[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1131-H1144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1997

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds just to merely 
say that even under the worst circumstances, the employee can cash out 
and walk away.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dooley].

[[Page H1132]]

  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
support for H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act. I believe 
that this bill addresses an important issue facing families all over 
the country, the need to balance work and family.
  As more and more families have two working parents, the need for 
flexible work schedules has become more important. However, under 
current law a private sector employer is not allowed to offer an 
employee compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay. The 
availability of compensatory time for overtime work would address a 
real need for many working parents.
  I have listened to a lot of the debate today, and I have listened to 
a lot of the opposition to this bill. One of my greatest frustrations 
is that most of this criticism is based upon an assumption that 
employers are evil, that they are mean-spirited people who will use any 
means to take advantage of their employees. I am a private sector 
employer, and I take personal offense and find it insulting that so 
many of my colleagues would contend that we are going to take advantage 
of the people that work for us.
  I totally reject that premise and strongly believe that employers 
would be able to use the availability of compensatory time to help 
their employees voluntarily create a work schedule that meets their 
needs.
  I also find it extremely ironic that in my congressional office with 
my public sector employees, I can allow a person who is working on my 
staff to take time off to visit or to go to a teacher's training 
education day or a student conference day; I can allow them that 
flexibility in utilizing comp time. But yet we are trying to impose a 
double standard on myself as an employer in the private sector, that I 
cannot offer that same benefit that I can offer to members of my 
congressional staff to have the same benefits to attend something that 
is very important to their families and to their children's futures.
  I know that there will be a substitute amendment that will be 
introduced today that many of my Democratic colleagues will be 
supporting. But I caution them. I do not think this is the answer. 
While it has some modifications that are worthy, the bottom line is 
that we are trying to impose another mandate on employers by requiring 
them to provide the family medical leave another 24 hours.
  This provision does not make a whole lot of sense, because if you 
have an employer that is offering comp time, there is no employee out 
there that is going to make a decision in which they are going to take 
unpaid family medical leave time off in lieu of the comp time.
  It also is not appropriate and it is not fair for us, under the 
Miller substitute, to require private sector employees that are 
offering comp time to have to fully cash out accumulated overtime in 
the pay period in which they ask for it. As a private sector employer I 
could be facing a situation where I have an employee who might have 
acquired 80 hours overtime who might come into my office on a Friday 
and want to be cashed out and I would have to pay them that day. That 
is unfair. Please support H.R. 1.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds just to correct the 
gentleman. It would be unlawful for the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dooley] to give overtime to his employees here on the Hill.
  Also, there are no mandates in the Miller substitute, Mr. Chairman, 
as the previous speaker has stated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was a full-time law professor at Georgetown, one 
of the subjects I taught was labor law. I never thought I would live to 
see a debate on the House floor where we would be debating the 
dismemberment of the symmetry between the employer and the employee 
represented by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  My friends, this is one of the great statutes of the 20th century. It 
ranks right up there with the civil rights laws of the 1960's.
  We have lost our way if the only way we can think of to bring updated 
benefits to workers is to trade off historic protections. This is a 
one-sided trade-off. Yes, the worker can make a decision. The worker 
can make a decision if the worker is willing to confront the greater 
power of the employer, and therein lies the problem with this bill.
  This bill is being proffered in the name of women, yet working women 
would be the last to benefit from this bill. Why? Because America's 
low-wage workers most in need of overtime pay are women. They are the 
low-wage hourly workers, because half of the workers who moonlight in 
America today are women, because almost all the single parents who are 
struggling with little or no child support are women, yet the need for 
flexibility is overwhelming, and it is great, and it is felt by women 
as well as men. There are many alternatives.
  Why do we not spread some of the innovative leave benefits that 
Federal workers have? Leave banks where employees bank their leave for 
others to use when they are in need; leave transfer, a one-on-one 
transfer, one worker to another; the Family Friendly Leave Act, a bill 
I wrote, where a worker can use her own sick leave to care for a sick 
family member; and there are many more. We can find them together, but 
only if we are willing to abandon the zero-sum-game approach 
represented by H.R. 1. Let us do that and sit down, and write a 
bipartisan bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say in 
relationship to the last statement, these protections are virtually the 
same procedures and remedies as for violations of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act under the Family Medical Leave Act, signed into law, much 
praised by the President, and under the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act are greater, greater than the National Labor Relations 
Act, which the lady spoke so reverently about.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority 
leader.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] is 
recognized for 1 minute and 30 seconds.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill today. The 
title of the bill or the phrase that is used to describe the bill makes 
it sound like a very appealing idea, the idea that workers should have 
the ability to have flex time to be able to change hours, to be able to 
have more time with their families. But when we examine the bill 
closely, we realize what is really happening here is a shift of power 
from workers to some employers; and I would never, ever say all 
employers, because there are many employers today, who as a matter of 
policy in their own business, allow flex time and work with employees 
to work out a way that they can spend more time with their families, 
but what is happening in this bill is a shift in power to those 
employers who want to use this as a way to get pay levels down through 
not paying overtime pay.
  The biggest shift that has happened in our society in probably 100 
years is not the television, it is not even the airplane or the 
computer, it is the lack of time that adults have to raise their 
children. So this bill could have been a bill that would be very 
positive in moving us in the right direction. It does not do that. I am 
sorry it does not do that. I wish it did do that. If it did that, I 
would be for it.
  But it moves us in a direction that we ought not to be going. It 
moves us in the direction of allowing some employers who would want to 
use it in that way to reduce the amount of overtime pay going to 
employees, and not letting employees have any say in that decision.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this bill. I think we 
can do much better than this. The Family Leave Act should be amended. 
We should be moving in that direction. That is a very positive way to 
go. That leaves it within the power of employees to make those 
decisions. But this bill would move us in exactly the wrong direction 
in, again, an area that is probably more important to people than

[[Page H1133]]

