[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1144-H1156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1997
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed
in House Report 105-31.
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. miller of
california
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Miller of California:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Paycheck Protection and
Family Flexibility Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. IN GENERAL.
Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 207) is amended to add at the end the following:
``(r)(1) An employee may receive, in accordance with this
subsection and in lieu of
[[Page H1145]]
monetary overtime compensation, compensatory time off at a
rate not less than 1\1/2\ hours for each hour of employment
for which overtime is required by subsection (a).
``(2) An employer may provide compensatory time to an
eligible employee under paragraph (1) only--
``(A) pursuant to--
``(i) 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
``(ii) in the case of employees who are not represented by
a collective bargaining agent or other representative
designated by the employee, a plan adopted by the employer
and provided in writing to the employer's employees which
provides employees with a voluntary, informed option to
receive compensatory time off for overtime work where there
is an express, voluntary written request by an individual
employee for compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay
provided to the employer prior to the performance of any
overtime assignment;
``(B) if the employee has not earned compensatory time in
excess of the applicable limit prescribed by paragraph (4)(A)
or in regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to
paragraph (13);
``(C) if the employee is not required as a condition of
employment to accept or request compensatory time;
``(D) if the agreement or plan complies with the
requirements of this subsection and the regulations issued by
the Secretary under paragraph (13), including the
availability of compensatory time to similarly situated
employees on an equal basis; and
``(E) if, for purposes of a plan established under
subparagraph (A)(ii), the employer, in providing compensatory
time, does not modify a leave policy so as to reduce any paid
or unpaid leave or does not reduce any other type of benefit
or compensation an employee would otherwise be entitled to
receive.
``(3) An employee may, at any time, withdraw a request for
compensatory time made under a plan under paragraph
(2)(A)(ii).
``(4)(A) An employee may earn not more than a total of 80
hours of compensatory time in any year or alternative 12-
month period designated pursuant to subparagraph (C). The
employer shall regularly report to the employee on the number
of compensatory hours earned by the employee and the total
amount of the employee's earned-and-unused compensatory time,
in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary.
``(B) Upon the request of an employee who has earned
compensatory time, the employer shall on the payday of the
pay period during which the request is received provide
monetary compensation for any such compensatory time at a
rate not less than the regular rate earned by the employee at
the time the employee performed the overtime work or the
employee's regular rate at the time such monetary
compensation is paid, whichever is higher.
``(C) Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, each
employer shall provide monetary compensation to each employee
for any compensatory time earned during the preceding
calendar year for which the employee has not already received
monetary compensation (either through paid time off or cash
payment) at a rate not less than the regular rate earned by
the employee at the time the employee performed the overtime
work or the employee's regular rate at the time such monetary
compensation is paid, whichever is higher. An agreement or
plan under paragraph (2) may designate 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. An employee may voluntarily, at the
employee's own initiative, request in writing that such end-
of-year payment of monetary compensation for earned
compensatory time be delayed for a period not to exceed 3
months. This subparagraph shall have no effect on the limit
on earned compensatory time set forth in subparagraph (A) or
in regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph
(13).
``(5) An employee who has earned compensatory time
authorized to be provided under paragraph (1) shall, upon the
voluntary or involuntary termination of employment or upon
expiration of this subsection, be paid for unused
compensatory time at a rate of compensation not less than the
regular rate earned by the employee at the time the employee
performed the overtime work or the employee's regular rate at
the time such monetary compensation is paid, whichever is
higher.
``(6) An employee shall be permitted to use, at the time
the employee has requested, any compensatory time earned
pursuant to paragraph (1)--
``(A) for any reason which would qualify for leave under
section 102(a) of the Family and Medical Leave Act (29 U.S.C.
2612(a)) or any comparable State law; or
``(B) for any other purpose--
``(i) upon notice to the employer at least 2 weeks prior to
the date on which the time off is to be used, unless use of
the compensatory time at that time will cause substantial and
grievous injury to the employer's operations; or
``(ii) upon notice to the employer within the 2 weeks prior
to the date on which the time off is to be used unless use of
the compensatory time at that time will unduly disrupt the
operations of the employer.
``(7) An employee shall not be required by the employer to
use any compensatory time earned pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(8) Except where there is a collective bargaining
agreement, an employer may modify or terminate a compensatory
time plan upon not less than 60 days notice to employees.
When a plan is terminated, an employer may not, except as
provided in paragraph (4)(C), require that an employee who
has earned compensatory time receive monetary compensation in
lieu of such time.
``(9) An employer may not pay monetary compensation in lieu
of earned compensatory time except as expressly prescribed in
this subsection. Any payment owed to an employee under this
subsection for unused compensatory time shall be considered
unpaid overtime compensation.
``(10) It shall be an unlawful act of discrimination,
within the meaning of section 15(a)(3), for an employer--
``(A) to discharge or in any other manner penalize,
discriminate against, or otherwise interfere with any
employee--
``(i) because such employee may refuse or has refused to
request or accept compensatory time off in lieu of overtime
pay, or
``(ii) because such employee may request to use or has used
compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay;
``(B) to request, directly or indirectly, that an employee
accept compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay, to
require an employee to request or to refuse to request such
compensatory time as a condition of employment or as a
condition of employment rights or benefits or to qualify the
availability of work for which overtime compensation is
required upon an employee's request for or acceptance of
compensatory time off in lieu of overtime compensation; or
``(C) to deny an employee the right to use or force an
employee to use earned compensatory time in violation of this
subsection.
``(11) An employer who violates any provision of this
subsection shall be liable, in an action brought pursuant to
section 16(b) or 16(c), in the amount of overtime
compensation that would have been paid for the overtime hours
worked or overtime hours that would have been worked, plus
such other legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to
effectuate the purpose of this section, as well as an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, costs, and, in
the case of an action filed under section 16(b), reasonable
attorney's fees. Where an employee has used compensatory time
off or received monetary compensation for earned compensatory
time for such overtime hours worked, the amount of such time
used or monetary compensation paid to the employee shall be
offset against the employer's liability under this paragraph.
``(12) For the purpose of protecting overtime compensation
wages of employees, the Secretary may by regulation require
employers who provide compensatory time to their employees
under this subsection to secure a payment bond with a surety
satisfactory for protection of the overtime compensation of
such employees.
``(13) (A) The Secretary may issue regulations as necessary
and appropriate to implement this subsection including
regulations implementing recordkeeping requirements and
prescribing the content of plans and employee notification.
``(B) The Secretary may issue regulations regarding classes
of employees, including all employees in particular
occupations or industries, to--
``(i) exempt such employees from the provisions of this
subsection,
``(ii) limit the number of compensatory hours that such
employees may earn to less than the number provided in
paragraph (4)(A), or
``(iii) require employers to provide such employees with
monetary compensation for earned compensatory time at more
frequent intervals than specified in paragraph (4)(C),
where the Secretary has determined that such regulations are
necessary or appropriate to protect vulnerable employees,
that a pattern of violations of the Act may exist, or that
such regulations are necessary or appropriate to assure that
employees receive the compensation due them.
``(C) The Secretary shall issue regulations--
``(i) which bar employers with a pattern or practice of
violations of this Act from offering compensatory time under
this subsection;
``(ii) prescribing the content of plans described in
paragraph (2)(A)(ii) and employee notification, including the
provision of information regarding who is eligible for
compensatory time and under what circumstances it may be
earned and used and information regarding the impact, if any,
that choosing compensatory time may have on the eligibility,
accrual, and receipt of other compensation and benefits; and
``(iii) requiring employers to keep records in accordance
with section 11(c) of compensatory time earned and overtime
worked.
