[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 63 (Tuesday, May 7, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2450-H2459]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1240
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1406, WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY 
                              ACT OF 2013

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 198

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1406) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
     provide compensatory time for employees in the private 
     sector. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce; (2) the further amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 
     offered by Representative Gibson of New York or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 198 provides for a structured rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 1406, the Working Families 
Flexibility Act of 2013.
  Madam Speaker, it's hard to raise a family and earn a living at the 
same time. The reality is that every hour you spend working to provide 
for your family is an hour you can't spend with your family, seeing 
your children off the first day of school, taking them to a doctor's 
appointment, or attending parent-teacher conferences. As a mother who 
worked while my daughter was growing up, I understand the firsthand

[[Page H2451]]

struggles of working parents. That is why my colleagues and I have 
introduced H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act.
  This commonsense legislation will allow private sector workers to 
choose paid time off instead of cash wages as compensation for working 
overtime, which is the same privilege that Federal, State, and local 
government employees have been able to choose for over 30 years.
  The Working Families Flexibility Act is pro-family, pro-worker 
legislation that gives workers the flexibility to spend time with 
family, attend parent-teacher conferences, care for aging parents, or 
attend to other family needs that may arise.
  If an employer and an employee agree on comp time, then the paid time 
off must be granted at time-and-a-half for each hour of overtime 
worked. Labor unions support flexible overtime compensation for their 
own members, and this benefit is already included in many public sector 
union collective bargaining agreements.
  The flexible approach offered by this bill has worked for public 
sector employees since 1985. If the policy works for our public service 
employees, it will work for our private sector employees, as well. Fair 
is fair, Madam Speaker.
  The bill maintains protections for workers to ensure that this new 
flexibility is not abused by making the decision to receive comp time 
completely voluntary and allows an employee to change his or her mind 
if he or she initially chooses comp time but later decides to receive 
cash wages for overtime. All existing protections in the Fair Labor 
Standards Act remain in effect under this legislation, and it is up to 
the employee when he or she decides to use accrued comp time. 
Additionally, an employee cannot be intimidated, coerced, or otherwise 
forced to accept comp time in lieu of cash wages for overtime.
  The legislation also maintains all existing enforcement remedies for 
employees if an employer fails to uphold the agreement, and employers 
must provide 30 days' notice to employees if comp time will no longer 
be offered.
  H.R. 1406 provides proper protection and flexibility for employees 
and will help American workers better balance the needs of family and 
the workplace. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill, which should be called the More Work, Less Pay bill.
  As my colleagues know, last week Majority Leader Cantor outlined his 
party's agenda for the month of May. The words he used to describe it 
was as a ``full legislative agenda,'' yet here we are only debating 
this bill on the floor of the House and I think finishing the business 
of the House around 1:30 p.m. today with plenty of time for Members of 
Congress to play golf, to go to the beach, whatever they want to do. 
This is hardly a full legislative agenda.
  Let me add, Madam Speaker, that this bill is about overtime. Under 
this current legislative agenda, Congress wouldn't even come close to 
qualifying for overtime at a time when we have increasing national 
needs, balancing the budget, moving forward with jobs and the economy, 
comprehensive immigration reform. There are so many issues crying out 
for our attention, but here we are debating yet another bill that not 
only won't go anywhere, but also would actually make life harder and 
more unpredictable for American families.
  This bill claims to provide working families flexibility, but in 
reality it allows employers to avoid paying overtime and get interest-
free loans from their own employees.
  There are many hourly employees who struggle holding two or three 
jobs, depending on overtime to pay bills, to keep food on the family 
table. If this bill were to become law, employers would be able to save 
a couple of bucks by essentially requiring people, in effect, to take 
comp time instead of overtime pay if they want extra hours.
  Many American workers want to work more, not less. Under this bill, 
people's paychecks would be reduced and people don't have a real 
choice. It's no wonder that the vast majority of labor unions and 
workers oppose this bill and are not asking for this bill or this 
``kind of help.''
  I also want to correct something that has been claimed by my 
Republican colleagues, that somehow this bill gives private sector 
employees the same protections as public sector employees. That is not 
true. Most public sector workers are already protected against 
arbitrary and unfair treatment by civil service laws. Private sector 
workers don't have anything like that kind of protection.
  That's why my colleague, Mr. Tim Bishop of New York, offered an 
amendment in committee specifying that private sector employers could 
provide comp time instead of overtime if they provided the same job 
security protections that public employees already receive. But this 
amendment was voted down in the Rules Committee yesterday, and we're 
not even allowed here on the floor of the House, where we're going to 
finish by 1:30 p.m., to have a debate. Somehow, there is not even 
enough time. Ten minutes is all we asked for on Mr. Bishop of New 
York's amendment.
  Madam Speaker, the presentation of this bill is not consistent with 
the content of the bill. Of course it sounds good. Why wouldn't 
employees want the choice of being able to choose how they take their 
time? It all sounds good.

                              {time}  1250

  But like so many things that Congress does, the devil is in the 
details.
  Contrary to what this bill says, employers can already give their 
employees time off if they so choose. Many do. We had Representative 
Joe Courtney in our Rules Committee yesterday who talked about when he 
was in the private sector and he had employees who had to attend school 
meetings, et cetera, he gave them time off. That's what most 
responsible employers do. We don't need legislation to tell employers 
it's okay to give their employees comp time.
  Contrary to what the majority party here in the House says, employees 
wouldn't get paid under this bill until the end of the year for saved 
comp time--at no interest. No interest. So effectively, an interest-
free loan to the company. Let's say an employee does overtime, works 45 
hours a week for 3 weeks, accruing 15 hours of overtime. If they want 
this so-called flexibility that's provided under this bill, they choose 
to say, ``I may use this as comp time.'' That's their choice. However, 
they pay dearly for that choice in a number of ways.
  Number one, if they don't use that comp time after a year, they get 
paid the original amount by the company. While it is true that if they 
got a raise in the intervening period, they get paid at that level of 
the raise, there is no accounting for interest or the net present value 
of those dollars. That's less of an impact when inflation is 1 or 2 
percent, but still, it's an interest-free loan to the company. There's 
a much greater impact should interest rates ever return to their 
historical norms. And it wasn't that long ago that interest rates were 
in the high single digits, even double digits, effectively taking money 
from the worker and giving it to the company.
  Number two, let's say the employer does want to use this comp time. 
Effectively, the employer has a unilateral veto over that. All they 
have to do is show that it creates undue disruption. That's the 
standard of unilateral employer veto.
  Now, this is nothing like what occurs under the Family and Medical 
Leave Act, the FMLA. We've heard them say it's the same; it's not. 
Under FMLA it's a factor that leave doesn't create undue disruption. 
There's a variety of factors. It's not a sole determinant as determined 
by the employer.
  In this case, the language is wide open to effectively provide a 
complete veto right of when that employee takes their time off. So 
again, our friend works 45 hours a weeks for 3 weeks, accrues 15 hours 
of overtime, and they get sold on this program. They say, ``I'll set 
aside the 15 hours.'' They try to take it off for their kid's birthday, 
they try to take it off when their kid is home from school. The 
employer says, ``No, you can't take it off that week.'' So it turns out 
that at the end of the year they still have their 15 hours.