anything I can think of. Adults spend one-third less time with children 
today than they did 20 years ago. We have to do something about it. 
This bill is not the best way to do it. I urge Members to oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill today--because it is a 
betrayal of the hardworking American families who endeavor daily to 
earn enough to feed and care for their children and keep a decent roof 
over their heads. Working families, because of this bill, will find 
that their everyday struggles will soon be repaid with time off, no 
pay, all at the convenience of their employers. Where I come from they 
call that a furlough.
  I would caution everyone listening to this debate today, not to get 
caught up in the well-meaning, well-intentioned rhetoric of providing 
flexibility to hard-pressed workers who need time off to care for their 
families. This bill sounds like a remedy for working families, but is 
in fact an ill-advised panacea that will have the effect of denying 
workers a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
  We already know that there is a problem in the American work force of 
employees getting shortchanged by their employers. One business group, 
the Employment Policy Foundation, estimates that workers are currently 
being cheated out of $19 billion a year in overtime pay. One in ten of 
every American workers who is entitled to overtime pay do not get what 
they earned. And now we are asked to pass a bill that will empower 
businesses to make their workers work longer hours, with even less pay 
and have less flexibility than they have now to take time off. How can 
we say this helps working families?
  Our Republican colleagues have already missed one opportunity today 
to truly help working families by denying our efforts to consider the 
Democratic family leave bill which makes available to parents federally 
protected leave for family concerns like routine doctor visits and 
parent-teacher conferences. If you are truly sincere in your pledge to 
help working families you will set aside this raid on working 
Americans' paychecks and reconsider your opposition to expanded family 
medical leave. This is a proven, successful policy enacted by 
Democratic votes, opposed by Republican voices, which has already 
helped 12 million Americans to lessen the pain and anguish in the face 
of a family crisis. Now let us give those families the comfort of 
knowing they can go to their child's school to check on his or her 
progress with their teachers or to the family doctor when their 
children or elderly parents need attention even if it is not life-
threatening.
  I have talked with working mothers who have to fib to their bosses to 
get time off just to pick their children up when they get out of school 
early. Others tell me they actually have to take their sick children 
with them to the workplace when they are too ill to go to school 
because there is no one to stay home and care for them. These families 
need to be given options to deal with their daily problems.
  This bill does not offer these families a real choice. Instead of 
giving flexibility to workers, it gives new flexibility to employers. 
It does not allow employees to use comp time when the employee needs 
it. Where, in a proposal that would imposes new pressures on low-wage 
hourly workers--most of whom are women--to give up overtime pay upon 
which they rely to make ends meet, is there compassion for those 
mothers who have to make day-by-day decisions as they balance choices 
between caring for their a families and providing a decent standard of 
living for them?
  Today, we need to make the compassionate and sensible choice by 
rejecting this bill, the Republican Paycheck Reduction Act, and work to 
produce an agenda that puts the working family before the corporate 
personnel officer who is looking at the bottom line.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] yields back 
1 minute.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] is recognized 
for 3 minutes and 30 seconds.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this shows how reasonable people can have 
differing opinions on the same legislation. I rise in strong support of 
the Working Families Flexibility Act. I commend the chairman, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] for their work on this bill, and particularly 
for reaching across the aisle to address many of the concerns that have 
been raised about this legislation. The willingness of Chairman 
Ballenger to incorporate suggestions from Members of both parties has 
produced a bill that I believe is deserving of strong bipartisan 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I fail to understand the adamant opposition to this 
bill here in Washington, because I do not believe that same opposition 
exists across the rank and file workers of our country.
  This bill represents a commonsense philosophy that giving employers 
and employees flexibility to work together in developing work schedules 
benefits both the employers and employees. All of us who are concerned 
about the demands of balancing work and family responsibilities should 
make it possible for employers to offer their employees options such as 
comptime to deal with these demands. One of the most positive trends in 
the workplace embraced by employers and employees has been the growth 
of creative work force policies and flexible benefit plans. We should 
be encouraging this trend, not punishing it through inflexible labor 
laws.
  This bill would update our 60-year-old labor laws to provide another 
choice in the workplace, the ability of employees to accept 
compensatory time off instead of overtime pay. It is important to keep 
in mind this bill provides for compensatory time as an option that can 
be chosen but is not demanded or mandated. The decision to offer or 
accept compensatory time arrangements is voluntary for both the 
employer and employee.
  I have opposed and will continue to oppose all mandated leave 
proposals because a federally-mandated benefit can never be flexible 
enough to adapt to the diverse needs of employers and employees across 
the country. This bill provides the flexibility that will allow 
employers to work with their employees to develop work arrangements 
that allow individuals to balance their family and personal 
responsibilities against the demands of their jobs.
  I am troubled by the argument made by some opponents of this bill 
that we should not pass this legislation that would provide increased 
flexibility for all workplaces because a few employers may abuse this 
option. As has already been pointed out, the bill contains several 
provisions protecting employees from abuse by unscrupulous employers. 
More importantly, I encourage my colleagues to think carefully before 
making a decision that will reduce the flexibility of all employers 
based on the example of a few bad apples.
  I know many of my colleagues share my concern about the efforts of 
some of the media and elsewhere to exploit the misdeeds of a few public 
officials to attack this institution and undermine the credibility of 
all of us in public life. I would urge my colleagues to resist the 
temptation to apply this same type of unfair, broad-brush approach to 
businessmen and women.
  I urge my colleagues to support workplace flexibility and family-
friendly practices by voting for this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, proponents of H.R. 1, the Paycheck 
Reduction Act, claim that it is designed to give workers more 
flexibility in their lives. But this bill is not about flexibility for 
employees, it's about flexibility for employers. No matter how many 
hours of compensatory time that an employee accumulates, this bill 
would give their employer full control over when that time could be 
used, or whether that time could be used at all. Under this bill, 
unscrupulous employers could coerce workers into taking accumulated 
comptime instead of hard-earned overtime, effectively stripping workers 
of much-needed time-and-a-half pay.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 offers no real safeguards for employees in danger 
of being exploited by their bosses. Employers who file for bankruptcy 
could leave their employees with many unused hours of comptime. Unpaid, 
unsolicited vacation time doesn't exactly pay the rent or feed the 
kids.
  Working families need real flexibility, such as that offered by the 
Family and Medical Leave Act. Expanding this landmark piece of 
legislation would give 15 million more workers the flexibility they 
need to balance work and family--with no loss of income or control over 
their work schedules.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to ask themselves a very simple 
question: Do we really want to eliminate the 40-hour work week? This 
bill is a first step toward doing just that. Let's face it: If workers 
get so much from this bill, why do so many oppose it? Surveys have 
shown that the people who really matter

[[Page H1134]]

in this debate--the working men and women whom this bill would affect--
oppose the substitution of comptime for overtime by a margin of 3 to 1.
  Mr. Speaker, this comptime bill is bad news for American workers, and 
I strongly urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 1 and encourage my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute 
being offered by Mr. Miller of California.
  We are all for worker and employer choice on the issue of comptime. 
Clearly, comptime can be a useful tool for those who would rather use 
the extra time to spend with their families than receive the overtime 
money. But that decision should be left to the employee and not be made 
as a unilateral decision to be made by the employer.
  The President has already voiced his concern that H.R. 1 doesn't meet 
his standard for how comptime ought to be administered and his top 
advisors have recommended that he veto this bill.
  This bill is a good example of how if the Republican leadership would 
have worked with the White House and the Democratic members on the 
committee on crafting bipartisan solution, we could have had unanimous 
support for a true comptime bill.
  I am concerned that the way this legislation is drafted will allow 
those employers who are not inclined to pay overtime to coerce their 
employees either directly or indirectly by forcing them to take 
comptime. Further, this bill does not give or guarantee workers who do 
choose to take comptime the right to use it when they want or need to 
use it. Employers maintain control over when they want to grant 
comptime. Moreover, they are free to eliminate or modify comptime plans 
at any time without giving prior notice.
  Perhaps the most egregious component of this bill is that H.R. 1 does 
not contain protections for workers whose employers go bankrupt or out 
of business, leaving them with worthless comptime. The garment, 
building services, construction and seasonal industries are 
particularly subject to thinly capitalized employers who go in and out 
of business quickly. Rather than dealing with this issue in a 
reasonable manner such as exempting such workers, H.R. 1 does nothing 
to address the very practical request.
  I support the concept of comptime; however, in the reality of the 
workplace, most workers will not feel free to reject an employer's 
request that they take comptime in lieu of overtime pay.
  Therefore, I ask my colleagues to reject H.R. 1 and send it back to 
committee and rework this bill so that it addresses the rights of 
America's working men and women.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, the issue of comptime and flexible work 
schedules is extremely important among the workers and employers in my 
district, and I believe most Silicon Valley workplaces would benefit 
from changes in current requirements. Therefore, I would very much like 
to support legislation that would provide flexibility to employees and 
businesses, while protecting workers everywhere.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 1 falls short of these objectives.
  If we were certain that all employers in America would never try to 
be unfair to employees, then H.R. 1 would probably be a sound proposal. 
However, in that case, most of our labor laws would be unnecessary. 
Unfortunately, history has shown us that Federal labor protections such 
as the minimum wage, fair labor standards, workplace safety, and family 
and medical leave are necessary to protect many American workers.
  While H.R. 1 might benefit both employees and employers in many work 
settings, it fails to protect many unrepresented, private sector 
workers in our country who are concerned about their job security, and 
are wary of taking actions against their employer to defend their 
rights. Amendments were offered in committee to improve worker 
protections, but unfortunately these were all defeated on party line 
votes. The Democratic substitute offered by Congressman Miller includes 
specific provisions to ensure that comptime is voluntary, uniformly 
available, and more flexible for employees, and I support the Miller 
substitute.
  I cannot support H.R. 1 as it is now written, but I am hopeful that 
after it is defeated, Congress will work toward useful reforms similar 
to Congressman Miller's proposal. I, for one, am eager to sort through 
the controversial issues surrounding H.R. 1, because I would very much 
like to see a sound comptime bill become law in the 105th Congress.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the 
Working Families Flexibility Act. Contrary to the title of this bill, 
the Working Families Flexibility Act would harm the lives of millions 
of America's working families.
  H.R. 1 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to permit private 
sector employees to receive compensatory time off from work for work 
performed in excess of 40 hours. Under existing overtime laws, 
employees are required to receive cash wages at the rate of 1\1/2\ 
hours for each hour of overtime.
  I oppose this bill because it fails to provide adequate safeguards to 
protect employees from being forced to accept compensatory time from 
unscupulous employers. H.R. 1 permits employers who wish to save money 
at the expense of their workers to coerce employees into accepting 
compensatory time in place of overtime pay. As a result of their 
unequal bargaining positions, most employees would not feel free to 
reject an employer's request that they take compensatory time instead 
of cash overtime pay.
  This bill has failed to incorporate reasonable safeguards to prevent 
employer abuses. Furthermore, the legislation's penalties are markedly 
inferior to those already provided in current law. Therefore, the 
proponents of this bill have failed to take any substantial steps to 
deter employers from forcing compensatory time instead of receiving a 
cash payment.
  Even more alarming is language contained in H.R. 1 which permits an 
employer the authority to cancel an offer of compensatory time if the 
employer decides that the worker's time off would unduly disrupt the 
operations of the employer. Therefore, employers would have complete 
discretion over when compensatory time may be used.
  In addition, this legislation does not safeguard workers who prefer 
to receive overtime pay from discrimination by management when future 
overtime work is available. This would enable an employer to only offer 
overtime work to employees who had previously accepted compensatory 
time. This is extremely unjust, and would have a particularly harmful 
effect on unskilled, low-wage workers.
  In fact, millions of workers depend on overtime pay just to maintain 
a decent standard of living. Although these workers may need to receive 
overtime pay, they may feel threatened by employers to receive 
compensatory time instead. Moreover, those employees who openly elect 
to receive overtime pay may be blackballed by employers so as to no 
longer receive overtime work. Employers may then elect to give overtime 
work to those individuals requesting compensatory time.
  The administration has threatened to veto H.R. 1 because it weakens 
employees' rights and provides no protection against employer abuse. 
Fair and reasonable compensatory time legislation must provide real 
choices for employees and preserve basic worker rights. This bill does 
neither.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act will hurt 
America's families. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
unjust legislation.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of emotional 
rhetoric today that quite frankly has added little to the discussion of 
the real issues before us. I want to return the attention of the debate 
to the bill.
  What is the Working Families Flexibility Act, and how would it impact 
regular Americans who go to work every day, pay taxes, and are torn 
between work and family? There are two questions that must be asked: 
Will this bill give employees flexibility to spend more time with their 
families? Does the bill ensure that the decision over whether to take 
compensatory time or overtime pay rests with the employee?
  What we are about today is giving private sector employees the same 
right 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.
  Specifically, the bill before us states that employers are allowed to 
offer their employee a choice of receiving overtime compensation--for 
every hour worked over 40 hours in a 7-day period--in the form of 1\1/
2\ hours of paid time off or 1\1/2\ hours of cash wages.
  Back in 1938, a Federal labor law was put in place that requires 
employers to pay overtime pay with no option for giving flexible 
compensatory time instead. When this was put in place--59 years ago--
most families had a parent who worked away from home and another who 
stayed at home. Today, in 60 percent of homes, both spouses work away 
from home. This is up by over 36 percent in just the past 25 years.
  With more and more parents working outside of the home, survey after 
survey of American workers shows that Americans are increasingly torn 
between work and home and a more flexible work schedule is their top 
priority.
  Why should we continue to deny private sector workers the flexibility 
they want and need? The Working Families Flexibility Act is about 
allowing parents to choose to spend more time with their children.
  Too often our society places too much value on money and too little 
on relationships with a spouse and children. Too many families around 
us are falling apart. Too many families