``(14) When an employee uses earned compensatory time off,
the employee shall be paid for the time off at the employee's
regular rate at the time the employee performed the overtime
work or at the employee's regular rate when the time off is
taken, whichever is higher.
``(15) For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the terms `compensatory time' and `compensatory time
off' mean hours during which an employee is not working and
for which the employee is compensated at the employee's
regular rate in accordance with this subsection;
``(B) the term `elderly relative' means an individual of at
least 60 years of age who is
[[Page H1146]]
related by blood or marriage to the employee, including a
parent;
``(C) the term `employee' does not include--
``(i) a part-time, temporary, or seasonal employee;
``(ii) an employee of a public agency;
``(iii) an employee in the garment industry;
``(iv) an employee who is not entitled to take not less
than 24 hours of leave during any 12-month period to
participate in school activities directly related to the
educational advancement of a son or daughter of the employee,
accompany such son or daughter to routine medical or dental
appointments, and accompany an elderly relative of the
employee to routine medical or dental appointments or
appointments for other professional services related to such
elder's care; or
``(v) an employee exempted by the Secretary under paragraph
(13)(B);
``(D) the term `overtime compensation' shall have the
meaning given such term by subsection (o)(7);
(E) the terms `compensatory time' and `compensatory time
off' mean hours during which an employee is not working and
for which the employee is compensated at the employee's
regular rate in accordance with this section;
``(F) the term `part-time, temporary, or seasonal employee'
means--
``(i) an employee whose regular workweek for the employer
is less than 35 hours per week;
``(ii) an employee who is employed by the employer for a
season or other term of less than 12 months or is otherwise
treated by the employer as not a permanent employee of the
employer; or
``(iii) an employee in the construction industry, in
agricultural employment (as defined by section 3(3) of the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29
U.S.C. 1802(3)), or in any other industry which the Secretary
by regulation has determined is a seasonal industry; and
``(G) the term `overtime assignment' means an assignment of
hours for which overtime compensation is required under
subsection (a); and
``(H) the term `school' means an elementary or secondary
school (as such terms are defined in section 14101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8801)), a Head Start program assisted under the Head Start
Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), and a child care facility
licensed under State law.''.
SEC. 3. CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES.
The second sentence of section 16(e) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(e)) is amended to read
as follows: ``Any person who violates section 7(r) of this
Act shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000
for each such violation.''.
SEC. 4. CONSTRUCTION.
Section 18 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 218) is amended by designating existing section 18 as
subsection (a) and by adding a new subsection (b) to read as
follows:
``(b)(1) No provision of section 7(r) or of any order
thereunder shall be construed to--
``(A) supersede any provision of any State or local law
that provides greater protection to employees who are
provided compensatory time off in lieu of paid overtime
compensation;
``(B) diminish the obligation of an employer to comply with
any collective bargaining agreement or any employment benefit
program or plan that provides greater protection to employees
provided compensatory time off in lieu of paid overtime; or
``(C) discourage employers from adopting or retaining
compensatory time plans that provide more protection to
employees.
``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
allow employers to provide compensatory time plans to classes
of employees who are exempted from subsection 7(r), to allow
employers to provide more compensatory time than allowed
under subsection 7(r), or to supersede any limitations placed
by subsection 7(r), including exemptions and limitations in
regulations issued by the Secretary thereunder.''.
SEC. 5. COMMISSION ON WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a Commission on
Workplace Flexibility (hereafter in this section referred to
as the ``Commission''). The members of the Commission shall
be selected in accordance with the procedures set forth in
section 303 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29
U.S.C. 2633) and the compensation and powers of the
Commission shall be as prescribed in sections 304 and 305 of
that Act (29 U.S.C. 2634, 2635).
(b) Duties.--The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive
study of the impact of compensatory time on private sector
employees, including the impact of the law on average
earnings, hours of work, work schedules, flexibility of
scheduling work to accommodate family needs, and the ability
of vulnerable employees or other employees to obtain the
compensation to which they are entitled, and shall make a
comparison of the compensatory time offered to public and
private employees. A report concerning the findings of the
study shall be submitted to the appropriate committees of
Congress and to the Secretary of Labor not later than 1 year
before the expiration of this title. The report shall include
recommendations as to whether the compensatory time
provisions of section 7(r) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 should be modified or extended, including a
recommendation as to whether particular classes of employees
or industries should be exempted or otherwise given special
treatment and whether additional protections should be given.
The Commission shall have no obligation to conduct a study
and issue a report pursuant to this section if funds are not
authorized and appropriated for that purpose.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE; SUNSET.
(a) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by
this Act shall take effect 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Sunset.--The provisions of this Act shall expire 4
years after date of the enactment of this Act.
modification to amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr.
miller of california
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
my amendment may be modified by the form that I have placed it in at
the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The CLERK read as follows:
Modification to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Miller of California:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Miller of California
modified by (1) strike in the matter to be inserted by
Section 2, ``(E) The terms `compensatory time' and
`compensatory time off' mean hours during which an employee
is not working and for which the employee is compensated at
the employee's regular rate in accordance with this
section;'' and redesignate thereafter accordingly; and (2) in
section 3 by striking ``The second sentence of section'' and
inserting in lieu thereof, ``Section''; and by striking ``to
read as follows'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``by adding
after the first sentence the following''.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. GOODLING. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I just
want to make sure I am correct in assuming this is not the 40-hour work
week.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that that
is not made in order by the Committee on Rules, and this is the one the
gentleman has agreed to.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 99, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller] and a Member opposed will each control 30
minutes.
Who rises in opposition to the amendment?
Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] wish to claim
time in opposition?
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will
control the time in opposition.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I believe there may have been an error in
the timing on the last vote. There are a number of us, at least a half-
a-dozen or more, who, when we got on the subway, saw a clock that
indicated approximately 1 minute-plus seconds left to vote. Had there
been the ordinary 17 minutes, it is our collective judgment that there
would have been ample time to vote.
Perhaps there is some incongruity between the clock downstairs and
the clock here. But if there is any way to reopen that vote, it would
be the desire of at least a half-a-dozen-plus Members that that be
done; 14 Members.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair could not entertain that suggestion. The
Chair would simply state that the final 2 minutes following the elapse
of the clock are determined by the stopwatch. The stopwatch had gone an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. LaFALCE. I thank the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we offer this substitute, many of my colleagues on the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, we offer this substitute
because we do not believe that the legislation before us meets the test
of flexibility, that it meets the test of voluntary, and that it meets
the test of
[[Page H1147]]
the right of the worker to choose when and how to use the comptime
should they decide to opt into that system. We believe that the
legislation before us denies that voluntary choice, allows the employer
to have too much say, and we believe that it also denies the worker the
right to say when they want to use that time.
This is a disagreement between the two sides. It has been a
disagreement we have had from the time this bill was heard in
committee.
We also offer this substitute for a very important reason for workers
of this country. It is constantly suggested that somehow the choice of
comptime is a wonderful thing and it is free, you just decide you want
to work overtime and instead of getting overtime pay you take comptime.
Let me explain to the Members that this has serious ramifications for
workers. The loss of the premium time, the loss of the premium time
comes out of your work year sometime later. When you take your
comptime, you would be taking it in a work week that you would
otherwise be working. You will get reimbursed when you take your
comptime at the regular rate, but if you had freely chosen to have
overtime you would have had the overtime you worked and the week that
you could keep working if you did not have comptime.