[[Page H2452]]

They finally get paid, but because of net present value and interest, 
they are out 2 or 3 percent of that. Again, with higher interest, they 
could be out 10 percent. They could be out 15 percent of that. We can 
and must do better for American workers.
  This bill would have a devastating impact for workers in my home 
State of Colorado. Me and my staff talked to Debbie Olander from United 
Food and Commercial Workers, Local 7. Debbie is a leader in our 
community, and she told me that wage step is already a big problem for 
workers in Colorado, and this bill would make it easier for employers 
to avoid overtime obligations and make it harder for employees who need 
those hours to pay those bills.
  What happens if the employer goes out of business in the intervening 
year? Of course, the person whose wages are due can line up with other 
creditors, but who has the time or, if you're living paycheck to 
paycheck, the ability to wait to see if you ever get paid by a bankrupt 
employer? Instead of improving the lives of working families by giving 
greater flexibility, this bill allows employers to avoid paying 
overtime.
  My Democratic colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee and 
I agree that we must give working families flexibility to meet 
workplace and family needs. That's why we support bills like the 
Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help ensure that women are paid as 
much as men in the workplace, and the Healthy Families Act, which would 
establish a national paid sick day standard.
  I've also heard from hundreds of workers from my district and across 
the country who support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which 
would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and 
gender identity. In more than half of the States, it's still perfectly 
legal in this day and age for an employer to fire an employee just 
because they're gay and what they do in their off work time. It's none 
of the employer's business who an employee is dating. To think that in 
this day and age it's legal in half the States for an employer to fire 
an employee because of who they're dating is absolutely absurd. We need 
to solve that by passing the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.

  American workers are asking for these kinds of protections, unlike 
this sort of program that's being discussed today, which workers oppose 
or don't see as necessary. Well, you know, based on again the schedule 
for Congress, me and my colleagues aren't about to accrue any overtime 
anytime soon unless things change around here. Here we are, examining 
bills that are catchy, have good titles, might sound good on the 
surface, but don't address any of the real issues faced by American 
workers, the American economy, or our country as a whole. We need an 
agenda that's consistent with the needs of working families.
  Madam Speaker, despite this fixation on changing the image and 
appealing to voters, many on the other side of the aisle seem to be 
recycling old ideas. In fact, an identical version of this bill was 
introduced in 1996, 1997, and 2003. It failed to pass the House each 
time. Madam Speaker, what this body needs is not just new branding, it 
needs new ideas, ideas that will actually help working families and 
make our country stronger.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Madam Speaker, this bill sounds good because it is good. This is the 
theme from our colleagues across the aisle: everything about the 
private sector is bad; everything about government is good. That is 
their constant theme. This bill allows voluntary participation by 
employees. It does not require things.
  I would also like to point out to my colleague from across the aisle, 
who is very quick to point out any mistake that I might make, is we did 
not have an amendment from Representative Bishop in the Rules Committee 
yesterday. Representative Bishop's amendment was offered in the 
Education Committee, but was not offered in the Rules Committee 
yesterday.
  I would also like to say that government employees do not get 
interest paid on the time that they eventually get paid for instead of 
comp time, so we are not setting up a double standard here. What we're 
trying to do is eliminate a double standard, again, that our colleagues 
across the aisle love to have--bash the private sector.
  Madam Speaker, we live in the greatest country in the world, and what 
made us a great country? Look at the rest of the world. What's made us 
a great country is the rule of law, which means we believe everybody 
should be treated the same way. It's our capitalistic system which has 
worked wonderfully well for this country, and every other system has 
failed all across the world. We don't need to do much but to look at 
what is happening in the rest of the world and how sorry their 
economies are, and it's our Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Those are 
the things that I think have made us great, Madam Speaker, and this 
bill will allow us to give people who work in the private sector, which 
is part of what's made us such a great country, the same privileges 
that people get who work in the public sector.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  As a working mom, I know how tough it is to occasionally miss family 
events. And whether it's a parent-teacher conference, a soccer or a 
football game, or helping my mom, my family always comes first. That is 
why I support this bill.
  The Working Families Flexibility Act would help hardworking Americans 
be there for their families by allowing all workers the same 
opportunities to manage their work-life balance.
  Government employees have enjoyed the ability to exchange overtime 
pay for comp time for nearly 30 years, and it is not fair or logical to 
continue to prevent private sector employees from having access to this 
very same benefit. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is out of touch 
with reality, and it needs updating. We're not talking about creating a 
new regulation or forcing folks to give up overtime pay. This pro-
worker, pro-family bill simply provides comp time as a voluntary option 
for private sector employees who want it instead of overtime pay.