[[Page H1135]]

want to spend more time with their children, but are denied this right 
because of a 60-year-old outdated law.
  Opponents of the bill have raised the question of whether the 
decision on whether or not to take compensatory time or overtime pay 
rests with the employee. I agree fully that this decision must rest 
with the employee.
  The bill before us has many provisions that guarantee that this 
decision rests with the employee alone, not the employer. In fact, the 
Working Families Flexibility Act offers private sector employees more 
protections than Government workers have today.
  The bill makes it illegal for an employer to pressure employees to 
take compensatory time rather than overtime pay. Any employer who 
coerces, requires, or even attempts to pressure an employee to take 
compensatory 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. The fact that civil and 
criminal penalties apply is guarantee enough to ensure that employees 
are the ones making this decision.
  Finally, I must say that I am disappointed that the loudest 
opposition to this bill has come from Washington labor leaders. I'm 
afraid that in their attempt to stir anti-Republican sentiment and 
scare the American worker, it is the American worker who is struggling 
to balance time between work and family that will suffer without 
passage of this bill. Additionally, I would point out that the bill 
before us specifically protects collective bargaining agreements. Those 
governed by such agreements are free to set their own collective 
bargaining arrangements.
  Clearly the Working Families Flexibility Act provides employees with 
the type of flexibility they want and it is clear that there are plenty 
of protections to ensure that this decision rests with the employee 
alone.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I speak today in strong opposition to H.R. 1, 
a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 
compensatory time for workers in the private sector.
  This bill represents a draconian piece of legislation. It is aimed at 
dismantling basic protections for hourly workers--protections that were 
won nearly 60 years ago by organized labor. H.R. 1 poses a serious 
threat to the basic concept of the 40-hour workweek and requirements 
that hourly workers are paid overtime.
  Unfortunately, many of my colleagues and the media are trying to 
portray this initiative as being prowomen, profamily, and 
proflexibility. In reality, H.R. 1 is extremely antiworker and 
antifamily.
  H.R. 1 is dangerous because it opens the doors for employers to avoid 
paying hourly workers overtime. Therefore, H.R. 1 threatens to reduce 
the income and standard of living for working families. Millions of 
hourly workers, predominantly women, people of color, and people with 
disabilities, depend on overtime pay to maintain a decent standard of 
living of their families. H.R. 1 would allow employers to avoid paying 
overtime.
  H.R. 1 is particularly onerous because of mounting evidence that 
privatization is plunging hourly workers and their families closer to 
the edge of poverty. A recent study by the Chicago Institute on Urban 
Poverty examined the impact of contracting out the work performed by 
entry-level employees in 12 job categories. After privatization, wages 
and benefits fell 25 to nearly 50 percent, and half of the job titles 
studied each lost $10,000 or more in annual wages.
  H.R. 1 is anything but family friendly. Under the proposed law, 
employers have the power to constantly change a person's work 
schedule--60 hours 1 week, 20 the next--without any requirement to pay 
overtime. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for a parent or 
other caretaker to arrange child care to plan time with their families 
under these conditions?
  Under the Republican bill, management, not workers, hold the power to 
decide when it is most convenient for workers to take their comptime.
  Instead of considering H.R. 1, I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, to pass legislation that expands the Family and Medical 
Leave Act. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 234, the Family and 
Medical Leave Enhancement Act, introduced by my colleague from New 
York, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. H.R. 234 will allow workers to 
take unpaid leave to seek medical care for their children or elderly 
parents, or to participate in their children's education. And more 
important, it allows workers to have a voice in decisions about when 
they can take time off from work without risking their overtime pay.
  The 104th Congress is already remembered for turning back the clock 
for working people when it passed welfare reform--abandoning a 60-year 
Federal commitment to helping those in need. Let us make sure that the 
105th Congress does not go down in history for overturning another 
Federal guarantee to working people that has been in place nearly 60 
years--the right to overtime pay.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
1, the so-called Working Families Flexibility Act. this title could not 
be more untrue. A more appropriate title for this family unfriendly 
legislation is the Paycheck Reduction Act, because that is exactly what 
will happen to families if this bill passes.
  H.R. 1 will allow employers to give their workers 1\1/2\ hours of 
compensatory time for every hour worked, instead of paying them time 
and a half. Employees stand to lost a great deal of money if this bill 
becomes law. They will not only lose their overtime pay, but also the 
money that would have otherwise been paid for their Social Security and 
unemployment benefits. While it is important that working fathers and 
mothers be allowed time off to go to their child's soccer game or see 
them in the school play, it is equally important to see that this is 
accomplished in a way that benefits the working parents, and not just 
their bosses.
  Employers already have a great deal of flexibility under the Fair 
Labor Standards Act to accommodate their workers' requests for time off 
for family or personal matters. In addition, workers today already have 
the opportunity to take unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave 
Act. This bill does not even guarantee that employers will grant time 
off for workers who choose to earn comptime instead of overtime pay. 
Only employers will have more flexibility under this act. When it comes 
time to decide which employees to give overtime work to, employers will 
always choose those who just want comptime over those that rightly want 
time and a half pay.
  Last year, the U.S. Department of Labor handled over 60,000 cases 
that dealt with the loss of overtime pay. These workers were cheated 
out of millions of dollars. We should not validate this unfair, illegal 
practice by changing the law to allow employers to deny overtime pay. 
Last month, during a Senate hearing on comptime legislation, a lobbyist 
for the National Federation of Independent Business stated that small 
business ``can't afford to pay their employees overtime. This flextime 
is something they can offer in exchange that gives them a benefit.'' 
this lobbyist conformed that employers have no intention of paying 
their workers time and a half when they can require them to work 
without pay instead.
  Our working men and women deserve better. They deserve pay for the 
overtime that they earn, instead of comptime that they can use only 
when their employer allows them to take it. I hope that my colleagues 
will join me in voting against this bill, which is an outright attack 
on the pocket books of American workers.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1 the Paycheck Reduction Act of 1997, any proposed change in the 
workplace rules regarding overtime pay or compensatory time that does 
not take into consideration the rights of working Americans to equal 
and fair pay should not become the law of this Nation.
  H.R. 1 is a pay cut for America's workers. A working mother, for 
example, who puts in 47.5 hours per week at $6 an hour will earn 
$307.50. Substituting comptime for overtime pay, however, will leave 
her with just $240 per week--a 22 percent pay cut.
  Any offers of what some would describe as voluntary compensatory time 
for workers should include protections which ensure that it is indeed 
voluntary.
  In fiscal year 1996, the same year this body passed the first 
increase in the minimum wage in nearly a decade, the Department of 
Labor had 13,687 compliance actions of disclosed overtime violations. 
These represented nearly 50 percent of those in which FLSA minimum wage 
overtime monetary violations were found. The Wage and Hour Division 
found just over $100 million in backwages due to overtime violations 
owning to nearly 170,000 workers.
  Unfortunately, all too often when the debate on the floor of this 
body shifts, it cuts harshest into the American worker's ability to 
earn a livable wage, against his or her right to a safe work 
environment, or into the necessity of receiving just compensation for 
the work that they perform.
  If we as Representatives of working Americans are going to talk about 
how best to help the working families of this country, we must make it 
our first priority to ensure that they receive fair compensation for 
their work. H.R. 1 as it is currently written will not ensure that 
workers who depend on overtime pay receive it if they do not wish to 
receive compensatory time.
  Those wage and hour violations involved a little more than one-half 
of 1 percent of all 6.5 million employers in the United States. For the 
sake of the 170,000 known workers who were affected by criminal 
overtime policies, we should not act without providing insurance that 
they will not fall victim again due to anything we might accomplish 
today.