What does that mean? That means that there is a potential for
somebody earning $10 an hour, 140 hours overtime, according to CRS, up
to maybe $2,500, $2,700 a year. At $10 an hour that is a lot of wages
in terms of family income. It has an impact on unemployment, because if
the premium time is not counted in, if you lose that premium time, you
lose the unemployment benefits.
In California it could be $1,800 in unemployment benefits over 26
weeks.
{time} 1545
So let us understand this: This is a decision that an employee must
make very carefully. This is a decision that the employee must make in
a very voluntary fashion. And if in fact the employee does that, then
the employee who has earned those hours off, this is not a gift, this
is earned by them working long days of overtime, the employee should be
free to choose when and how.
They keep comparing it to family medical leave. It is one thing to go
in to your employer and say, I have a sick child, a sick parent. We are
giving birth to a baby in our family. I need time off. It is another
thing to go in to your employer and say, I have a chance to spend 3
additional days with my kids at the lake. The employer looks at his
schedule and starts weighing those two competing choices. But you
earned this time. You earned this time. You worked late nights. You
worked Saturdays and Sundays. Truly, you have got to have that choice.
That is why this substitute is being offered, because the underlying
bill, H.R. 1, fails in each and every one of these categories to
protect the voluntary nature of the decision, to protect the choice, to
protect the flexibility and, most importantly, to protect the wages and
the benefits and, even down the road, the level of your Social Security
payments for those people who work. If they spend a career in comp
time, they will lose a substantial portion of their remuneration of
Social Security payments down the road.
So this is not just a delightful little decision that you make willy-
nilly. This has consequences for those families. That is why the
President drafted his comp bill in the manner in which he did, because
this is a decision that must be weighed and workers must be fully
informed.
The supporters of H.R. 1 like to suggest that just the standard of
``take it or do not take it'' is enough. It is not enough for the hard-
working American families of this country.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the
subcommittee and the sponsor of the bill on behalf of the folks I
represent, particularly union members whom I have heard from, is my
understanding correct that nothing under H.R. 1 would change the 40-
hour workweek?
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. I thank him
for emphasizing this point.
Mr. NEUMANN. So I am correct, then, that at any time worked, even 1
hour worked over the standard 40 hours, would entitle the employee to
time and one-half pay? Am I correct that this is the case under current
law and would be the case in the future under this legislation H.R. 1?
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
the gentleman is correct.
Mr. NEUMANN. Further, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman confirm my
understanding that under H.R. 1, employers could not force the
individual employee or union which represents the employee to accept
comp time as opposed to cash overtime as a condition of employment?
In other words, if the employee works overtime, is it correct that
the employer must pay cash overtime wages if that is what the employee
or the employee through his labor union chooses, instead of requiring
the employee to take time off through comp time?
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, some union members from my hometown in
Janesville, WI, particularly those that work in an automobile
manufacturing plant, have expressed concern to me that their employer
might require them to bank overtime hours and then use the hours at a
specified time by the company, particularly during the 2-week period of
time each year when the plant shuts down for model changeover.
My understanding is that under H.R. 1 the use of comp time is
voluntary and that by ``voluntary'' means that the employer, whether an
automobile manufacturer or some other type of company, would not be
able to require that comp time, if chosen by the employee, be taken at
a set period such as model changeover; is that correct?
Mr. BALLENGER. The gentleman is correct. Whether the agreement to
accept comp time is negotiated by the union or by the individual
employee, the use of comp time belongs to the employee who earned it.
Neither the employer nor the union may require an employee to use comp
time at a certain time.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for clarifying these
important points to me.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Miller substitute and in
opposition to this bill before us which weakens the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The Miller substitute includes the needed safeguards
without the penalties and disadvantages that are inherent in the basic
measure before the House today.
For over 50 years, the 40-hour workweek has insured fair treatment
and pay for working men and women. There is no need to change this law
today--the impact may well undercut workers' rights and benefits. No
matter how you package these changes, the bottom line is that workers
are at greater risk of being shortchanged and pushed to a work schedule
in line with the employers' interests, not their own needs.
If this House really were seeking to empower workers, they would
place limits on the mandated overtime policy that frustrate family and
personal life today.
Court decisions have provided the employer with the power to mandate
employees to work overtime beyond their defined 8 hours. This measure
would weaken the concept of premium pay for that mandated work and buy
workers off on the cheap. In fact, this bill would encourage more
overtime employer mandates at a tremendous inconvenience to the
employee.
I find it ironic that after all the speeches I have heard from the
Republican majority about working together and cooperation with the
President since the last election, that one of the first serious pieces
of legislation to reach the floor of this Congress is an initiative to
strip away the longstanding and hard-fought rights of working men and
women in this country which is opposed by the President. The bill
before us today is a direct assault on the Fair Labor Standards Act and
seriously
[[Page H1148]]
erodes the traditional 40-hour workweek in an unbalanced manner--
rejecting reasonable safeguards.
H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act, would allow employers
to grant compensatory time to workers instead of overtime pay as long
as there is a so-called voluntary mutual agreement or understanding.
Although this may seem like a reasonable concept on the surface, but
making a careful review and a realistic look at this legislation's
predicate points to the harm to workers. Apparently, my colleagues, in
support of this measure, intend to rely on the good nature of employers
and assume an equal authority between employer and employee since this
bill glosses over the facts and absurdly offers little to protect
workers from obvious pressure and abuse that could, and would, occur if
this measure is implemented. It makes me wonder if the advocates are
connected to the real world of work.
The bill before us today is so wholly inadequate that the bottom line
is that it comes down as antiworker legislation. The bill does little
to stop employers from forcing their workers to accept comptime instead
of pay--its anticoercing provision is weak and unenforceable; it does
nothing to stop employers from offering overtime work hours only to
workers who will choose comptime; it puts burdensome restrictions on
the use of comptime by workers; and it does little, if nothing, to
prohibit employers from hiring only workers that will accept comptime
as a condition of their employment. The legislation therefore is
seriously flawed.
Working families in this country are struggling to make ends meet.
Many families depend on the additional income of overtime pay to get
by. So when these families are forced to voluntarily mutually agree to
accept comp-time, they go without pay. Comptime does not pay the bills.
This will mean a pay cut for many American families.
This legislation is not necessary. Employers can grant time off
whenever an employee requests under the current law. This equation in
this measure is a fabrication, making a tradeoff which is not needed
and can only hurt workers without adequate safeguards. The best
safeguard is the current law in which the overtime is paid and the
employers are open to grant time off and, in fact, guided by the Family
Medical Leave Act recently enacted.
Finally, the claim that this measure is pro-working families, stands
logic on its head. Would every major employee representative group
oppose this measure if it were helpful to workers?
I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I rise to support this substitute, which includes many of the
Democratic amendments offered during the committee markup. Had the
majority been interested in a true bipartisan, pro-family approach to
comptime, it would have accepted our amendments. Instead they rejected
every proposal designed to improve this bill.
The Miller substitute allows employees a real opportunity to choose
in the use of comptime. For example, a worker who needs to spend a few
days with a sick parent could use comptime when he needs it, not when
it is OK with the boss. A mother who needs a week off during school
vacation can count on using her bank comptime and not be subject to the
last-minute whim of her employer.
The substitute safeguards employee wages and paid leave. It protects
vulnerable employees such as part-time, temporary, and seasonal
employees who have very little leverage in objecting to unreasonable
management demands.
It protects the comptime of employees by reducing the maximum banked
hours to 80. And it allows the Secretary of Labor to require that
employers obtain a surety bond so that employee wages are insured
against an employer who skips town or goes bankrupt.
