[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.

                          ____________________