[[Page H1136]]

  We should keep in mind the need to ensure that employers are barred 
from denying a reasonable request for time off, that workers do not 
lose money because compensatory time is not credited for unemployment, 
pension, or Social Security. We must have absolute certainty that the 
most vulnerable to overtime violations--temporary, seasonal, part-time, 
and construction workers--are protected, and that employees have a 
direct remedy if an employer without just cause denies a request for 
compensatory time. The employer must be required to notify employees of 
their rights under any new law dealing with compensatory time. Finally, 
there must be penalties for noncompliance with any compensatory time 
law by employers who may attempt to take advantage of employees who 
have worked in good faith in expectation of comptime.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I am amazed at how far 
the Republican majority will go to keep hardworking American families 
in poverty. The Paycheck Reduction Act is their latest in a string of 
anti-family and anti-child proposals. The Miller substitute protects 
pay, benefits and time for working families. I urge all of you to 
support the Miller substitute and oppose H.R. 1.
  This bill--on top of last year's welfare reform--will only make the 
difficult lives of working mothers a nightmare. The reality is that 
they already have a huge struggle. Many work two or three jobs just to 
make ends meet and keep their families together.
  Consider a mom who puts in a 47 hour work week at $6 an hour. She 
will earn $308.00. By substituting comp time for overtime, she will 
only bring home $240.00--a 22 percent pay cut. This is simply a price 
most families cannot afford. Faced with less money in their pay check, 
they will have to scrimp for even the most basic necessities.
  Worse of all, comp time will not be voluntary. Do you truly believe a 
parent will be allowed to use the time when they need it most? Clearly, 
the majority cares more about making sweet heart deals with the 
privileged than helping hard working employees.
  My colleagues, overtime is important to so many working families and 
their children. We, here in Congress, should not be undermining their 
standard of living. Support the Miller Substitute. Vote No on the Pay 
Check Reduction Act.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 is bad for 
working women!
  Families need flexibility! However, H.R. 1 is not the way to reach 
employee flexibility. Flexibility would allow employees to decide when 
to take comp time off. H.R. 1, on the other hand, extends that 
flexibility to the employer.
  The truth is, under H.R. 1, an employer has no obligation to grant a 
request for a specific time off. Further, the unduly disrupts language 
takes away even more flexibility from the employee. Employers may use 
this provision to the disadvantage of the employees when there is no 
serious injury to the work environment. Therefore, employers may 
actually punish employees with the selective use of comp time.
  H.R. 1 is not the answer. What is the answer? The Family and Medical 
Leave Act should be expanded to give working families basic protection.
  Families also need paycheck protection! Two-thirds of American 
workers oppose substituting comp time for overtime pay.
  This bill will affect wage hour earners. 70 percent of those make $10 
an hour and under. The reality is that families in this income bracket 
do not have much discretionary income and may find it extremely 
difficult to postpone receipt of their paychecks.
  Under H.R. 1 if an employee requests comptime and later chooses 
overtime pay, the employer may retain his earnings for 30 days. In 
addition, the use of comptime is not counted as hours worked.
  Employees will lose money that would have otherwise been contributed 
toward Social Security and unemployment benefits.
  I support employee flexibility. I even support comptime as long as 
workers rights are not infringed upon. However, in the interest of the 
hundreds of thousands of working constituents in my district, I cannot 
support H.R. 1.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, imagine not being able to attend your 
son's graduation or your daughter's parent-teacher conference because 
you could not get the time off of work. Graduations, birthday parties 
and family reunions are the moments that we live for. If we let these 
priceless moments slip away, they will be forever lost.
  I know that families are working harder than ever before. Parents 
today put in many more hours than they did just a few decades ago to 
purchase the basic necessities. In addition, Moms and Dads are finding 
it increasingly difficult to balance work and family responsibilities. 
Between getting the kids off to school, making sure that dinner is on 
the table, paying the bills and walking the dog, there are but a 
precious few moments for family time.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the trade-off between time at home and time 
spent at work which many couples must endure. As a father of seven, I 
know that we want the best and the most for our children. This is why I 
am supporting legislation to amend outdated federal law to provide more 
work schedule flexibility. This will allow families more time to take 
their children to the doctor, to drive them to soccer practice and to 
attend the school play.
  H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act, will allow employers 
the option of offering their employees the choice of paid time off in 
lieu of cash wages for overtime hours worked. As with cash overtime 
pay, compensatory time would accrue at a rate of one-and-one-half times 
the employee's regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 within 
a 7-day period.
  I believe that the Working Families Flexibility Act offers a workable 
solution for both employers and employees who are attempting to achieve 
this balance. It will strive to improve the quality of life for our 
citizens while working to provide them with the precious time and 
opportunity to spend with their families.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Working 
Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 1). I am a proud original cosponsor of 
this measure, which I believe is one of the most profamily, proemployee 
bills ever to come before Congress.
  In San Diego County, families work hard to make ends meet. They have 
some of the country'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. As amended, workers 
can accumulate up to 160 hours of comptime. Any comptime that is not 
taken must be paid at time and a half. And all comptime must be cashed-
out once a year into time-and-a-half pay, or when the employer requests 
it.
  This is the right thing to do. Three out of five workers working 
overtime would like to take comptime instead of time-and-a-half pay.
  Interestingly enough, Congress granted similar flexibility to public 
sector employers in 1985. 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.
  During the previous Congress, President Clinton joined the bandwagon 
in support of more flexibility in family work schedules. His proposal 
is represented by the substitute being offered by my colleague from 
California, Mr. Miller. But the Clinton-Miller proposal does not do the 
job for America's working families. It creates unnecessary bureaucratic 
paperwork for employers. And it does not allow employees to bank any 
sizeable amount of their comptime, as the Working Families Flexibility 
Act does. Nevertheless, we appreciate the President's interest, and 
look forward to eventually having his support for this popular and 
bipartisan legislation.
  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.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Paperwork 
Elimination Act. This legislation has again passed the House Small 
Business Committee with unanimous bipartisan support. It was one of the 
top recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small 
Business and builds on the success the 104th Congress had in reducing 
Federal paperwork demands on our Nation's small businesses.
  I think members of both parties can agree that Federal paperwork 
demands on small businesses have become too expensive, time consuming, 
and burdensome. It is estimated that business owners and ordinary 
citizens spend 6 billion hours per year responding to Federal reporting 
requirements ranging from employment forms from the Bureau of Labor

[[Page H1137]]