The Miller substitute also insures that no employer can offer
comptime unless it also offers at least 24 hours of leave for employees
to participate in their children's school activities or to help an
elderly parent with routine medical appointments.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Miller substitute protects employees
against flagrant abusive behavior. This substitute gives families a
real choice of flexibility in the workplace, and it ensures comptime
will not be administered in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
Cynthia Metzler, Acting Secretary of Labor, recently wrote our
committee expressing the President's intent to veto H.R. 1. In that
letter she outlined the President's objections. First, H.R. 1 fails to
provide real worker choice. Second, it fails to protect employees'
protection against abuse. And third, it fails to preserve the 40-hour
workweek.
Mr. Chairman, if this House is serious about helping employees
balance their work and family responsibilities, we should adopt the
Miller substitute.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 5 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup].
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller
substitute and in support of H.R. 1. While the Miller substitute claims
to offer the option of comptime to workers, the truth is it would
continue to deny them that option. Under the Miller substitute, huge
groups, basically anybody that the Secretary of Labor deems should be
excluded, would be prohibited from receiving the benefits of this
comptime law.
In addition, the Miller substitute creates such a regulatory maze
that no employer would ever offer comptime at such an option. In a time
when the American public is calling for smaller government and less
regulatory burden, this substitute is a major step backward.
The only real comptime proposal here is H.R. 1. Mr. Chairman, I have
six children. As a working mother, I know the challenges of balancing a
family and a career. I know what it is like not to be able to attend
your daughter's swim meet or your son's soccer game because you have to
work. With this bill, an employer could give a mother or father the
opportunity to bank comptime. When a child got sick or had a recital or
had to go to the dentist, she can take time from that bank and spend
that time with her family. If she would rather receive overtime pay,
she has that option. If she decides to cash in those hours, her
employer would have to pay her within 30 days.
This is not a new idea. The public sector employees have had this
opportunity for years, and we need to give it to the private sector
employees.
I understand there are some workers that are afraid this will end
overtime pay. This simply is not the case. When I explain to
constituents what this bill means, they endorse it wholeheartedly. It
is too bad that some Members, for political gain, have once again
attempted to mislead hard-working Americans using scare tactics and
inaccurate information. I believe the public is too smart for this.
They support this bill, and they want that flexibility time.
Mr. Chairman, the President himself has talked about the need for
flexible work schedules. This bill supplies that.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, these are tough times for many Americans
as they struggle to make ends meet while balancing the challenges of
work and a family. Families rightly seek greater flexibility and
paycheck protection to meet their obligations at home and on the job.
Unfortunately, the Republican comp time bill makes it harder rather
than easier for these families.
The Republican bill fails to ensure that employees can use the comp
time when they need it, when they need to go to that soccer game, when
they need to spend time with their youngsters. Worse, it could take
valuable overtime pay out of an employee's pocket. It does not
guarantee that employees would not be forced to take comp time instead
of overtime pay. It does not guarantee that comp time would be offered
to all employees and without any strings attached. And it does not
guarantee that employees' comp time would be credited for the purposes
of pension or Social Security.
We need to have strong protections for workers who depend on overtime
pay. Two-thirds of those who earned overtime pay in 1994 had a total
annual family income of less than $40,000 a year and had an average
wage of $10 per hour or less.
That is why we need the serious protections that are provided by the
Miller substitute amendment. The Miller substitute ensures that
employees would choose if and whether to take the comp time rather than
overtime pay so that employees would not be forced to give up overtime
dollars. It
[[Page H1149]]
protects employees vulnerable to overtime abuses. And it ensures, if
comp time is offered, that all employees would be given the same terms
so that extra hours are not given only to those who are willing to take
comp time.
There are a number of amendments considered today, but the Miller
substitute can fix the fundamental problems of the Republican comp time
bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Miller substitute and
against the Republican paycheck reduction act.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Fawell], subcommittee chairman.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I oppose the Miller substitute. From my viewpoint, I spent some time
reading this arcane piece of legislation last night. But it is some 15
pages of confusion. It is a comp time bill I think in name only. There
are many objections, I think, one who reads this carefully would have.
I think it is a masterpiece of convoluted regulatory maze. But I am
only going to mention two points.
First of all, with regard to the definition of eligible employees,
that is to say, those employees who would be eligible for compensatory
time off in lieu of overtime, if one gets to page 10 and section 15(c),
we will find that there is what I call negative definitions of the
employees who would be able to take advantage of this choice about
which we have just heard.
It starts out by saying that the term employee does not include, and
then it says, part-time, temporary, or seasonal employees. Then you
have to jump over to another section for a definition of part-time,
temporary, and seasonal employees. But I notice that, for instance, in
that definition, anybody in the construction trades is automatically
ipso facto determined to be part-time and so nobody in the construction
trades, though they might have worked for the same employer for 40
years, would be able to have his compensatory time off choice.
It goes on to say that an employee will not include also anybody in
the garment industry. It does not define garment industry, so we are
going to have to let the Department of Labor, I guess the secretary
will tell us what garment industry is. But if you happen to be
classified in the garment industry, then you do not have any choice
under this bill either.
{time} 1600
Then it goes on to say, and this is really a beautiful, beautiful
example of convoluted positioning, it says that an employee has to be
one who is entitled to take not less than 24 hours of leave during any
12-month period to participate in school activities directly related to
the educational advancement of a son or daughter of the employee,
accompany such son or daughter to routine medical or dental
appointments, and accompany an elderly relative of the employee to
routine medical or dental appointments or appointments for other
professional services related to an elder's care.
That is the President's wording in regard to the Family and Medical
Leave Act, which, thus far, I do not think has had a hearing anyplace.
But basically, as I construe this, what it is saying is that if an
individual works for an employer who does not have that kind of leave,
and it does not even define whether it is paid leave or unpaid leave, I
guess we have to leave that up to the Secretary, too, but, anyway, if
an individual is employed in a place of employment like that, they do
not have a choice either.
Now, I would submit that that is probably most of America. Because
most of America has not even had the chance to adjust, if and when the
President's bill in regard to family and medical leave should pass.
It also goes on to say, oh, we have some more negatives we can talk
about. And it says that an eligible employee, eligible for compensatory
time out, for instance, should not be an employee exempted by the
Secretary under (13)(B). That causes one to travel over to (13)(B), and
(13)(B) says the Secretary may issue regulations regarding classes of
employees, including all employees in particular occupations or
industries, and the Secretary can evidently exempt any industry, any
occupation from being covered by this act.
So if an individual happens to be in an industry or occupation that
the Secretary has found not to be qualified, then they do not have a
choice under this legislation either. Basically, there is no choice for
much of anybody in this legislation, as I read it.
The other point I thought we should know about is the fact that it is
also stated, as I read it here, an employer who violates any provision
of this subsection, now we are on page 7, can recover, and I quote,
``Such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate
the purpose of this section.''
Do my colleagues know what that means? Compensatory damages or
punitive damages unlimited. And, remember, he has also thrown a new
discrimination cause of action into this legislation. Which means that
if anybody has discriminated on any of these little subtle bases here,
that is just an employer, then that employer can be sued for millions
of dollars and be able to have put against him a judgment for
compensatory and punitive damages.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I just thought people might like to know this.
This is not a very good piece of legislation.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Tauscher].
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my neighbor, the
gentleman from northern California, Mr. Miller, and his substitute
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have worked for 30 years, and the working parents and
families in my district are spending less and less time with their
families and young children. They are driving too long to the office.