                              {time}  1300

  There are many employee protections in this bill, and a worker can 
take their comp time whenever they choose, as long as they provide 
reasonable notice and avoid disrupting business operations. Workers can 
also cash out on their comp time for any reason, at any time, and the 
employer would be required to fulfill that request in 30 days.
  This type of legislation is the exact reason I ran for Congress and 
why I'm proud to be a Republican: to make sure laws passed in 
Washington help people and don't make life more difficult for Kansans 
and their families.
  I encourage my colleagues in the House to support this bill that will 
empower working moms and dads by giving them more control and freedom 
to be there for their families.
  Mr. POLIS. Before further yielding, I yield myself a moment to 
respond.
  I thank the gentlelady for the correction. What I was referring to is 
the vote in the Rules Committee yesterday on an open rule which we 
voted on in committee. Had we considered this bill under an open rule, 
I or Mr. Bishop, or any other Member of this body, could have brought 
forth his amendment.
  You're correct, it was not submitted to the Rules Committee. It was 
offered in the committee of jurisdiction, on which I also serve. And I 
argued, you might recall, to the chair yesterday that this bill is a 
fine candidate for an open rule. Given that there's nothing else this 
body's doing today and we're getting done at 1:30, we might as well 
allow amendments like Mr. Bishop's and others to be able to be debated 
by the House and considered by the full House.
  I also want to discuss something that the gentlelady said, something 
about how a mischaracterization of the opponents of this bill is 
somehow saying the private sector is bad or the government's good. I 
haven't heard anybody argue that. The private sector is great. The 
private sector is a chief engine of economic growth. This discussion is 
about the private sector.

[[Page H2453]]

  In fact, it's the other side that's somehow trying to model policies 
that they say already exist in the public sector and force the private 
sector to comply with them. We're not here seeking to try to copy what 
exists in the public sector and apply it to the private sector. The 
private sector is the primary engine of economic growth.
  I think where perhaps we disagree is that I hear from many on the 
other side that somehow government is bad. I believe, and many on my 
side believe, that the minimum amount of government is necessary to 
ensure the success of the private sector, to ensure the rules are 
followed and there's an open and competitive environment that allows 
the private sector to thrive and succeed and create jobs for American 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the managers of this legislation. And I 
think it should be made very clear, since we'll have a general debate 
that I hope to engage in, that the underlying premise of this bill, 
H.R. 1406, is two simple points, and H.R. 1406 undermines this point.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act only provides the incentive for 
employers to adhere to the 40-hour workweek by paying time and a half. 
H.R. 1406 removes that fundamental requirement and allows employers to 
pay nothing for overtime work at the time the work is performed.
  I, too, am sensitive to those who want to join with their families, 
and clearly, that opportunity is there. But if you allow this bill to 
go forward, you take the choice out of the hands of the employee. And 
if you are looking at a boilermaker, or those in manufacturing, and a 
boilermaker can have close to 210 overtime hours making a certain 
amount per hour, literally, if you force them to take comp time and not 
be paid, you would cause them to lose their time and a half, and they 
would lose almost $6,000 in income.
  I can tell you, with the economic divide between the top 1 percent 
and working Americans, many people work overtime in order to receive 
payment. And I think that H.R. 1406 goes in the wrong direction.
  What I would encourage my colleagues to do is to spend some time 
discussing the budget, passing a budget, ending sequestration, creating 
opportunities for the private sector to hire more people; and, frankly, 
the private sector would do well to cut their costs by hiring 
additional persons.
  So I oppose the rule and the underlying bill, and, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent at this time to bring up H.R. 900, which would end 
sequestration at this time and begin to put us on the right track to 
ensure that we end the cuts in air traffic controllers, in Homeland 
Security, in Head Start, in Medicare, Medicaid, Meals on Wheels, and 
begin to get this Nation back on track.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the Rule on H.R. 1406, 
the so-called ``Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013.'' I thank 
Ranking Member Miller for this opportunity to speak on behalf and in 
support of the working women and men in my District and against this 
rule because it does not fix this very flawed bill.
  If the Education and the Workforce Committee had accepted Congressman 
Joe Courtney's amendment in the nature of a substitute when the bill 
was marked up in full Committee--workers would have something to be 
cheering about today. His amendment would have created 56 hours of paid 
medical leave for employees to use when they needed it.
  The rule for this bill should be open and allow us to do something to 
help workers and their families. When the economy is weak--workers and 
their families need more protection not less.
  Under current law (the Fair Labor Standards Act), employers are 
required to pay workers time-and-a-half cash for hours worked in excess 
of 40 hours per week.
  The bill's text suggests that existing workers will retain their 
right to receive overtime pay and that only new employees would fall 
under the ``comp time'' provisions. The bill attempts to divide 
existing workers and new workers by denying one group of workers 
something as basic as equal pay for equal work. This may lead some 
employers to prefer their workers who are not protected by wage laws.
  The reality is all workers in this economy face the potential fallout 
from a change in labor laws that reduce protection of monetary 
compensation for work done.
  The bill fails to mention that workers already have the right to ask 
for ``comp time'' within any 40 hour workweek when they need it. What 
is not allowed is an employer making the decision that workers must 
take ``comp time'' when they work overtime.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 established the 40-hour 
workweek to allow employees to spend more time away from work and 
encourage employers to hire more staff when workloads increase. The 
FLSA's only incentive for employers to maintain a 40-hour workweek is 
the requirement that they pay a time-and-a-half cash premium for 
overtime.
  The cost of labor is a factor in helping to expand the numbers of 
employed persons in our nation. When employers see the cost savings 
associated with hiring more workers as the hours worked by existing 
employees increase labor cost due to overtime pay--they hire more 
workers.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts overtime as a benefit not as 
pay. If the result of the bill is to have employees work more hours, 
but without the guarantee of compensation--it is flawed.
  This bill also makes it harder for America's workers to have their 
rights enforced by the Department of Labor. Amending the law to weaken 
work for pay requirements would result in even more widespread 
violation of the overtime law and more workers working longer hours for 
less pay.
  Under the rule for H.R. 1406, employers can schedule workers to work 
up to 160 hours of ``comp time.'' Workers will be cheated out of their 
accrued overtime earnings when their employer goes bankrupt.
  I stand today with America's workers. We are united in opposition to 
H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. We should not 
be wasting time on legislation that is going nowhere. Instead we should 
be focused on the real problems facing Americans, like creating jobs, 
ending the Sequester, and helping businesses grow.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to call up for immediate 
consideration H.R. 900, the Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013.
  If Congress wants to do something for workers we should end the 
sequester.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). Under guidelines consistently 
issued by successive Speakers as recorded in section 956 of the House 
Rules and Manual, the Chair is constrained not to entertain the request 
unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee 
leaderships.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Working 
Families Flexibility Act. This legislation would remove an outdated 
Federal mandate that prohibits private sector workers from benefiting 
from the personal option of flextime. Public sector employees have had 
the flextime option for 30 years, and it's time private sector workers 
had the same opportunity to spend more time with their families or more 
time engaged in other interests away from the workplace.
  The State of Missouri has allowed flextime for years for a variety of 
State agencies like the Missouri State Water Patrol. The Lake of the 
Ozarks is in my district and is a destination for many during the warm 
summer months, and the Water Patrol work long, hard days over the 
summer to keep order on the lake and ensure safety for boaters, skiers, 
and swimmers.
  With Missouri's seasonal climate, these State workers have taken 
advantage of working long summer days and saving flextime in the winter 
months for extended vacations or other seasonal work. These workers 
enjoy the flexibility and income stability of their jobs, and it works 
out to be mutually beneficial for the employees and the State. This 
commonsense labor provision makes the Water Patrol officer a very 
popular career choice and encourages the type of competition that has 
led to continuous quality in the force.
  The Working Families Flexibility Act would modernize outdated 
regulations to allow private sector workers in Missouri's Fourth 
District and elsewhere to voluntarily choose paid time off as 
compensation for the overtime hours they work. It will remove the 
obstacles standing in the way of working families and will allow 
working women to better balance their work and family obligations.
  As a working wife and mother, I understand how important it is to 
have a schedule that is flexible when children unexpectedly get sick or 
when high

