 
quotes the Secretary of Labor as saying he is going to recommend to the 
President to veto the bill.
  I am also confused about Members on the other side getting up talking 
about what a great thing family and medical leave is, when 190 of them 
voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this manager's amendment which in 
my opinion is too little too late. I want to commend my Republican 
colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] for belatedly recognizing 
that their bill has many flaws. Frankly, the bill should not have been 
reported out of committee without basic employee protections in the 
first place. Mr. Ballenger says that he has made 6 changes, Mr. 
Goodling has referred to 20 some odd changes during this debate, which 
indicates to us that the bill should have been repaired in committee in 
a bipartisan agreement.
  Apparently, there are more changes still to come if they think that 
this bill will meet the objections of the President and of the 
Democrats on this side of the aisle.
  While the manager's amendment, Mr. Chairman, makes improvement in the 
bill, it does not make sufficient improvements to rescue a bill that is 
fatally flawed. H.R. 2391 still does not provide assurance that 
employees will be able to use the comp time they earn. The bill still 
permits employers to administer comp time in an arbitrary and 
capricious manner. The bill continues to discourage employers from 
offering paid leave.

                              {time}  1530

  The bill continues to encourage employers to work fewer employees for 
longer hours, and the bill continues to encourage further violations of 
the overtime law.
  Most importantly, H.R. 2391 continues to undermine family income. The 
manager's amendment is a day late and a dollar short. I urge Members to 
vote against H.R. 2391 on final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] has the right to 
close.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, see all the rights the minority has, and 
they are always complaining.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] who also has cosponsored this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the Working Families Flexibility Act and to commend the sponsor of 
the bill, Mr. Ballenger, for his enlightened leadership in bringing 
forward this important legislation on behalf of working families. I am 
pleased to have been able to join him in offering this amendment to 
fine tune the bill and further clarify the protections for employees. 
This amendment will give employees greater control over the management 
of their accrued compensatory time and make clear the choice of 
compensatory time instead of overtime wages must be voluntary. Thus, 
the main criticism of this bill by AFL-CIO has been addressed. No one 
wants management to prevent employees from getting time plus one-half 
in wages for overtime if the employee needs the money more than time. 
But as to 70 percent of working women, for some, time is a far more 
valuable commodity and getting 1\1/2\ hours off for every hour of 
overtime would be blessing. And, this amendment assures that the 
employee's choice rules.
  First, the amendment would require a private employer to give a 30 
days notice prior to cashing out accrued comp time in excess of 80 
hours, unless the cash out is requested by an employee, preserving the 
employee's right to access to the cash if an emergency comes up, or 
they find the sofa they always wanted, or a car, or new eyeglasses, or, 
as my daughter faces, the high cost of a new hearing aid. There has 
been some concern expressed about the fact that the bill would allow 
the employer to cash out comp time. But, an employer is not required to 
offer comp time--so to offer it and then in effect retract it, in the 
absence of a very compelling reason to do so, would not be a very 
sensible policy for an employer. Our amendment addresses this concern 
by adding a provision which assures that the employer would not be able 
to cash out the first 80 hours of accrued comp time, unless the cash 
out is initiated by the employee.
  Second, the amendment clarifies that an employee may withdraw from 
compensatory time agreement with the employer at any time. Nothing in 
the bill currently prohibits an employee from doing so, but we have 
added language which explicitly gives the employee that right.
  Third, the amendment would require the employer to provide the 
employees with 30 days notice prior to withdrawing a policy of offering 
compensatory time. There may be instances where an employer decides for 
whatever reason that providing comp time is not a workable option for 
that particular business. This would accommodate that type of situation 
by allowing the employer to discontinue the program, so long as the 
employees are provided with 30 days notice.
  Finally, the amendment requires the Secretary of Labor to revise the 
posting requirements under the regulations of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act to reflect the comp time provisions of the bill. This will help to 
ensure that employees are informed of the circumstances under which 
comp time may be provided and their rights regarding the use of comp 
time.
  The changes made by this amendment along with changes which have 
already been made to the bill by the Economic and Educational 
Opportunities Committee will ensure that employees are not coerced into 
selecting time off instead of wages. Employees will be able to decide 
for themselves what form of compensation best suits their individual 
needs.

[[Page H8790]]