Many of them get on airplanes to commute to make a sales call. Many
find themselves looking for opportunities for flexibility, and when
they hear the rhetoric of H.R. 1, many of them say, aha, perhaps there
it is.
The truth is that H.R. 1 appears to be well-intentioned but, in my
opinion, it does not offer the kind of flexibility, the kind of
voluntary options and the real money that American workers want. The
people of my district do not want to be forced into the position of
deciding whether the comp time to go to the soccer game is put at a
vexing choice of whether they have the money to buy the soccer shoes.
This is about real wages, Mr. Chairman. This is about the opportunity
to have people have the opportunity to spend the money that they expect
to be earning. Paycheck protection is the fundamental right of all
American workers. The opportunity to have pension and Social Security
money put forth by an employer is denied by H.R. 1.
I believe that we need to vote for this Miller substitute amendment.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Miller substitute because it basically removes all the benefits of the
bill.
When I started working as a teenager, well, actually at 11, I started
realizing real soon that government can get in the way when they kicked
me out of the fields because I was too young, even though I needed to
work. By the time I was in my 20's, I was running a corporation,
helping women, mostly middle class women who had raised their kids,
bring it all together.
If I had been a government employee or I had been a government
employer, I had the ability to adjust times, but I could not do it as a
private employer. So what I had to do was find uncomfortable options
that neither one of us liked.
What this bill simply does is it does protect the 40-hour work week.
It does not wipe it out. This amendment wipes out the ability to have
flex time. The bill does assure protection for employees, but it does
what 75 percent of the women in America polled said they wanted, and
that is the ability to have more flexibility as they are taking care of
their moms, sometimes their dads, their kids, and working. They have
the ability to work with an employer and put together a package that
works for them.
Why do we believe that we, as a government, are so good that we know
how to put together people's personal lives? I do not really believe we
do. I believe the protections, especially treble damages, that is
pretty scary, are built
[[Page H1150]]
into this bill for employers that would think that they should coerce.
I think the 40-hour work week is protected.
I am not sure I will support the Senate bill. I think it might weaken
the 40-hour work week. But I think, overall, American women will
finally have a chance to be heroes, as they are, and be able to do it
easier with flex time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez].
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute
offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller].
The Miller substitute to H.R. 1 is the real Working Families
Flexibility Act. The Republican bill is an impostor that will result in
paycheck reduction for all working families.
If the other side had been truly interested in helping working
families, then we would have created a bipartisan piece of legislation
and we would have been proud to present it to the American people.
Instead, we have a bill that was drafted behind closed doors and passed
along party lines in committee. This is unfortunate because it is an
opportunity missed.
I have been an employee for public service, I have been an employee
in private business, I have been an employee of a large business, I
have owned my own business, and I know that H.R. 1 could have balanced
the need of flexible work schedules and the requirements of employers.
In my congressional district there are more than 25,000 people who
make less than $15,000 per year. In addition, there are over 52,000
women who work and support their families. These women need the
security of knowing that they can depend on overtime pay or use comp
time to take care of their children.
While I support the idea of flexible work schedules, and I wanted to
support H.R. 1, the bill does not provide sufficient protections for
working families. During the markup, the committee could have restored
some balance to this bill. I joined my good friends, the gentlewoman
from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey],
and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney], in offering a
simple amendment that would have helped working families have a real
choice and real flexibility, but, unfortunately, our amendment was
turned down.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time to speak about an important issue to all working families.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1 and in opposition to
the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I think it
is a poison pill for this bill and it would literally gut this
excellent proposal.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of the distortions about what we
are doing here. We have heard this legislation would take money and
benefits out of the hands of hard-working individuals; that it would
give employers the upper hand; that it would harm our working families,
our hard-working families. If that is the case, why is it that
President Clinton's pollster is saying that 75 percent of working
families favor this bill, H.R. 1?
I think it is because they want the choice to take time off for their
families instead of receiving overtime compensation. Currently, most
employees have no choice. Government union employees do have this
choice, but the rest of us do not. We have to take the pay even if we
would rather have the time off.
The bill is for our workers and their families who do not have enough
hours in the day to spend together. It is for the mom or dad who wants
to go to school to see their child's play, visit their teacher or
attend a basketball game. It is for those of us who need to take extra
time to go to the doctor or take our children to the doctor. It is for
those of us that actually would sacrifice the overtime pay just to take
an extra vacation or a few days off to be with our kids or take care of
important personal items.
The most important part of this is to remember that this is paid
leave that the worker has earned, not unpaid family and medical leave
that often goes unused because, frankly, our workers cannot afford to
take the time off. Employees can make an intelligent and informed
decision about how to best use their overtime. Whether they use comp
time or take the pay is a decision they should make, not some
Washington bureaucrat.
The choice is simple, Mr. Chairman. Let us give our families and
workers the choice they deserve. Support H.R. 1 and oppose the Miller
amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez].
(Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment
and against H.R. 1. Give people the choice.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time have we
consumed; or how much time is left to both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has 18
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]
has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I was a working mother of four children. I
also have 20 years of experience as a human resources professional. I
know the challenges facing working moms and dads today. I know that for
things to work at home, parents need real flexibility in the workplace.
H.R. 1 does not help working parents because it does not let the
employee choose when to use the comp time they have earned.
The Miller substitute, however, is real comp time. It is real
flexibility. It gives employees three ways to use their comp time:
automatically, for family emergencies; at the employee's convenience,
with 2 weeks notice; and with less than 2 weeks notice when it does not
unduly disrupt business.
The Miller substitute stands up for working moms and dads, allowing
them the choices they need to perform their most important task:
parenting. Let us vote for comp time that really means something. Vote
for the Miller substitute.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. McCarthy].
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Miller-Clay substitute to H.R. 1.
When I talk with my constituents, they tell me they want Congress to
put aside partisan fighting and find commonsense solutions to important
issues. On comp time, they tell me they want a bill which provides
workers true flexibility and a true choice of when to use it.
I understand this issue firsthand. Before coming to Congress, I was a
nurse. I still am a nurse. Comp time would have been very attractive
for me, since I put in long hours that kept me away from my family. But
I also know that without real choice, there would have been many times
when I would have been asked to work, wanted to take time off and been
denied it. Instead of flexibility, I would have been left with no
overtime pay and a comp time bank from which I could never withdraw.
The fact of the matter is the vast majority of employers will treat
their workers right under comp time. But a small number will not, and
any law we pass must protect the most vulnerable workers whose bosses
will try to abuse the law.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Miller-Clay substitute,
because I believe it strikes the right balance between the needs of the
employer and the employee. Under the Miller-Clay proposal employees get
to decide when to use the comp time they have earned as long as it does
not cause substantial or grievous injury to the employer.
More importantly, the Miller-Clay substitute provides sensible
protections to employees who choose comp time.
{time} 1615
Under this plan comptime counts as hours worked for overtime so
employees will not be forced to work long hours later in the week.
Employees can be assured that if their business goes bankrupt, the
comptime hours they have accumulated will not be lost forever.
[[Page H1151]]
Finally, the Miller-Clay substitute gives workers 24 hours of leave
to attend a parent-teacher conference or take a sick parent to the
doctor. By helping workers who are struggling to make ends meet while
caring for their family, the Miller-Clay substitute is truly family
oriented.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute and in support
of H.R. 1. Under the substitute it occurs to me that the Secretary of
Labor would be empowered to deny comptime to basically anyone the
Secretary wants. The provision strikes at the very heart of H.R. 1,
which is giving freedom to workers and to employers.