[[Page H2454]]

school graduation nears and mothers need extra time to celebrate the 
child's accomplishments.
  I support this commonsense legislation that allows flexibility for 
American workers and gives the power back to the workers and employers 
to voluntarily work together and find a solution that works best for 
everyone.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for this pro-family legislation.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 377, Representative 
DeLauro's Paycheck Fairness Act. To discuss her bill, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the previous question. Defeat of 
the previous question will allow the gentleman from Colorado to amend 
the rule to provide for consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, an 
act that addresses the persistent problem of unequal pay in our economy 
and would help to make the bill before us a real boon for workers and 
families.
  Today, women are now half of the Nation's workforce. They are still 
only being paid 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men. And this 
holds true across all occupations and education levels. And for women 
of color, the disparities are even worse.
  Let's take this body, the U.S. Congress, the House of 
Representatives. We come from all over the country. We have different 
educational backgrounds. We have different skill sets and different 
philosophies. And yet, while we are all men and women here, we get paid 
the same amount of money. That is not true for most women in the United 
States of America.
  The only other institution in which there is same job, same pay, men 
and women, is in the U.S. military

                              {time}  1310

  Less pay for women means less pay for the entire family at a time 
when millions are struggling to enter the middle class, give their 
children a chance at a better life, and achieve the American Dream.
  That's what paycheck fairness is all about: men, women, same job, 
same pay. Fifty years ago, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to 
confront this ``serious and endemic'' problem of unequal wages in 
America. President John F. Kennedy signed it into law to end ``the 
unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male 
employees for the same job.''
  Fifty years later, it is clear that we have more to do. If this 
majority really wants to show good faith towards workers and their 
families and women in this Nation, then what they will do is they will 
join us, and they will take the steps that are necessary to end unequal 
pay, put an end to pay secrecy, strengthen a worker's ability to 
challenge discrimination, and bring equal-pay law into line with other 
civil rights laws.
  What they will do is they will abandon the legislation that will gut 
the 40-hour workweek and that will allow employers to cut employees' 
overtime pay in order to save money.
  America's women and America's families have waited far too long for 
this institution to act. They're watching us now, and I urge this 
majority to do right by them at last and help us to end unequal pay for 
women in this Nation for good.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would believe that the comments of my 
colleague from Connecticut would be a little more sincere if she would 
direct the issue of pay disparity to the White House. The White House 
needs to do something about pay disparity. If we had leaders who led by 
example, then the White House would straighten out the pay disparity 
that exists there.
  Also, my colleagues don't seem to want to talk about the bill before 
us today because it is such commonsense legislation. They have no real 
arguments to offer about defeating it, so they want to distract the 
American people onto other issues.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, life is hard. Across Indiana, moms and dads are working 
hard to make ends meet, and it's anything but easy. The national 
unemployment rate is 7.5 percent. More businesses are reducing 
employees' hours under the immense pressure and weight of ObamaCare's 
red tape. On top of all that, President Obama wants $1.2 trillion in 
new taxes on families and businesses.
  There is no timecard at the dinner table. Parenting is a 24/7, 365-
day job. Unfortunately, moms and dads in the private sector have to 
consider missing a day of work when flu season strikes, when teacher 
conferences roll around, or when life throws another curve ball.
  The last thing Hoosiers in the real economy need is an outdated 
Federal law that makes things harder. Under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act of 1938, too many families are forced to make a difficult trade-
off: sit down with your son's teacher and you could see a thinner 
paycheck at the end of the week. Often, mom and dad will take turns 
after they've looked at the budget and the calendar. For single 
parents, it's another uphill battle.
  But while families on Main Street have to make tough choices, 
government workers have the flexibility to work overtime to cover these 
situations. We need to make sure that Hoosiers in the everyday world 
have the same option.
  Here in the House, we've introduced a simple, commonsense solution. 
Our bill gives Hoosiers and Americans a choice between cash wages and 
comp time for the overtime hours that they work. Government workers 
already get this option. So should everyday Americans. By fixing an 
outdated law today, we can give working parents more flexibility 
tomorrow.
  Mr. POLIS. Before further yielding, I want to address this fallacious 
concept that the gentlelady from North Carolina has brought up in 
previous debate as well as this one that somehow the White House 
discriminates against women. Again, that's been proven as untrue. We 
actually have a young lady on our Rules Committee staff who worked for 
the White House and tells us she earned the same amount as men.
  Of course, for the same job, women get paid the same amount. That's 
what paycheck fairness is about. It doesn't say if you do a different 
job you get paid the same amount, and it doesn't mean that every man 
and every woman is compensated the same. It's just for the same job, 
same pay. As for the Obama administration, every one of their actions 
and the White House's actions have been consistent with that. We 
believe it should apply to the private sector because, of course, not 
every woman in the country has the privilege of working for the White 
House.
  We're talking about American families with real private sector jobs 
out there, not these government jobs that the other side keeps alluding 
to.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps.)
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for 
yielding time.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1406. This isn't the first time we've 
seen anti-worker legislation paraded as a pro-family solution. But it's 
embarrassing that here in 2013 we are considering a bill that would 
reverse over 70 years of worker protections.
  The so-called Working Families Flexibility Act is out of touch with 
what real American working families need. Real working families need 
protections against egregiously long hours and unreasonable management 
demands. Real working families need fair wages paid to them in a timely 
manner. Real working families need predictable schedules with time to 
care for their families and themselves, and real working families need 
the ability to take earned leave when they have earned it and when they 
need it.
  This bill does nothing to address those needs. Instead, it sets up a 
false choice between time and pay. It incentivizes excess overtime 
scheduling. It reduces the employee's control over her daily schedule, 
and it provides no guarantee that the time off earned could be actually 
used.
  The only flexibility provided in this bill is to bosses who would be 
given the flexibility to choose to do whatever they choose without 
standards and without consideration for the needs of the families of 
their workers.
  I urge my colleagues to come together and support policies that would 
truly support our working families. A