Statistics to Internal Revenue Service returns. This time could be 
better spent developing new business initiatives that would lead to 
increased economic activity and job growth.
  Having worked in and with small businesses for years, I have come to 
appreciate the frustrations small business owners feel when it comes to 
dealing with excessive Federal regulations. As I travel throughout 
Minnesota's sixth district, one of the most common complaints I hear 
from small business owners is how paperwork costs associated with 
complying with Federal regulations are hurting their ability to 
compete. We must recognize that small businesses often do not have the 
resources to keep pace with new and rapidly changing regulations.
  H.R. 852 provides businesses with the option of electronically 
submitting information required to comply with Federal regulations. 
Small businesses and individuals can now send and receive mail, 
complete their financial transactions, and read magazines and 
newspapers from their own personal computers. There is no reason why 
businesses should not have the option of completing Federal Government 
forms by computer, so that interaction with the Federal Government 
becomes a more positive experience for business owners.
  As a member of the Small Business Committee, I urge support for this 
legislation to reduce the paperwork burden on small businesses as they 
attempt to meet the Federal Government's information demands. Thank 
you.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the 
so-called comptime legislation and in support of the Miller substitute. 
America's workers need to know that this bill is a sham. It would 
effectively eliminate workers' fundamental guarantee of overtime pay--
without providing any genuine flexibility in return.
  I think every Member in this Chamber supports greater flexibility for 
working men and women. I raised three kids while working. I know how 
important it is for working parents to be there for their family.
  Some working parents out there may be learning about this legislation 
for the first time, and may be saying to themselves, ``This bill means 
I could attend my child's first school play, or high school basketball 
championship.'' Unfortunately, it is not that simple.
  Under this bill, it would be too easy for an employer to coerce 
employees to take comptime instead of the overtime pay so many families 
depend upon. And under this bill, a worker who agrees to comptime 
instead of overtime pay--whether by choice or by force--has no 
guarantee they can use the time they earned when they need it most. Mr. 
Chairman, where is the flexibility?
  My colleagues and I who oppose this bill want to make clear how a 
genuinely family friendly law would work. A profamily law, unlike this 
one, would give the employee--not the employer--the choice between time 
off and overtime pay. It would allow the employee--not the boss--to 
choose when to use comptime. Unfortunately, this bill fails to meet 
this fundamental standard.
  Frankly, this bill is a step backward for working parents. It takes 
away important worker protections and could mean a paycut for too many 
families. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1, and vote for the 
Miller substitute.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1, the Working Families 
Flexibility Act of 1997 is also known as the Pay Reduction Act.
  Today, millions of workers depend on overtime pay--just to feed their 
families and keep a roof over their heads. How cruel to consider this 
overtime pay as optional. Today too many people depend on overtime pay 
to survive. Their survival is not optional.
  It is employers--not employees--who get grater flexibility from this 
bill. The bill does not contain necessary safeguards to assure that the 
employee's decision to accept comptime is truly voluntary
  The overtime provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act both protect 
workers from excessive demands for overtime work, and, by requiring 
premium pay for overtime, provide an incentive for businesses to create 
additional jobs.
  There is no doubt that American workers prefer pay for their overtime 
work--instead of comptime. Unfortunately, too many do not get paid. The 
Employment Policy Foundation, a think tank supported by employers, 
estimates that workers lose $19 billion a year in overtime pay due to 
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the 
Working Families Flexibility Act of 1997. It is time that we grant 
private sector employees one of the benefits that many public sector 
employees have enjoyed for a long time. I congratulate the gentleman 
from North Carolina for bringing this bill to the floor for our 
consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns I hear most often, in this era of 
the dual income family, is being able to balance children's needs with 
those of the job. For too long, employers who want to be flexible have 
been hamstrung by rules made for a bygone era. Finally, we are about to 
offer the tools to make life better for those families.
  This bill would allow a working mother to bank sufficient overtime 
hours in a compensatory time account to accompany the Girl Scout troop 
on their weekend camping trip which leaves immediately after school on 
Friday. She could bank enough hours to take time off to meet with the 
teacher about her daughter's progress. And certainly there could be 
hours to use to take care of the inevitable orthodontist appointments 
and doctors' appointments. She wouldn't have to take time off from work 
without pay to attend to these needs.
  But for those men and women who would benefit more from additional 
cash, receiving overtime pay at the rate of 1\1/2\ hours for every hour 
worked would remain the standard. No one would be forced to take time 
off instead of taking overtime pay. Compensatory time is a modification 
to the overtime for pay rule that must be agreeable to both employee 
and employer. Employers don't have to offer compensatory time and 
employees don't have to accept compensatory time instead of overtime 
pay.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine why some people try to make this sound 
like a bad deal for employees. The Acting Secretary of Labor states: 
``Any comp time legislation must effectively and satisfactorily address 
three fundamental principles: real choice for employees; real 
protection against employer abuse; and preservation of basic worker 
rights including the 40-hour workweek.'' And this bill meets all of 
those criteria. Obviously, it offers real choice for employees, because 
employees may choose whether or not to accept compensatory time if it 
is offered. Currently, there is no choice. The bill clearly protects 
against abuse. It states specifically that an employer may not 
intimidate, threaten or coerce any employee for the purpose of 
interfering with the right to choose compensatory time or payment of 
monetary overtime and it sets out penalties, payable to the employee. 
And finally it preserves, and enhances, basic worker rights including 
the 40-hour workweek. It actually allows private sector employees the 
same rights available to those represented by unions or who work in the 
public sector. It does not affect, in any way, the 40-hour workweek.
  Further, it does not infringe on union powers because it does not 
apply to those workplaces represented by a union. All those benefits 
are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Incidentally, 
compensatory time is one of the most commonly negotiated benefits for 
union employees.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 1. This is a bill 
for our working families. To again quote the Acting Secretary of Labor: 
``Workers--not employers--must be able to decide how best to meet the 
current needs of their families.'' It is a bill I am proud to support.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if you want to make the workplace 
more family friendly, vote for the Working Families Flexibility Act.
  This bill provides working mothers and fathers with more choice and 
flexibility. It provides workers with the choice of comptime pay or 
overtime. This option allows employees to balance family needs and 
career needs.
  There are some things that money can't buy--time with your children, 
your parents, or your spouse. Comptime allows workers to buy more of 
all of these things.
  If you want to free working families from the shackles of big 
government, vote for the Working Families Flexibility Act. This bill 
will make workplaces more flexible in the 21st century.
  If you 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. Shouldn't private-sector employees 
have this same option? This bill says yes.
  Vote for our families. Vote for flexibility. Support the Working 
Families Flexibility Act--for our families, our workers, and our 
children.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule, and shall be 
considered as having been read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                                 H.R. 1

       Be it enacted by the Senate and the 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 1997''.

[[Page H1138]]

     SEC. 2. COMPENSATORY TIME.

       Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 207) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) Compensatory Time Off for Private Employees.--
       ``(1) General Rule.--
       ``(A) Compensatory time off.--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.
       ``(B) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `employee' does not include an employee of a public 
     agency.
       ``(2) Conditions.--An employer may provide compensatory 
     time to employees under paragraph (1)(A) only if such time is 
     provided in accordance with--
       ``(A) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining 
     agreement between the employer and the labor organization 
     which has been certified or recognized as the representative 
     of the employees under applicable law, or
       ``(B) in the case of employees who are not represented by a 
     labor organization which has been certified as recognized as 
     the representative of such employees under applicable law, an 
     agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before 
     the performance of the work and affirmed by a written or 
     otherwise verifiable record maintained in accordance with 
     section 11(c)--
       ``(i) in which the employer has offered and the employee 
     has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary 
     overtime compensation; and
       ``(ii) entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such 
     employees and not as a condition of employment.
       ``(3) Hour limit.--
       ``(A) Maximum hours.--An employee may accrue not more than 
     240 hours of compensatory time.
       ``(B) Compensation date.--Not later than January 31 of each 
     calendar year, the employee's employer shall provide monetary 
     compensation for any unused 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.
       ``(C) Excess of 80 hours.--The employer may provide 
     monetary compensation for an employee's unused compensatory 
     time in excess of 80 hours at any time after giving the 
     employee at least 30 days notice. Such compensation shall be 
     provided at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6).
       ``(D) Policy.--Except where a collective bargaining 
     agreement provides otherwise, an employer which has adopted a 
     policy offering compensatory time to employees may 
     discontinue such policy upon giving employees 30 days notice.
       ``(E) Written request.--An employee may withdraw an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2)(B) at any time. 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).
       ``(4) Private employer actions.--An employer 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 monetary overtime compensation for 
     overtime hours; or
       ``(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.
       ``(5) Termination of employment.--An employee 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 in accordance with paragraph (6).
       ``(6) Rate of compensation.--
       ``(A) General rule.--If compensation is to be paid to an 
     employee for accrued compensatory time off, such compensation 
     shall be paid at a rate of compensation not less than--
       ``(i) the regular rate received by such employee when the 
     compensatory time was earned, or
       ``(ii) the final regular rate received by such employee,

     whichever is higher.
       ``(B) Consideration of payment.--Any payment owed to an 
     employee under this subsection for unused compensatory time 
     shall be considered unpaid overtime compensation.
       ``(7) Use of time.--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.
       ``(8) Definitions.--The terms `overtime compensation' and 
     `compensatory time' shall have the meanings given such terms 
     by subsection (o)(7).''.

     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 the following:
       ``(f) An employer which violates section 7(r)(4) shall be 
     liable to the employee affected in the amount of the rate of 
     compensation (determined in accordance with section 
     7(r)(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.''.