The substitute creates a maze of new regulations and penalties.
Employers simply will not offer comptime for fear of making some kind
of an honest mistake and being taken to the cleaners.
There is only one proposal that meets the needs of workers and
employers, and that is H.R. 1. The bill gives workers and employers
what they want, the freedom to offer a new benefit, and the freedom to
decline or accept it. H.R. 1 should be titled Working Families Freedom
and Flexibility Act.
H.R. 1 breaks the barriers that have stopped the private sector from
offering a benefit that Americans have been demanding for quite some
time. This bill does so without a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate.
Employers will be free to listen to their workers and decide whether to
offer the benefit. Workers will be free to accept or refuse the
benefit. They can use the comptime or they can take the overtime wages.
It is entirely up to the employees.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 is a win-win for America. It provides freedom to
employers to offer a benefit without another bureaucratic government
mandate. It provides freedom for workers to take the time that they
have worked and use it to spend with their families or to take their
overtime pay.
For nearly 210 years, Congress has passed laws to ensure that the
American worker and the business sector have the opportunity to
succeed. H.R. 1 continues that fine tradition. I encourage my
colleagues to support this landmark legislation to reinvigorate the
idea of freedom in the workplace and oppose the substitute.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for
yielding time, and I rise in support of his substitute.
Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that someone listening to this debate
today might be awfully confused when they hear virtually everyone on
our side say the bill before the House puts the whip in the hands of
the employer and takes the choice away from the employee and hears
virtually everyone on the other side say exactly the opposite is true.
Let me tell my colleagues why I feel so strongly that we are right
about this argument. It has to do with the way the underlying bill that
we are seeking to amend is drafted.
If we have a situation where an employee who always chooses cash, or
has always chosen cash in the past, is denied overtime in the future
and an employee who always chooses comptime is given overtime in the
future, I think it is a fair conclusion that the other employees in
that workplace might get the message that if you choose cash you do not
get overtime. But if you choose comptime, you do. That effectively
takes the choice away from the employee and puts it in the hands of the
employer.
Our friends on the other side no doubt say that is not what the bill
says. The bill says that you have to offer the employee the choice.
That is true. That is literally what the bill says. But in practice let
me tell my colleagues what I believe would happen. The burden of proof
would be on the employee to hire a lawyer, go to court and show that
the employer intentionally chose to discriminate or deny overtime to
the employee who chose cash rather than comptime. The way you have to
meet that burden of proof, with all due respect, is impossible. There
is a saying in law that he or she who has the burden of proof loses. In
this case it would be the employee who would have that burden of proof.
How would you meet the burden of proof? You would have to find a
smoking gun. You would have to find a memo or an oral statement from an
employer that would say, ``Whatever we do, let's stop offering overtime
to people who choose cash rather than comptime.'' Very few employers,
first of all, I believe, would coerce their employees. I accept that.
But even fewer employers are going to be stupid enough to let such a
memo or oral statement be around. Very few people are going to meet
this burden of proof.
We then have the assertion that an employee can cash out their
comptime on demand. That may be what the written piece of paper says,
but that is not the reality, Mr. Chairman, because the same person who
is persuaded not to choose cash in the first place is very unlikely to
go back to an employer and demand cash in the second place. On paper
this sure looks like choice, but in the real world it sure looks like
coercion.
The Miller substitute meets those objections. It would truly put the
choice in the hand of the employee and not the employer. It would deal
with the situation where an employee has accumulated comptime and the
employer goes out of business by not permitting that situation to get
out of hand and accrue. If you really want worker choice, support the
Miller substitute.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. Hill].
Mr. HILL. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Miller substitute and to express
my strong support for the Working Families Flexibility Act. The Miller
substitute would create such a regulatory maze with such heavy
penalties that no employer would ever offer comptime. Make no mistake,
there is only one comptime bill before us, and that is H.R. 1.
H.R. 1 is very simple. It allows private sector employers to provide
comptime in lieu of overtime pay under an agreement with their
employees. If an employer chooses to make comptime available, the
employees have the option of having their overtime compensated with
cash or with paid time off. Employees who prefer to receive cash wages
for overtime hours worked would be free to continue to receive cash
payment for their overtime.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation does not change the 40-hour workweek
for the purposes of calculating overtime. Employees who work more than
40 hours over 7 days would continue to receive overtime at 1\1/2\ times
their regular pay. If the employer and employee agree on comptime, then
the paid time off would be granted at 1\1/2\ hours for each hour of
overtime worked. This arrangement for comptime must be a mutual
agreement between the employer and the employee. It is entirely
voluntary on the part of the employee. The legislation also protects
employees from being coerced into comptime or overtime.
Mr. Chairman, I owned a small business, about 20 employees, before
coming to Congress. My office policy was set up for exactly what this
legislation would achieve. If one of my employees wanted to go to a
track meet or had a parent-teacher conference during the workday, I
simply asked them to make up the time later on. It was a casual,
trusting relationship. That was until the Department of Labor told me
that it was wrong to provide this kind of flexibility to my employees
of balancing their work life with their family life.
But let me give another example, Mr. Chairman. There is an art
theater in Montana, in a small town. They perform at night and on
weekends. The theater has five employees who sometimes work 20 to 30
hours on the weekend in addition to their regular workweek. They
prepare the stage, visit schools, pack and unpack props and other
equipment. Currently these employees would willingly give up their
time, but they are breaking the law. With a comptime option, Mr.
Chairman, the employees could take off their time in subsequent
workweeks to make up for their overtime.
[[Page H1152]]
Mr. Chairman, there are 50,000 small businesses in Montana. Ninety
percent of them employ 50 or fewer employees. It is not the place of
the Federal Government to deny those small businesses in Montana the
opportunity to provide flexible workplaces.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Upton].
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, I rise in support of H.R. 1 and in
opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from California
[Mr. Miller]. I am a strong supporter of the bill before us, H.R. 1,
and was pleased to support it in the committee earlier this month.
Contrary to what my colleagues may hear today, the bill does not
affect the 40-hour workweek or existing rights of overtime pay. It also
has built-in protections and safeguards to ensure that employees are
not coerced into choosing comptime. The base bill allows employees to
decide how they want to be paid for their overtime work, either in
dollars or comptime.
I once had a job where this policy was in effect, both as an employee
as well as a boss, and I know that it works. When I no longer serve in
this Congress, I would strongly prefer a job where I could put in a 40-
hour week over 4 days and have a Monday or Friday off to spend time
with my family, and I would think that that would be a worthwhile and
attractive alternative to many of us in this Chamber today.
Today I have heard a lot about being forced to choose one or the
other. That does not happen. What we want to do is give workers the
opportunity to choose for themselves what they want. The opponents of
this legislation have offered lots of amendments, but they have not
offered an amendment to take away this benefit from those employees
that today have exactly this type of practice in the workplace. My
sense is if they did, that those employees that have that opportunity
today would raise a real hue and cry against what this Congress would
do.
Mr. Chairman, it works. I saw it work. We need to have this work for
all employees and that is why I am glad to support this legislation
this afternoon.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, the debate today really is about striking a
balance, about finding a way to meet the demands for flexibility that
employees all over this country have with our need to protect people
from decisions that employers might make to the disadvantage of that
employee. We are really talking about income protection here today.
I know that there has been some discussion about the importance of
letting individual employees decide and I agree, that is important. We
should let individuals decide. But I think that the other side protests
a little too much about that, and the speeches we have heard about how
demeaning it is to suggest that employees may need some protection
really does not look at the issue in a reasonable light.