[[Page H2455]]

real family-friendly bill would allow workers to earn paid sick days. 
It would extend access to job-protected leave. It would work to close 
the gender pay gap. Instead, this Mother's Day, all we have to offer 
our hardworking moms is a disingenuous bill that moves us backwards. 
Our mothers deserve better.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As my colleague from California knows, I am very fond of her and 
respect her a great deal; but I want to say that this bill is not a bad 
bill. This bill does not roll back the rights of workers at all.
  And if the bill is so bad and what it does is give fairness to people 
in the private sector and it gives to the people in the private sector 
the same rights and privileges that people in the public sector have, 
then why are my colleagues not trying to roll back those rights for the 
public sector? It would make sense that all the horrible things they've 
said about this bill which apply to the public sector you would want to 
protect the public sector.
  But that's not what my colleagues are doing. They're simply saying it 
isn't right to let the private sector employees have the same rights 
and privileges that public sector employees have. It doesn't make any 
sense for them to make that argument. It just doesn't make any sense to 
do that.
  Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act makes it easier for 
American workers to juggle the needs of family and the workplace. 
That's what it accomplishes.
  I want to urge the people watching this debate to read the bill. 
Unlike the thousand-page bill that came out that people have to ``wait 
until it passes'' before they understand what's in it, before we 
understand what's in it, this bill is basically 8 pages long. Any 
American can read this bill and understand it. So I would say to you, 
if you doubt what we are saying on our side of the aisle, read the 
bill. That is the best way for the American public to be informed.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. Speaker, as we consider it, there are some things to keep in 
mind.
  First, it in no way undermines longstanding essential worker 
safeguards or forces workers to give up overtime pay if that's how they 
choose to be compensated. It simply provides an additional level of 
flexibility that government workers already enjoy. I don't know how 
many more ways we can make that point, Mr. Speaker, but we will 
continue to do that.
  Further, the bill does not allow employers to bully employees into 
picking comp time over cash payment. It provides new important 
safeguards to ensure that the choice to use comp time over cash wages 
is truly voluntary. Employees can change their minds and request 
overtime cash payment in lieu of unused comp time.
  For employees represented by a labor organization, the labor 
organization and the employer must first reach an agreement to provide 
this benefit before the employee can choose to exercise it. For an 
employee who is not a member of a labor organization, the agreement is 
between the employer and the individual employee and must be entered 
into knowingly and voluntarily by the employee and may not be a 
condition of employment.
  The bill does not change the 40-hour workweek or how overtime is 
currently calculated and accrued, and it does not affect comp time 
provisions regarding employees of Federal, State, or local governments.
  Mr. Speaker, in fiscal year 2012, IRS employees accrued 246,450 hours 
of comp time in lieu of overtime pay. That amounts to 30,806 full 8-
hour days. Employees at the Department of Labor accrued 51,097 hours of 
comp time, or 6,387 full 8-hour days. Employees at the Department of 
Education accrued 12,408 hours of comp time, or 1,551 full 8-hour days.
  It's clear that Federal employees appreciate this flexibility. What 
is unclear is why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so 
hell-bent on denying private sector employees this same flexibility. 
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
  We hear the word ``fairness'' from the other side of the aisle 
constantly. This bill is fair, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 1406 simply affords 
private sector employees the same flexibility that Federal, State, and 
local government employees have enjoyed for over 30 years. It is 
unconscionable to me that our colleagues would vote against this and 
say you should be a second-class citizen if you work in the private 
sector.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Before further yielding, I want to again address this 
great and sudden desire that the gentlelady from North Carolina has 
expressed to make sure that government policies apply to the private 
sector, to try to say somehow the way that government employees are 
treated needs to be the way that every private sector employee is 
treated. Usually it's the private sector that leads the way, not Big 
Government like the gentlelady from North Carolina is arguing. In fact, 
it's even a misinterpretation of what the public sector does.
  The public sector has civil service protections for its employees. 
That's something that doesn't exist in the private sector. That's why, 
if we had been able to, under an open rule--which we don't have 
because, of course, somehow this body has to finish up by 2 p.m. so 
everybody can go home. But if we were allowed to have an open rule and 
actually bring forth amendments on this, we would be able to introduce 
Mr. Bishop's amendment, which would have facilitated this discussion 
of, well, if it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the 
gander. If the Republicans are so keen to apply public sector personnel 
policy to the private sector, then why not apply civil service 
protections to the private sector?
  Again, the truth of the matter is there's a night-and-day difference 
between the types of protections and policies that public sector and 
private sector employees have. One of the goals of the Civil Service 
Act was to add a degree of professionalism to public sector jobs, to 
take away the patronage components that had a corrupting influence on 
the system. By and large it succeeded in that goal, to its great 
credit. It's a very different set of rules that we have with regard to 
the private sector.
  So, again, I think that that is, to a certain degree, a false 
analogy, and I hope that the information I provided helps correct that 
in the eyes of those who are listening.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a colleague of mine.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Congressman Polis for yielding time and rise 
against the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1406, the More Work for 
Less Pay Act.
  Congress should protect workers' wages and overtime rights, not 
undermine them. USA Today reported yesterday that stock markets and 
corporate profits are breaking records, but workers who rely on 
paychecks for their income have been running in place--financially 
speaking--and falling behind, despite their productivity increasing 
consistently for the last several years. That means they're working 
harder for less. Adjusting for inflation, an average worker who was 
paid $49,650 at the end of 2009 is now making about $545 less, and 
that's before taxes and deductions.
  Living standards aren't rising for the middle class; they're falling. 
Yet the profits of Standard and Poor's 500 companies hit a record in 
the first quarter. The roaring market is making the richest Americans 
even richer, giving them even more money to spend.
  How about this? Brian Moynihan, Bank of America, he earns about $12.1 
million that is reported in the papers--I'm sure it's even more than 
that--and Goldman Sachs, their CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, $21 million that 
he's willing to admit; and John Stumpf at Wells Fargo, $22.9 million. 
Frankly, how much more do they need?
  Now, meanwhile, during the first 2 years of the recovery, while 
average net worth rose for the top 7 percent of households, it fell for 
the other 93 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. The reason 
is clear: corporate America isn't sharing its record earnings with 
those who are earning them. In fact, higher corporate profits owe 
partially to the employers' success at paying workers less even while 
those workers are working harder, and holding down their raises and 
forcing overtime rather than hiring from the ranks