     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. No amendments shall be in order except those printed in 
House Report 105-31, which may be considered only in the order 
specified, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered as having been read, shall be debated for the time 
specified in the report, 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 a division of the question.
  An amendment designated to be offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] or his designee may be offered en bloc with 
one or more other such amendments.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 105-31.


               Amendments En Bloc offered by Mr. Goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendments 
en bloc numbered 1 and 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Goodling:
       Page 4, insert after line 10 the following:
       No employee may receive or agree to receive compensatory 
     time off under this subsection unless the employee has worked 
     at least 1000 hours for the employee's employer during a 
     period of continuous employment with the employer in the 12 
     month period before the date of agreement or receipt of 
     compensatory time off.

       Page 4, line 13, strike ``240'' and insert ``160''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time for debate will be 
combined.
  There was no objection.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 99, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] and a Member opposed each will be recognized to control 10 
minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] rise in opposition?
  Mr. CLAY. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not, but I ask unanimous consent to 
claim the time allocated in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] will be 
recognized to control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the first amendment would require that an employee have 
worked at least 1,000 hours in a period of continuous employment with 
the employer in the 12-month period preceding the date the employee 
agrees to receive or receives compensatorytime off. For example, an 
employee would be eligible to receive comptime if he or she worked 40 
hours a week for about 6 months with one employer or 20 hours a week 
for 12 months with one employer.
  The second amendment would limit the number of hours' comp time that 
an employee could accrue to 160 hours. The bill reported from the 
committee had allowed an employee to accrue a maximum of 240 hours. 
Again, this amendment is designed to address some of the concerns, both 
of these amendments, that were registered during our markup.

[[Page H1139]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment makes very minor improvements in a very 
bad bill. H.R. 1 fails to protect vulnerable workers. It fails to 
safeguard employee wages. It encourages the abandonment of existing 
paid leave policies, and it invites further violations of the overtime 
law. The amendments before us exempt some part-time and seasonal 
workers. Many other workers who are not exempted remain subject to 
abuse.
  H.R. 1 holds out the very real potential that a worker will be 
cheated out of 6 weeks of wages. The amendment before us limits that 
amount to 4 weeks of wages. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1, with or without this 
amendment, is fatally flawed. It deserves to be defeated. However, I 
will accept the amendment because it provides very minor improvements 
in the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], a member of the Committee.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. As Members know, 
there has been a long debate over exempting certain industries from 
provisions of this bill. Construction workers and other seasonal 
employees, for example, often work on short-term projects and 
frequently change employers. As they move from job to job, it is 
unlikely these workers will ever be able to use comptime.
  It has been pointed out that violations of overtime requirements 
typically are more likely to occur in these types of employment 
situations as well. Making comptime an option in industries where the 
relationship between the employer and the employee is transitory may in 
fact make it easier for unscrupulous employers to avoid paying overtime 
wages.
  It is much better for both employers and employees to require, as 
this amendment does, that workers put in at least 1,000 hours over a 
12-month period of continuous employment to be eligible for comp time. 
This amendment does that, and thus would ensure that an employee has a 
substantial relationship with an employer before the option of earning 
paid compensatory time in lieu of overtime wages can be made available.
  This requirement will also help ensure that any agreement to receive 
compensatory time instead of overtime wages is made on equal terms. By 
adding this important provision, I believe that this amendment would 
substantially enhance the protections of this bill, and I would urge 
all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  In the first amendment, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the issue 
some raised that migrant workers could be hurt, construction workers 
perhaps, so we are dealing with that issue.
  In the second there were those who were concerned that if you accrued 
too many hours and somebody went belly up, you would have all these 
accrued hours. Of course, we are reducing that, but nevertheless in 
bankruptcy, of course, wages and benefits are always one of that very 
top level that you deal with when you start going through the 
bankruptcy procedure. So I think we have accomplished in both instances 
what people were concerned about.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say this bill does not apply to any 
bankruptcy cases. Once again, I would say that I will accept the 
amendment. Of course, I will oppose the final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield back the balance of my time Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 408, 
noes 19, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 55]

                               AYES--408

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H1140]]



                                NOES--19

     Campbell
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Forbes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hunter
     Klink
     Kucinich
     McKinney
     Neal
     Owens
     Paul
     Rush
     Schaffer, Bob
     Strickland
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Carson
     Kaptur
     Rogan
     Spratt
     Taylor (NC)

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. HERGER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. METCALF, SANDERS, ALLEN, CONYERS, and UPTON changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendments en bloc were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 105-31.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 55, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. BOYD

  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, as the Chairman's 
designee, I offer amendment No. 3.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Boyd:
       Page 9, add after line 2 the following:

     SEC. 2. SUNSET.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall expire 5 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 99, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Boyd] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time allocated in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] will be 
recognized to control the 5 minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Boyd].
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply puts in place a 5-year sunset, 
which at the end of that time will cause us, as a Congress, to review 
this act.
  I have listened to the arguments over the last few weeks and read a 
lot about the arguments, and I think that in a perfect world, and if 
this bill works like it is supposed to, it will be a great piece of 
legislation to strengthen the relationship between employers and 
employees. Certainly, in its ideal form, H.R. 1 will allow workers and 
employees the flexibility to make decisions that will both strengthen 
families and build a better workplace.
  By putting in place a 5-year sunset provision, the amendment ensures 
future congressional review of this act. We are sending a message, a 
positive message, to employers that we are serious about making this 
act work. We are placing a great deal of trust in our employees and 
employers to come together in this act.
  The changing workplace and the changing dynamics that exist in two-
income families make it essential that workers and employers forge an 
alliance. By ensuring congressional review of this act, those who 
remain concerned about protecting workers can assess the success of 
this act and make future adjustments, if necessary.
  The changing workplace demands that we seek new solutions to 
problems. I believe that compensatory time flexibility will prove to be 
something that is valued by both workers and employers. If it does not 
work like it is supposed to, this sunset act will certainly give us the 
opportunity in the future to review that and make the necessary 
changes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  In the spirit of the debate on both sides of the question, if this is 
as bad as some of my colleagues say it is, then we sunset it in 5 
years. If it is not, then this Congress can, in fact, make other 
reasonable adjustments to the subject at hand.
  I continue to fail to understand why anybody would object to this 
legislation in its current form, but this amendment, we think, 
addresses many of the concerns by saying we are not going to do it 
forever if it turns out to be bad. We will, in 5 years, sunset it, and 
then we will not do the irreparable harm that we hear from so many who 
have been against this bill today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boyd amendment, and want to 
compliment him for his constructive proposal.
  Many concerns have been raised about how employers may abuse the 
flexibility they are granted under this bill. I disagree with the views 
held by the opponents of this bill, but I respect their opinion. I 
readily admit that none of us can know for certain exactly what impact 
this bill will have. The Boyd amendment strikes a reasonable balance 
that allows us to let this good idea go forward for a test period. If 
the bill has half as many problems as the opponents claim it will have, 
and employers abuse it half as much as we have been led to believe, 
Congress will never reauthorize it. However, I believe that this bill 
will work to give employers and employees increased flexibility and 
that after it has been in effect for 5 years it will have earned even 
stronger support from employers and employees than it has today.
  The significance of this amendment should not be underestimated. This 
amendment will require Congress to come back and review this act in 5 
years. Those of us who support this legislation will have the burden to 
demonstrate that the law has worked as we anticipated. I believe that 
this approach of sunsetting legislation and requiring Congress to 
review how the laws we pass actually work in the real world would serve 
us well in other areas as well.
  I urge support of the Boyd amendment.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to rise in 
support of this amendment because I also think that some of the 
rhetoric on this piece of legislation has been overblown.
  I think that the other side of the aisle is to be commended, in that 
they have moved in our direction and included some amendments and some 
ideas that we have suggested. I think we have a workable piece of 
legislation. If the problems that some people see are there, I think it 
will be solved by this amendment. We will have a chance to come back 
and take a look at it.
  I think this bill will work pretty close to the way it is put 
together, and I strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee, [Mr. Gordon].
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend from Florida 
for bringing this amendment before us. I support this amendment. I 
think most folks here today also support the general concept of 
providing comptime for employees to spend emergency time with their 
family, or whatever else might need be done.
  The real question is how can we craft this legislation in a way that 
both employees and employers are protected. I think the amendment of 
the gentleman from Florida is a good way to move forward in that. 
Certainly we want to get a good bill, but if there are problems, we 
should have it sunsetted, and I support this legislation.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close by giving my thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman 
Goodling, and also to my leader, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, 
for allowing me to present this amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, sunsetting this bill is not the problem or the answer. 
Enacting H.R. 1 would be a terrible mistake. This bill does not provide 
employees with paid leave, it only allows employers to defer overtime 
pay. It does not provide a single employee the right to earn comptime, 
does not protect the right of workers to use comptime, and provides no 
protection where employers are unable to pay for comptime.
  H.R. 1 increases employer control, not employee flexibility. Even 
more seriously, this bill, by reducing overtime costs, increases 
overtime work at the same time it undermines pay.
  I oppose the bill because of the damage it will cause. However, I 
will accept the amendment because, at least, it places some time limit 
on the amount of that damage.