I know, because for many years my husband and I lived on overtime. My
husband is an autoworker. He works in 1 of the 12 automobile plants in
my district. He has been an hourly worker for the entire time we have
been married. Overtime for many years paid for our Christmas presents.
It allowed us to take a summer vacation. It allowed us to make
additional payments on our cars. If that income were not available to
us, our life and our quality of life would have changed substantially.
Now, the argument is, is that the employee makes all the decisions
under this bill. Of course that is not true. The reason that people
have been so concerned on our side of the aisle about lower income
employees is because the people who most need the money, lowincome
employees, are the ones that are most susceptible to the kind of
pressure that an employer could put on them. Employers can put that
kind of pressure on an employee to choose time off rather than income,
or they can pick and choose between employees about who will get the
overtime, probably the one who will take time rather than money.
It is important that people realize while compensatory time is
valuable, you cannot buy bread with it, and for people who need the
income we have to be sure that this bill protects them and protects the
money that they need each and every week.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Paul].
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1 and in opposition to
the Miller amendment. The Miller amendment obviously would negate
everything we are trying to do in H.R. 1.
One of my favorite bumper stickers simply says ``Legalize freedom.''
I would like to think that is what we are doing here today, is
legalizing freedom to some small degree. The workers in the public
sector already have this right to use comp time. There is no reason why
the workers in the private sector cannot have this same right as well.
{time} 1630
The bedrock of a free society is that of voluntary contracts and it
is easy for many of those who oppose this bill to understand that
voluntary contracts and voluntary associations in personal and social
affairs is something that we have to respect. But there is no reason
why we cannot apply this to economic affairs as well. A true free
society would permit voluntary contracts and voluntary associations in
all areas, and it has not always been this way, as it is today, where
social liberty and economic liberty are separate. It has only been in
the 20th century that we have divided these two, and there is no reason
why we cannot look at liberty in an unified manner. Those individuals
who want freedom of choice in personal and social affairs should
certainly recognize that those of us that believe in economic freedom
ought to have those same choices.
This great division has occurred and has led to a great deal of
confusion in this country. Today, we are making this token effort to
relegalize in a very small manner this voluntary contract to allow
workers to make a freedom of choice on how they would like to use their
overtime, taking the money or using it as comptime. There is no reason
why we should prohibit this. It is legal in the public sector. There is
no reason why we cannot legalize a little bit of freedom for the worker
in the private sector as well.
Mr. Chairman, this act partially restores the right of employees to
contract with their employers to earn additional paid time off from
work in lieu of overtime pay when the employees works longer than 40
hours in a week.
I am pleased to support this bill, as it represents a modest step
toward restoring the freedom of contract. Freedom to form employment
contracts is simply a branch of the freedom of association, one of the
bedrocks of a free society. In fact, another good name for freedom of
contract is freedom of economic association.
When persons have the right to associate with whom they choose, they
will make the type of agreements that best suit their own unique needs.
Any type of Government interference in the freedom of association means
people will be forced to adjust their arrangements to satisfy the
dictates of Government bureaucrats,
For example, even though workers might rather earn compensatory time
so they may have more time to spend with their children and spouses
then accept paid overtime, the current law forbids them from making
such an arrangement. But Congress has decided all Americans are better
off receiving overtime pay rather than compensatory time, even if the
worker would prefer compensatory time. After all, Congress knows best.
The Founders of the country were champions of the rights of freedom
of association. Under the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government is
forbidden from interfering in the economic or social contracts made by
the people. As we all know, the first amendment prohibits Congress from
interfering with the freedom of association. There is nothing in the
history or thought of the Framers to indicate economic association was
not given the exact same level of protection as other forms of
association.
In fact, the emphasis placed by this country's Founders on property
and contract rights indicates the Founders wanted to protect economic
associations from Government interference as much as any other type of
associations.
Unfortunately, since the early years of the 20th century, Congress
has disregarded the
[[Page H1153]]
constitutional prohibition on Federal regulation of freedom of economic
association, burdening the American people with a wide range of laws
controlling every aspect of the employer-employee relationship. Today,
Government presumes to tell employers whom they may hire, fire, how
much they must pay, and, most relevant to our debate today, what types
of benefits they must offer.
Behind these laws is a view of the function of Government
quite different from that of the Founders. The Founders believed
Government's powers were limited to protecting the liberties of the
individual. By contrast, too many in Congress believe Government must
function as parent, making sure citizens don't enter into any contracts
of which the national nanny in Washington disapproves.
I note with some irony that many of the same Members who believe the
Federal Government must restrict certain economic association claim to
champion the right of free association in other instances.
For example, many of the same Members who would zealously defend the
right of consenting adults to engage in voluntary sexual behavior free
from State interference. Yet they are denying those some individuals
the right to negotiate an employment contract that satisfies these
unique needs.
Yet the principle in both cases is the same, people should have the
right to contract and associate freely with whomever, on whatever terms
they choose, they choose without interference from the Central State.
As has been often mentioned in this debate, 75 percent of employees
surveyed by the polling firm of Penn & Schoen favored allowing
employees to take compensatory time in lieu of overtime. Yet Members of
Congress, who not only claim to favor freedom of association but claim
to care for the workers, will not allow them the freedom to contract
with their employees for compensatory time.
What arrogance and hypocrisy. If employees feel that compensatory
time would benefit them, and employers, eager to attract the best
employees, are willing to offer compensatory time, what right does
Congress have to say ``No, you must do it our way?''
Congress has no right to interfere with private, voluntary contracts
whether between a husband and wife, a doctor and patient, or an
employer or an employee.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to lift the federally imposed burdens on the
freedom of association between an employer and employee. As a step in
that direction, I will vote for the unamended Working Family
Flexibility Act and I call on all my colleagues who support individual
liberty and freedom of association to join me in supporting this pro-
freedom, pro-worker bill.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to the Miller
substitute and in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 1. The
Miller substitute has many problems, among them it effectively denies
comptime to many American families by setting up classes of ineligible
workers, and as my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Fawell, so ably showed,
it makes unlikely an employer would ever offer comptime to employees
because of a new maze of Federal regulatory requirements.
As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, as I have listened to this
debate it has stimulated me to go back and read this bill. This is not
rocket science. This bill is only eight pages long. Basically what this
bill says is, on page 3, an employer can provide comptime to employees
only if, A, the employees union agrees to it, or B, the individual has
chosen to receive comptime in lieu of mandatory overtime compensation.
And what happens then if an employee decides he does not like it? Well
then you move on to the next page, page 5, an employee may withdraw an
agreement described in this paragraph at any time. An employee may also
request in writing that monetary compensation be provided at any time
for all compensatory time accrued that has not been used. And then, Mr.
Chairman, what happens if an employer abuses this? Well, then they are
subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill. If my colleagues would listen
to one side and the other side, they would wonder who is telling the
truth. My suggestion is: Read the eight pages of this bill and vote for
H.R. 1 and vote against the Miller substitute.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues who have joined in this
debate this afternoon.
There is a very fundamental, a very fundamental difference between
these two pieces of legislation. We believe that one of the fundamental
differences is about really preserving the truly voluntary choice by
the employee, about truly voluntary flexible scheduling by the employee
and making sure again that preserving the choice of the employee about
when to use his time. We also have a very fundamental difference, and a
number of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle spoke to it.
We believe that there are people unfortunately in this country who are
very vulnerable workers, who work in industries with a long history of
running on their workers' pay, on not sending their contributions to
the State unemployment board, of not sending the tax contributions to
the IRS, of not paying into Social Security. Unfortunately, some of
these people may be well intentioned but rather under capitalized, and
they constantly are taking what the employee has earned and using that
to run their business, and then the employee is left holding the bag.