[[Page H2456]]

of the 12 million who remain unemployed.
  Productivity has been rising at an average of 1.5 percent a year 
since the recovery began, while companies are squeezing more out of 
each worker even as inflation-adjusted wages have stagnated and hiring 
remains sluggish.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman.
  Still, so many Americans are out of work that employers can get away 
with giving no raises at all.
  America is supposed to be about opportunity for all, not just the 
few. We're supposed to be about fair pay for hard work.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose the Republican More Work for Less Pay 
Act, and I would urge us to pay fair wages for a fair day's work. All 
you have to do is go to parts of the country where people's faces are 
worn. You'll see what's really happening out in the real America. Let's 
oppose this Republican bill and the rule.
  The bill gives employers the flexibility not to pay overtime to their 
workers; instead employees would be provided comp time.
  However, employers, not the employee, are provided the flexibility to 
decide when and even if comp time can be used.
  There is nothing in the legislation that guarantees that workers will 
be able to use the comp time they have earned when they need it.
  In fact, the bill permits the employer to deny a comp time request if 
the employee's use of comp time would unduly disrupt operations.
  Employers can even veto an employee's request to use comp time even 
in cases of urgent need under the legislation.
  If an employee does not accept comp time, they could be penalized 
with fewer hours, bad shifts, and loss of overtime hours.
  Given that it is cheaper to provide comp time than to pay overtime 
wages, this bill provides a significant incentive for employers to hire 
fewer people and rely on overtime to be paid for future comp time.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act currently allow employers to provide 
workers with flexibility and time off without compromising their right 
to be paid fairly for the hours they work.
  Consequently, this legislation is unnecessary based on current law.
  Workers should not have to put in extra time beyond a 40-hour week 
and be forced to forgo pay to earn time to care for themselves or their 
loved ones.
  The same bill proposed and died in committee in 2003 and failed in 
1996 and 1997 to get through Congress.

                     [From USA Today, May 6, 2013]

                      Economy Leaves Wages Behind

                  (By Paul Davidson and John Waggoner)

       Stock markets and corporate profits are breaking records. 
     The economy suddenly looks brighter after the government's 
     surprising report Friday that employers added 635,000 jobs 
     the past three months.
       But instead of celebrating, many working Americans are 
     borrowing a line from the 1996 movie Jerry Maguire: ``Show me 
     the money.''
       Hourly wages ticked up 4 cents in April to an average 
     $23.87, rising at about the same tepid 2 percent annual pace 
     since the recovery began in mid-2009.
       But taking inflation into account, they're virtually flat. 
     Workers who rely on paychecks for their income have been 
     running in place, financially speaking. Adjusting for 
     inflation, an average worker who was paid $49,650 at the end 
     of 2009 is making about $545 less now--and that's before 
     taxes and deductions.
       Stagnant wages aren't only tough on workers--the American 
     economy is paying a price too. Living standards aren't 
     rising. Consumer spending, which is 70 percent of the 
     economy, is more restrained. And the recovery advances at a 
     slower pace.
       Ultimately, for the economy to thrive we need everyone 
     participating,'' says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's 
     Analytics.
       The profits of Standard & Poor's 500 companies hit a record 
     in the first quarter. Their healthy earnings have boosted 
     stocks, and April's encouraging jobs report sent the stock 
     market even higher Friday. The Dow Jones industrial average 
     crossed 15,000 for the first time and closed at a record 
     14,973.96, up 142.38 points.
       The roaring market is making the richest Americans richer 
     and giving them more money to spend. But in 2010, only 31 
     percent of U.S. households had stock holdings of $10,000 or 
     more, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 
     During the first two years of the recovery, average net worth 
     rose for the top 7 percent of households but fell for the 
     other 93 percent, the Pew Research Center says.
       Meanwhile, Corporate America isn't sharing its record 
     earnings with employees.
       ``Don't hold your breath,'' for employers to become more 
     generous, says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's 
     Investors Service. One reason, he says, is that revenue 
     growth has been meager, up between 0.5 percent and 1 percent 
     in the last year.
       In fact, higher profits owe partially to employers' success 
     in controlling labor expenses by getting workers to be more 
     productive, holding down raises and hiring conservatively.
       Productivity, or output per labor hour, has risen an 
     average 1.5 percent a year since the recovery began. 
     Companies are squeezing more out of each worker even as 
     inflation-adjusted wages have stagnated.
       Another reason for stagnant wages is the law of supply and 
     demand. Sure, the job market has picked up: Employers added 
     165,000 jobs last month and an average 196,000 a month this 
     year, up from 183,000 in 2012. And the jobless rate has 
     fallen from a peak of 10 percent in 2009.