[[Page H1141]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Boyd].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 390, 
noes 36, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 56]

                               AYES--390

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--36

     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady
     Campbell
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     Ehlers
     Forbes
     Gilchrest
     Granger
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     Northup
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (TX)
     Strickland
     Thornberry

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Fazio
     Gephardt
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Spratt

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SHAYS and Mr. GILCHREST changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. GEJDENSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on 
my way to the House floor and missed rollcall vote No. 56. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 105-31.


                     Amendment Offered By Mr. OWENS

  Mr. OWENS. 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. Owens:
       Page 3, line 10, insert before the period the following: 
     ``or an employee whose rate of pay is less than 2.5 times the 
     minimum wage rate in effect under section 6(a)(1)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 99, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] rise in 
opposition?
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] will 
control 5 minutes in opposition..
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in the wee hours of this morning I was informed that my 
first grandchild was born, and I assure my colleagues I pursue my 
concern with the future of America with a renewed fervor. As a result 
of that, I would like to see an America that is for everybody, liberty 
and justice for all, and we share the prosperity.
  I want to make it quite clear that we can have a comp time bill that 
serves everybody's need. We do not have to grab for it all. We can have 
a bill which allows the upper middle class people who want this to have 
it, and the same time let us exempt three-quarters of the work force 
who earn $10 or less, three-quarters of the work force earn $10 or 
less. This amendment says we should exempt them.
  We just voted on a sunset provision. We can come back in 5 years and 
examine what happened and maybe add them then, but let us exempt them 
from this radical experiment in labor law. We do not need to do this. 
We can have a win/win situation by letting the two-thirds of the work 
force earning $10 an hour or less not be a part of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment prohibits, the amendment of the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Owens] prohibits, workers earning 2\1/2\ times the 
minimum wage, currently $11.88, or about $23,700 for the full-time 
worker, from accepting compensatory time. Many of these workers would 
like to have that option. In fact one of the individuals who testified 
at our subcommittee hearing, Peter Faust, in support of compensatory 
time told us that he makes about $20,000 per year.
  Why should he and everybody else who makes less than $23,000 be 
barred by the law from making this choice? Do the sponsors of this 
amendment not trust these workers to know what they want and what is 
best for them?
  The Owens amendment is premised on the argument that lower income

[[Page H1142]]

workers are inevitably at the mercy of their employers and so cannot 
make a free and voluntary choice about compensatory time. The bill 
addresses the issue of employers' voluntary choice for employees 
including those who make less than $23,000 with numerous employee 
protections.
  Let me read what Mr. Faust said in his testimony. He said time is 
precious and fleeting. There are lots of ways to make money in this 
country and lots of ways to spend it. But there is only one way to 
spend time with yourself, family, or friends, and that is to have time 
to spend. When I look back on my life, I regret and always will that 
already those occasions when I needed to be there for my family and 
they asked me to be part of their life and I could not because I did 
not have time.
  I say to my colleagues that this man begged us on bended knee not to 
exclude him from this bill, and I think almost anybody would recognize 
that he can make a rational decision as can all other people in that 
wage scale.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
New York for yielding this time to me, and I rise in support of working 
Americans. Clearly I believe that working Americans trust us to do the 
right thing. The right thing is to support the Owens amendment that 
ensures that the legislation does not work to the detriment of the most 
vulnerable.
  I wonder if the witness who testified making under $20,000 realized 
that workers can lose money because comp time is not credited for 
unemployment. The bill bars employers from terminating or reducing, 
fails to bar employees from terminating or reducing vacation and sick 
leave, substituting them for comp time. The bill fails to protect 
employees who are most vulnerable to the overtime laws.
  We can make this the kind of bill that supports working Americans by 
supporting the Owens bill that recognizes those who make under $20,000 
a year should, yes, have the option of taking comp time but not denying 
them the benefits that they so much need and giving them the 
flexibility that they can take the comp time that they do need.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we recognize that, if we 
do this, let us do it right. Let us utilize the truths the American 
people have given us. They do not read between the lines, we do. Let us 
support the Owens bill and ensure it for the most vulnerable of those.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], a member of the committee.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Owens amendment, as I did 
when this amendment was raised in our committee, and I do it in all due 
respect to the gentleman who offers it. But I consider this proposal to 
be insulting, patronizing, and discriminating to young people 
particularly, like my son.
  My son works, and he does not make 2\1/2\ times the minimum wage. He 
is working his way up the ladder, and he is working a heck of a lot of 
overtime. He is working that overtime because he is buying a car and 
insuring it, and he is taking all of his overtime in cash, and that is 
fine. Under this bill he would still have the right to take all of his 
overtime in cash.
  But one of these days he might say, I want to go to my friend's 
wedding, and I need to take Friday and Monday off to do that, and my 
son is as entitled to make that decision on his account based on his 
needs as someone who makes twice as much money as he does. For that 
reason I think that the gentleman's amendment is discriminatory and 
should be rejected, and I yield back.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Owens 
amendment. The bill without the amendment would be a terrible blow to 
millions of American workers who work overtime for compensation.
  What the Owens amendment is at least trying to do is to make it 
possible for the low wage worker not to be put under this pressure of 
having to work overtime for no compensation at all, for that promise of 
time off sometime in the future. The employer could require the worker 
to work overtime 160 hours with no promise as to when that compensatory 
time would be afforded the worker, not when they want to do something 
or they have to take care of a family problem or they want to go off on 
a vacation.
  There is absolutely nothing in H.R. 1 which gives the employee the 
choice, the free choice, or the decision to take this time when they 
need it. It is an entirely employer based bill. Therefore without the 
Owens amendment it seems to me that, if we are concerned about the 
workers earning a living, we have to support the Owens amendment.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I only have one speaker left, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2 minutes 15 
seconds remaining, the gentleman from New York has 2 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from North Carolina has the right to close.
  Mr. BALLENGER. I have one speaker who will close.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, as the person offering the amendment, do I 
not have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina, representing the 
committee position, has the right to close.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  The issue raised by the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Owens], which I strongly support, is how much leverage does the janitor 
who cleans the building have over the person who owns the building and 
pays his or her paycheck?
  The way this bill is set up is it says that the employer will, I 
believe, have functional control over whether you choose cash or comp 
time. If you do not like what the employer chooses, you have the right 
to sue your boss. If you make less than $10 an hour, I do not think you 
will get very far doing that.
  The Owens amendment is pointed in the right direction. I strongly 
support it on behalf of all of the people out there who have no 
leverage, no leverage over that choice whatsoever. I commend the 
gentleman for offering it, and I support it.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the AFL-CIO says there are no aspects of this bill that 
are truly protective of employee rights. Vote against this employer-
driven attempt to rob employees of their pay and benefits in the name 
of family flexibility.
  I have a number of union organizations representing workers who say 
the workers do not want this revolutionary change in the Fair Labor 
Standards Act. We can have a less revolutionary change by adopting my 
amendment and giving the 20 percent of the work force that has clamored 
for this, let them have it, and at the same time we protect the people 
at the very bottom who do not want to be deprived of their right to 
have cash to put food on their tables, to buy clothing. They need the 
money. They would like to have more time with their families, but they 
need the money most of all.
  That is two-thirds of the work force out there making approximately 
$10 an hour or less. We can protect them. This is a win-win situation. 
In the name of bipartisan cooperation, let us go forward. Let us not 
bully the people on the bottom.
  That is what we are doing here. We are taking our power and we are 
using it as a hammer against the people on the bottom. Employers will 
take this cash in large amounts and invest it. They want cash. Why 
should they give somebody cash when they can give them comp time?