It happens to tens of thousands of employees all of the time in this
country. Hundreds of thousands of employees have been denied overtime
that they have worked for and that they have earned according to the
Department of Labor.
So what are we saying? We are saying in those industries where you
have a history of these kinds of activities, the Secretary of Labor
ought to be able to say whether or not those employers ought to be able
to engage in comptime because let us understand what one does with
comptime:
``You agree to work overtime. You agree to work more than 8 hours,
more than 40 hours. You agree to work at night. You agree instead of
going home at the end of your shift you're going to stay and do some
additional work. A lot of that work is real hot and it's real heavy and
it's real dangerous, but that's what you agree to do and you've earned
that. You should be protected then against the ability of an
unscrupulous employer to run on the obligation.''
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that a number of speakers have gotten up
and spoken about that provision of this bill, but we do believe, we do
believe, that those people ought to in fact be protected. They can
exercise the choice, but they ought to know what the choice is about,
and if it is in an industry, then the Secretary of Labor ought to try
and determine whether or not we ought to put these people's wages,
these people's wages at risk in the case of where we have a history of
unscrupulous employers.
So there is a fundamental difference about these two pieces of
legislation. I would hope, I would hope that those who are truly
interested in providing the real choice of comptime versus overtime and
real flexibility for families to use it when they need it and can help
their families will vote for the Miller substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time with my
understanding the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be the last speaker.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 6
minutes.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
I have to wonder where we have been the last couple years because the
last time we had this legislation before the committee in the last
session of Congress there were no amendments offered in committee, and
there was no substitute offered on the floor. This year there were some
amendments offered in committee, and we took some of those and included
them in my amendments here on the floor, but only one amendment was
offered from the other side. So, as my colleagues know, where have we
been all of this time?
I have many objections to the substitute. First of all, I do not
question the intention of the substitute, but I do very pointedly say
that it positively guts the whole bill, and I can substantiate that by
saying, well, there are seven broad areas that we are exempting, and
then if that is not enough, we get down to the point where we say,
``and the Secretary can exempt anybody else,'' so we could end up no
one
[[Page H1154]]
has the opportunity, except again the public sector, which has had that
opportunity for a long, long time.
The substitute prohibits comptime for all part-time temporary
seasonal employees, all employees in the garment industry, all
employees not entitled to take 24 hours of leave per year for family
member, for school activities or routine medical care; all employees in
the construction industry; all employees in agricultural employment.
The part-time prohibition is further defined to prohibit comptime for
any employee working less than 35 hours per week, and there is no
specific definition of the construction of the garment industry. The
agricultural employee, construction and garment prohibitions appear to
extend to all the employees even if they could be a secretary that has
worked there full-time for 15 years.
Now beyond all of that, all these specific exemptions with respect to
the use of compensatory time, the Miller substitute takes what has been
a fairly straightforward rule and now makes it so convoluted that I
cannot imagine that anybody would understand who is eligible, what is
available, and what is not available.
Now we talk over and over again about the protections in the bill,
and again I want to repeat, as I have many times today, H.R. 1 says,
``You can use your comptime for any purpose so long as you give
reasonable notice and the use does not unduly disrupt the employer's
operation.'' These are the exact same tests as in State and local
government and similar to that in the Family and Medical Leave Act for
medical leave.
The Miller amendment says that if any employee is using comptime for
purposes covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act or any comparable
State law, they do not have to give any notice, and it does not matter
what the impact is on business for any purpose. If they give 2 weeks'
notice, they follow one rule; if they do not give 2 weeks' notice, they
follow another rule. As I said, it becomes very confusing and
convoluted, and then of course there is unlimited punitive compensatory
damages to be awarded, far beyond even our civil rights legislation.
So let me just wrap up by saying reject the substitute and listen
again. I think we have all agreed now that the 40-hour work week is
saved. I think everybody now who has read it agrees to that. We know
that it gives private sector employees the same opportunity the public
employers have but with more protection then they have. We know that
employees are just as good in the private sector as employees are in
the public sector, just as bright, just as able to make decisions as
anybody in the public sector, and therefore we should give them the
same opportunity that we give those in the private sector.
We do not want to say to those in the private sector that because
they are in the private sector, somehow or other only the Federal
Government can determine whether they should have this opportunity. It
is the employee's choice. The employee is completely protected to make
that choice. The employee can cash out when they want to cash out. The
employee can break the contract that they made if they decide that they
do not really want to do that. So it is a win, win, win situation for
the employee because we have protected them in this legislation.
So again I ask my colleagues, reject the substitute which guts the
entire bill and vote yes on H.R. 1.
One additional comment:
These staffs on both sides have worked day and night, and I certainly
want to pay tribute to them for all the work that they have put in. It
was not only Members that were working; there were staff members who
were working, as I said, day and night.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if they got compensatory
time or not, or overtime. I hope we were within the law in relationship
to our employees.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and myself would like to join in commending
the staffs. They have worked long and hard on this legislation, and I
would also like to thank the chairman of the committee in the spirit of
Hershey this year. We had a wonderful opportunity to offer amendments,
and we appreciate that opportunity in committee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment to H.R. 1, the Working Family Flexibility Act offered by the
Honorable George Miller.
I appreciate the need for the American worker to have the flexibility
to choose between overtime pay and compensatory time.
Without this body's action on this issue, many employees in this
country have compensatory time as an accomplished fact of their work
life. These compensatory time agreements may be provided as a part of
binding labor contracts or informal or formal work agreements.
The Fair Labor Standards Act does not require employers to pay
overtime based on hours worked in a single day. When an employee who
normally works five 8-hour days a week needs to take a few hours off
during the week, the employer can let the employee leave work early 1
day and stay late the next without having to pay overtime, so long as
the total hours worked for the week is no more than 40.
Employers can also accommodate an employee who needs to take time off
1 week by letting them take the time off without pay. If the employee
is concerned about the loss of pay, the employer can authorize the
employee to work enough overtime another week to make up the lost time.
The problem with making any changes to the overtime pay requirements
is the impact on workers face loss of pay due to employer violations of
overtime pay laws.
Complaints under the Fair Labor Standards Act may involve alleged
violations of minimum wage, overtime, recordkeeping, and/or child labor
requirements. The Wage and Hour Division received nearly 35,000
complaints in fiscal year 1996.
In fiscal year 1996, 13,687 compliance actions disclosed overtime
violations. These represent nearly 50 percent of those in which Fair
Labor Standards Act monetary--minimum wage or overtime--violations were
found.
The Wage and Hour Division last year found just over $100 million in
back wages due to overtime violations owing to nearly 170,000 workers.
If there were only well intended employers and well meaning employees
their would be no need for rules and regulations to govern the work
environment.
I believe that this amendment to H.R. 1 will offer necessary
protections to American workers who may not work in the conditions that
we could endorse with an open compensatory time bill.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as modified, offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
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 193,
noes 237, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 58]
AYES--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
[[Page H1155]]
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--237
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
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
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
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, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--2
Frank (MA)
Kaptur
Messrs. HOUGHTON, RILEY, and SMITH of Texas changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HILLIARD and Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Kolbe) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) to amend
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for
employees in the private sector, pursuant to House Resolution 99, he
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 210, not voting 1, as follows:
[Roll No. 59]
AYES--222
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
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
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--210
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
[[Page H1156]]
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--1
Kaptur
{time} 1721
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________