                      Few incentives to boost pay

       Yet today's 7.5 percent unemployment rate is still high. 
     Nearly 12 million Americans are unemployed, and millions more 
     want to work but are so discouraged they've stopped looking. 
     With an abundant supply of potential workers, employers have 
     little reason to shell out big raises.
       ``High unemployment hurts workers' bargaining power,'' EPI 
     economist Heidi Shierholz says. ``Employers know they can go 
     get someone else.''
       So many Americans are out of work that employers could get 
     away with giving no raises at all, Zandi says, leaving 
     household income falling behind inflation. But employers 
     realize that would hurt morale and, in turn, productivity, he 
     says.
       Still, wage increases that just barely keep up with 
     inflation don't make for a prosperous economy.
       ``We're not seeing the living standard growth of American 
     workers that we should be seeing,'' Shierholz says.
       Stagnant wages also hurt consumer spending. Low- and 
     moderate-income workers typically spend nearly all their 
     paychecks, juicing the economy, while high-income workers 
     tend to save a portion, says Dean Baker, co-director of the 
     Center for Economic and Policy Research.
       Larry Breech, of Milville, Pa., a retired farmer who makes 
     about $10,000 a year, says his per diem pay for substitute 
     teaching hasn't changed in several years.
       ``We will be frugal,'' he says. ``Fiscal restraint is 
     imperative.''
       Consumer spending, which has been growing at an average 
     annual rate of about 2 percent during the recovery, would be 
     rising by 2.5 percent if employers simply passed their 
     productivity gains onto their workers, Zandi says.
       Some workers are getting bigger raises. While the lowest 10 
     percent of income earners got average raises of 0.3 percent 
     last year, those in the top 25 percent saw their pay jump 3.1 
     percent, say the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Moody's 
     Analytics. Workers with higher skills and more education in 
     booming industries, such as energy and technology, can 
     command higher salaries.
       Stephen Allen, an oil industry contractor in St. Louis, 
     says his wages have increased by more than 60 percent the 
     past three years. He makes about $85,000 a year.
       For now, it's up to Americans like Allen and those with 
     large stock holdings to generate a bigger share of spending 
     and economic activity. The top 20 percent of households based 
     on income account for nearly half of consumer spending, 
     according to Barclays Capital.


                        good news for households

       A bright spot is that despite puny wage increases, other 
     barometers of household finances show improvement. The 
     housing market is continuing a solid recovery. Climbing home 
     and stock prices have helped households overall recover the 
     wealth they lost in the recession and housing crash.
       And the share of income Americans are using to pay off debt 
     has fallen to 10.4 percent, the lowest level since the 
     government began tracking the data in 1980, reports the 
     Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, falling gas prices are putting 
     more cash in consumers' pockets. Such developments can partly 
     offset sluggish wage growth and pave the way for higher 
     spending.
       After working off debt the past three years, Allen says he 
     expects to be debt-free this summer ``and then save for a 
     down payment on a house.''
       Still, economists say consumer spending won't take off in 
     earnest until inflation-adjusted wages return to a normal 
     growth rate of about 1.5 percent a year. Baker says that 
     likely won't happen until unemployment falls below 6 percent, 
     probably in 2016.
       Then, employers will begin to worry about not finding 
     enough workers.
       ``They'll start to hire more aggressively,'' pushing up 
     wages faster, Zandi says.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman from Colorado has 
additional speakers, but at this time I would like to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I would just like to indicate I have one remaining 
speaker.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I rise in opposition to the majority's Working Families 
Flexibility Act.

[[Page H2457]]

  It troubles me to oppose a bill that has the exact same name of a 
bill that I've introduced in the three previous Congresses that 
provided real workplace flexibility for working men and women. I 
believe that this bill, the Republican bill, would be more aptly named 
the More Work, Less Pay Act.
  My bill would have provided employers and employees with protections 
in discussing flexible work arrangements. Under the More Work, Less Pay 
Act, workers would lose the basic guarantees of fair pay for overtime 
work and time off from work under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It 
would deprive hardworking people of their earned income and fail to 
guarantee them the right to use that overtime even for a personal or 
family emergency.
  Shamefully, the U.S. ranks among the least generous of industrialized 
countries when it comes to family-friendly workplace policies like paid 
family leave and paid sick leave. Congress should be focused on 
increasing the minimum wage, expanding family and medical leave, and 
providing opportunities for real flexible work options.

                              {time}  1330

  These policies are common sense. True workplace advancement benefits 
both business and worker interests. Instead, the Republican bill hurts 
employees by giving them less pay at a time when their wages are 
stagnant.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, to oppose this rule, 
and bring up the minority's alternatives and allow the minority to have 
amendments and alternatives to the rule.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  A little while ago we had a debate about the pay in the White House. 
I have an article from the Daily Caller that I would like to enter into 
the Record, and I will quote briefly from the article. The article is 
dated January 15, 2013, posted by Caroline May:

       While President Obama handily won the women's vote by 11 
     percentage points in November over Republican nominee Mitt 
     Romney, his administration paid the women on his payroll less 
     than his male employees last year.
       A Daily Caller analysis of the administration's ``2012 
     Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff'' shows that 
     while women comprised about half of the 468 staffers--as the 
     President touted during his press conference Monday--they 
     also earned about 13 percent less, on average, than their 
     male counterparts.
       The median 2012 salary for female employees of the White 
     House was $62,000; for men that number was $71,000.

  The article ends with a quote from New York Democratic Representative 
Charlie Rangel. He, however, called Obama's failure to appoint more 
women and minorities to high-profile positions ``embarrassing as 
hell.''
  ``The questions I've heard are fair,'' Rangel said January 10 on 
MSNBC. ``The record does speak for itself.''
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                 [From the Daily Caller, Jan. 15, 2013]