  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a sound amendment which further 
clarifies and improves the bill and should resolve many, if not all of 
the remaining concerns about the bill. The strength of this legislation 
is that it empowers workers by giving them a choice and it creates an 
opportunity for working men and women to have additional time with 
their families or to pursue interest outside of work.
  I am pleased to have been able to work with my colleague, Mr. 
Ballenger on this legislation. I commend him for the process that has 
produced this bill. His willingness to listen to all sides and develop 
a bill that simply offers employees a very desirable option of time 
plus \1/2\ hours off for overtime work. What a gift for parents? for 
dental appointments, parent conferences, sick kids, emergencies, or 
just a little time alone!
  Terrific. And how sadly small of the public employees unions to 
oppose the bill. They have a form of comp time, not as generous only 
hour for hour, but flexibility. They want to be included in this. But 
sadly and shortsightedly, AFSME and others oppose this legislation. I 
guess because they want to do collective bargaining on it. Yet this is 
simply a benefit, like other FLSA rules, that assures fair treatment of 
all employees. So I say to unions that oppose this, open up your hearts 
and support the interest of all working people of America.
  I commend and thank Mr. Ballenger for his perseverance and compassion 
and his sensitivity to the times we live in and the tough challenges 
young families and all workers face in todays' workplaces.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, either this is a good bill or it has got 
real problems. If it is a good bill, and that is what we were told when 
it left the committee, then why do we see more than 20 changes being 
made now at the last moment now that it is on the floor to try to 
correct all these problems in the bill?
  Explain to me and explain to the American worker, who you are going 
to impose this upon, how a good bill comes out of committee and needs 
more than 20 changes through amendments that we do not have a chance to 
read very well because we get it at the last moment and tell American 
workers that these are good changes.
  If they are so good, then why does the Wall Street Journal, which is 
not your most liberal of publications, and not your employee supporting 
of publications, make mention of analysis that they show that over 
695,000 workers in America won settlements for overtime? Not that they 
claimed they were due overtime pay, they won settlements from their 
employers. There are estimates that two-thirds of America's workers 
deserve overtime and may not get it.
  There is no problem in having flex time. No one here disagrees with 
that. What we are saying is, truly give the flex time to the person who 
has earned it, the employee. What you have here are too many problems 
in the bill because it does not give it to the employee. It gives the 
employer the right to determine who will take time off, how it will be 
called compensatory time.
  Give it to them. Let us give it to them, but let us be honest and let 
us give them the time, not the employer. Once the employee has worked 
for that employer, he or she has earned either the salary or the time. 
But do not confuse the issues and do not deceive the American worker. 
Let them take the time. Do not let the employer all of a sudden have 
this leverage of denying overtime pay and saying, compensatory time is 
what you get whether you want it or not.
  This is not a good bill. The 20-some-odd changes that we have had to 
make proves it. There will be more changes if this passes, and, 
hopefully, the President will veto it if it gets through here. Let us 
defeat this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TATE. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  I am concerned that it be absolutely clear that paragraph 3 of H.R. 
2391 does not authorize public agencies to intimidation, threaten or 
coerce working police officers and firefighters in Washington State or 
anywhere else. Am I correct in understanding that such intimidate, 
threats or coercion would not be authorized under this provision in 
paragraph 3?
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TATE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Yes; the gentleman is correct. The provision in 
paragraph 3 is not intended to authorize any public agency to 
intimidate, threaten or coerce any public employee. This bill is 
specifically designed to deal with compensatory time in the private and 
not the public sector.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, do I understand that public sector employees 
are protected by Section 15(a), the antidiscriminatory provisions of 
the Fair Labor Standards Act?
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
yes, section 15(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to any 
person who is covered by the act. H.R. 2391 does not change or affect 
coverage of section 15(a) in any way.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the subcommittee chairman is 
willing to explore this issue involving public sector use of 
compensatory time in the next session of Congress and review these 
matters more fully?
  Mr. BALLENGER. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. McKinney

  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. McKinney: Page 4, line 22, strike 
     ``240'' and insert ``222''.
       Page 5, line 23, strike ``480'' and insert ``444''.
       Page 6, line 1, strike ``240'' and insert ``222''.
       Page 6, line 3, strike ``480 or 240'' and insert ``444 or 
     222''.
       Page 8, insert after line 15 the following:

     SEC. 4. OVERTIME.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 7(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``forty'' and inserting ``thirty-seven''.
       (b) Revisions.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall 
     report to the Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities of the House of Representatives the revisions 
     required to be made in the employment hours specified in 
     section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to conform 
     to the amendment made by subsection (a).

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment because I 
believe that this is an amendment whose time has come. Unfortunately, I 
understand that it will be ruled nongermane and, therefore, I offer the 
amendment but I will withdraw the amendment as well.
  I do want to talk about my amendment, which instead of increasing the 
workweek as this legislation does, my amendment reduces the workweek. 
In fact, while this is called the comp time bill, some of my friends 
have said this is the chump time bill because our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are taking the working men and women of this 
country for chumps.
  My amendment reduces the workweek as defined in the Fair Labor 
Standards Act from 40 hours to 37 hours. That means that overtime pay 
would start at 37 hours rather than 40 hours and also that comp time 
would start at 37 hours rather than 40 hours.
  Already the United States lags far behind other countries in terms of 
our time off for our workers. I would like to submit for the Record an 
article from the Atlanta Constitution that documents the fact that we 
lag behind other industrialized countries in the world with respect to 
the time off for our men and women who are in the work force.
  We do not need to be talking about making our hard-pressed workers 
work

[[Page H8791]]

longer hours for even less money. If America's workers had 3 hours less 
work time, what would we see? I believe we would see more families 
together. I think we would see more fathers and mothers with quality 
time with their children. We would see an enhancement in the quality of 
life for our working men and women, our working fathers and mothers. I 
think if our colleagues truly supported family time, they would support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of gentlewoman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments? The question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Weller] having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that the 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2391) to amend 
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for 
all employees, pursuant to House Resolution 488, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the Committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the Committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read a third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLAY. 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 225, 
nays 195, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 370]

                               YEAS--225

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     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
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     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
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Foglietta
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Hastings (WA)
     Inglis
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Meek
     Ortiz
     Peterson (FL)
     Richardson
     Sisisky
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1603

  Mr. LIPINSKI and Mr. BEVILL changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________