[[Page H1143]]

  We can go forward in the name of bipartisan cooperation, break the 
logjam and move to show America that we care about everybody, the 
people on the very bottom as well as those on the top.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement opposition to this mutilation of the 
Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA]--the Working Families Flexibility Act--
H.R. 1. At a time when there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that 
individuals are already being exploited, oppressed, and hoodwinked in 
the workplace, Congress is considering a bill that would eviscerate the 
protective armor of FLSA. As currently drafted, the bill does nothing 
more than offer employers many opportunities and temptations for 
deregulated exploitation. Simply put H.R. 1 is a bad bill that misleads 
workers and the general public into believing that they will be given a 
greater degree of choice. H.R. 1 is an affront to the American worker; 
and the only way to restore some preservation of employee rights to 
this haphazardly drafted, antiworker bill is to protect that segment of 
the work force that would stand to suffer the most under this bill--
low-wage workers. My amendment would accomplish just this.
  This amendment would exempt workers who earn less than 2.5 times the 
minimum wage. This is equivalent to slightly more than $10 an hour--or 
approximately $24,000 a year for a full-time worker. In effect, the 
amendment would exclude the lowest paid and most vulnerable Americans 
in the work force. Tying the exemption to the minimum wage indexes the 
exemption to future increases in the minimum wage. Lower wage workers 
deserve and need the protection of this amendment for two very 
fundamental reasons: They are more likely to need the cash for overtime 
worked instead of compensatory time and they are more likely to be 
subjected to abuse by their employers as a result of this legislation. 
They should not be covered by H.R. 1.
  First, families struggling to make ends meet cannot pay the bills and 
buy food and other necessities with comptime. I challenge my colleagues 
to deny that most workers, earning approximately $10 an hour, need all 
the money they can earn more than they need time off. Public opinion 
polls show that families with two wage earners and comfortable incomes 
are in favor of more compensatory time. At the same time, the available 
evidence also shows that workers earning less than $10 an hour, or its 
equivalent, prefer and need more take-home pay. In the real world, 
employers would naturally reward those employees who accept comptime 
over cash by giving them more overtime. It is painfully clear: The 
employee who demands to be paid in cash will face repercussions. He or 
she will not be asked to work overtime.
  Second, lower wage workers are likely to be abused more than higher 
wage workers. Most employers do not intentionally violate the law; 
however, reports suggest that too many do.
  In fiscal year 1996, the Department of Labor found overtime 
violations involving 170,000 workers. Low-wage workers are the most 
common victims of this abuse.
  The Employer Policy Foundation, an employer-supported think tank in 
Washington, revealed that workers lose approximately $19 billion in 
overtime pay each year.
  A Wall Street Journal analysis of 74,514 cases brought by the 
Department from October 1991 to June 1995, found that industries such 
as construction and apparel were cited for illegally denying overtime 
to 1 in every 50 workers during this period. Overall, nearly 8 out of 
every 1,000 workers, or 695,280 employees, were covered by settlements, 
even though enforcement was limited.

  If Congress is going to tamper with FLSA, at a minimum the two-thirds 
of the work force making nearly $10 an hour must not be forsaken. I 
urge my colleagues to support this endeavor to exempt the most 
vulnerable workers.
  The opposition to H.R. 1 is fierce. The administration, labor unions, 
and employee associations are not the least bit receptive to this 
Republican notion of worker flexibility.
  In a letter to Congress, March 18, the Sheet Metal and Air 
Conditioning Contractor's National Association [SMACNA] and the 
Mechanical Electrical Sheet Metal Alliance state the following:

       Currently one of the most abused and violated federal 
     employment laws by irresponsible employers, the FLSA would be 
     even less of an effective federal employment protection if 
     H.R. 1 is allowed to become law.

  They insist that ``H.R. 1 invites greater FLSA fraud, lowers employee 
pay/benefit contributions and undermines employee work time 
discretion.''
  In a letter to Congress, March 18, the AFL-CIO emphatically states:

       There are no aspects of this bill that are truly protective 
     of employee rights. * * * Vote against this employer-driven 
     attempt to rob employees of their pay and benefits in the 
     name of family flexibility.

  In a letter to Congress, March 13, the Union of Needletrades, 
Industrial and Textile Employees [UNITE] explains that:

       The bill will encourage greater use of mandatory overtime--
     because instead of having to pay a premium for overtime when 
     it is worked, companies can stall payment and hope workers 
     forget they have money coming to them.

  In a letter to Congress, March 3, the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters argues that:

       The FLSA established the 40-hour work week, the benchmark 
     schedule working men and women use to maintain time for their 
     families and normalcy in their lives * * * hours worked in 
     excess of 40 must be paid at a premium rate. * * * The 
     overtime premium requirement also provides an incentive for 
     businesses to create additional jobs to the extent more work 
     exists than can be accomplished within the normal work week. 
     that helps reduce unemployment.

  In a letter to Congress, February 4, the International Union, United 
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America 
[UAW] states:

       It [H.R. 1] would enable employers to avoid paying 
     overtime, thereby reducing the income and living standard of 
     working families.

  H.R. 1 does nothing more than permit an employee to make an unsecured 
loan to his or her employer. The poorest workers should be saved from 
the privilege of having to loan their hardearned money to their 
employers. The exemption for workers who make less than 2.5 times the 
minimum wage must be accepted. Today, we are here to turn back the 
clock on worker protections in this country. At the very least, I 
challenge my colleagues to stand up for the two-thirds of the work 
force making approximately $10 an hour. They stand to suffer the most 
under H.R. 1. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of our 
committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, again, I ask my colleagues, how demeaning 
can we be in the Congress of the United States? As I indicated earlier 
in the debate, we somehow or other believe that employees cannot make 
decisions. Only we in the Congress of the United States can make 
decisions for them. That is demeaning. Any employee can make a 
decision, any employee should make a decision.
  Now, this is even more demeaning. This is even more demeaning, 
because what we are now saying is that the lower your income, the less 
likely you will be able to make a decision. How demeaning can we really 
get?
  I do not care whether they are making 10 cents an hour. They can make 
every decision they want to make, because they have that opportunity to 
make that decision. And in this legislation, only, only the employee 
makes the decision. If the employee, after they make a decision, 
decides ``I do not like that decision,'' the employee can immediately 
say ``I want to reject that contract I made and I want to cash out,'' 
and the employer has to cash out.
  Please, please, give our employees much more benefit of the doubt 
than you are giving them. I have wonderful friends in every business 
and industry there is at every level and every one are very, very 
capable to make all of their decisions without any help from the U.S. 
Government.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
Congressman Owens' amendment to H.R. 1.
  Congressman Owens' amendment would exclude people who make 2.5 times 
the minimum wage, which is $11.88 an hour or less, from any change in 
the overtime pay rules.
  On behalf of the 125,000 households in the city of Houston with 
incomes of less than or equal to $25,000, I am supporting this 
amendment to this compensatory time legislation.
  Any offers of what some would describe as voluntary compensatory time 
for workers should include protections which ensure that it is indeed 
voluntary.
  In fiscal year 1996, the same year this body passed the first 
increase in the minimum wage in nearly a decade, the Department of 
Labor had 13,687 compliance actions of disclosed overtime violations. 
These represented nearly 50 percent of those in which Fair Labor 
Standards Act minimum wage overtime monetary violations were found. The 
Wage and Hour Division found just over $100 million in back wages due 
to overtime violations owing to nearly 170,000 workers.
  Unfortunately, all too often when the debate on the floor of this 
body shifts, it cuts harshest into the American worker's ability to 
earn a liveable wage, against his or her right to a

[[Page H1144]]

safe work environment, or into the necessity of receiving just 
compensation for the work that they perform.
  If we as Representatives of working Americans are going to talk about 
how best to help the working families of this country, we must make it 
our first priority to insure that they receive fair compensation for 
their work. H.R. 1 as it is currently written will not insure that 
workers who depend on overtime pay receive it if they do not wish to 
receive compensatory time.
  Those Wage and Hour violations involved a little more than one-half 
of 1 percent of all 6.5 million employers in the United States. For the 
sake of the 170,000 known workers who were affected by criminal 
overtime policies, we should not act without providing insurance that 
they will not fall victim again due to anything we might accomplish 
today.
  We should keep in mind the need to insure that employers are barred 
from denying a request for reasonable time off, that workers do not 
lose money because compensatory time is not credited for unemployment, 
pension, or social security. We must have absolute certainty that the 
most vulnerable to overtime violations--temporary, seasonal, part-time, 
and construction workers--are protected.
  According to the Employer Policy Foundation, an employer-supported 
think tank in Washington, workers lose approximately $19 billion in 
overtime each year.
  I want to thank and commend the commitment of my colleague from New 
York on the issue of fair and equal treatment for all of our Nation's 
workers.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 237, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 57]

                               AYES--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--237

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Clement
     Dingell
     English
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     LaFalce
     Matsui
     Oberstar
     Price (NC)
     Spratt
     Stump

                              {time}  1534

  Mr. SOLOMON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. VENTO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GILCREST. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 57, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally to receive a 
message.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) assumed the chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will receive a message.

                          ____________________