      Obama White House Paid Women Staffers Less Than Men in 2012

                            By Caroline May

       While President Barack Obama handily won the women's vote 
     by 11 percentage points in November over Republican nominee 
     Mitt Romney, his administration paid the women on his payroll 
     less than his male employees last year.
       A Daily Caller analysis of the administration's ``2012 
     Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff'' shows that 
     while women comprised about half of the 468 staffers--as the 
     president touted during his press conference Monday--they 
     also earned about 13 percent less, on average, than their 
     male counterparts.
       The median 2012 salary for female employees of the White 
     House was $62,000; for men that number was $71,000.
       The DC calculated the median male and female salaries by 
     determining employee genders based on their names. In cases 
     where the gender was not clear, The DC either identified the 
     specific employee in other ways or--in a few cases--assigned 
     gender based on the most common use of a given name according 
     to databases of baby names.
       The 2012 pay disparity represented an improvement from the 
     disparity in 2011 figures the Washington Free Beacon reported 
     last year. According to that analysis, the median female 
     compensation in the White House was $60,000--$2,000 less than 
     in 2012--and the male employees' median was unchanged at 
     $71,000. That amounted to an 18 percent difference.
       In his statement last year declaring April 17 Equal Pay 
     Day, Obama lamented the pay disparity between men and women 
     in America, echoing the well-worn yet often-questioned 
     statistic that ``women who worked full-time earned only 77 
     percent of what their male counterparts did.''
       He pointed to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which made 
     it easier for women to sue for lost wages due to pay 
     discrimination, and to the creation of the National Equal Pay 
     Task Force in 2010, as examples of the administration's 
     commitment to equal pay.
       ``At a time when families across our country are struggling 
     to make ends meet, ensuring a fair wage for all parents is 
     more important than ever,'' the president said. ``Women are 
     breadwinners in a growing number of families, and women's 
     earnings play an increasingly important role in families' 
     incomes. For them, fair pay is even more than a basic right--
     it is an economic necessity.''
       Obama's White House female employees achieved a slightly 
     better 87 percent of what their male counterparts earned, 
     compared to Obama's national 77 percent figure.
       In recent weeks Obama has come under fire for the 
     composition of his inner circle--initially sparked by an 
     official White House photo of the president published by The 
     New York Times in which he was surrounded by all men. His 
     nomination of white men to all four second-term cabinet 
     positions so far has also drawn criticism.
       Establishment media outlets and women's groups have been 
     troubled by the apparent lack of female leadership and 
     diversity the administration has exhibited so far--with the 
     National Organization for Women demanding to know ``President 
     Obama, Where are the Women?'' Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and 
     Gloria Steinem, all co-founders of the Women's Media Center, 
     have pressed Obama to adopt an inner circle that looks more 
     like American.
       ``[Obama] wouldn't have been re-elected without 55 percent 
     of the women's vote, something he earned by representing 
     women's majority views on issues, yet now he seems to be 
     ignoring women's ability to be not only voters, but 
     leaders,'' the trio wrote Friday in a CNN website essay. 
     NBC's Andrea Mitchell noted Sunday on ``Meet the Press'' that 
     women inside the White House ``are not happy'' with the male-
     dominated face of Obama's administration.
       Monday, Obama addressed some of the criticisms about the 
     composition of his cabinet, saying that it is too soon to 
     ``rush to judgment'' and that women were influential 
     throughout his first term.
       ``So if you think about my first four years, the person who 
     probably had the most influence on my foreign policy was a 
     woman,'' Obama said. ``The people who were in charge of 
     moving forward my most important domestic initiative, health 
     care, were women. The person in charge of our homeland 
     security was a woman. My two appointments to the Supreme 
     Court were women. And 50 percent of my White House staff were 
     women. So I think people should expect that that record will 
     be built upon during the next four years.''
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  I would like to inquire if the gentlelady has any remaining speakers.
  Ms. FOXX. We have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I am willing 
to close after the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  First of all, conflating somehow paycheck fairness with compensation 
of women at the White House is comparing apples and oranges.
  Nothing that we are supporting or that the Paycheck Fairness Act 
includes says that women and men should all be paid the same regardless 
of what their job is. It simply says ``equal work, equal pay.'' There's 
no evidence in the Daily Caller or anywhere else that for the same job, 
in the White House or anywhere in the administration, that women are 
paid less. They are not.
  Even if you had paycheck fairness--again, we passed our law; it 
becomes the law of the land in the private sector--it doesn't mean 
every woman gets the same pay as every man. It simply means that for 
the same job men and women get the same pay. It is quite possible there 
could still be a differential either way. There's not a problem with 
that. It depends on what jobs people have. But for the same job, it 
should be the law of the land, just as it has been President Obama's 
policy that men and women receive the same pay.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, the ``more work, less pay bill,'' is yet 
another attempt to roll back workers' rights under the guise of doing 
just the opposite.
  I wish we were here talking about things that would benefit American 
families like the Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure women receive equal 
pay for equal work; making sure that people can't be fired from their 
job just because of who they date. It is none of the boss's darn 
business.
  But instead of collaborating with Democrats to produce a compromise 
bill we can be proud of, instead, this House is considering a bill that 
would

[[Page H2458]]

weaken over time and is nearly identical to bills that have failed in 
three prior Congresses.
  There are many measures that we could be taking up to help grow the 
economy, reduce the deficit, create jobs, invest in the middle class, 
replace our broken immigration system with one that works; but this 
bill is none of those.
  I wanted to point out and highlight the work of the Democrats on the 
Educational and the Workforce Committee. The Web site is 
Democrats.edworkforce.house.gov. They produced a video that shows 
exactly what this ``more work, less pay'' legislation is.
  Mr. Speaker, I support giving American workers and families more 
flexibility. There could be a way to work together; but, again, this 
body has not done so. It does just the opposite. Instead of having an 
open rule under which many of us could bring forth amendments to 
discuss, Democratic Members offered several sensible amendments, which 
were rejected by the House majority, both in the committee of 
jurisdiction and the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 377, Representative DeLauro's 
Paycheck Fairness Act, of which I am an original cosponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so we can bring up the Paycheck Fairness 
Act. I urge a ``no'' vote on this restrictive rule and the bill, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of this bill. I can't 
understand why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so 
opposed to fairness when fairness applies to the private sector.
  I would like to point out to my colleague that we would have 
entertained amendments in the Rules Committee had they been germane or 
if they had not been withdrawn. As he well knows, being a member of the 
Rules Committee, the amendments that were introduced by his colleagues 
were withdrawn before the committee had an opportunity to consider the 
amendments or were ruled nongermane.
  I also assume that, based on the comments our colleagues have made 
across the aisle, that because the rights and privileges that are given 
to public employees are so horrible that they cannot be extended to the 
private sector, that they will probably be introducing a bill to 
withdraw those rights and privileges because they're only hurting 
public employees, and our colleagues don't want to be hurting private 
sector employees.
  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to providing more 
opportunities for more Americans and helping make life work for more 
families. This legislation is a great step in that direction.
  The rule before us today provides for consideration of a bill that 
gives employees across the country the flexibility that they deserve so 
they can better manage the many daily challenges of family life. 
Whether the employee is a new parent who wishes to stay at home with a 
newborn, a proud aunt who wishes to attend her nephew's baseball game, 
or a son or daughter who wants to care for an elderly parent, America's 
private sector employees should be able to determine for themselves 
what to do with the overtime compensation that they have earned.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1406, the so-
called ``Working Families Flexibility Act'' is a wolf in sheep's 
clothing. This bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 in 
order to allow private sector employers to compensate their employees 
with compensatory time or comp time, instead of earned overtime pay. 
This proposal subverts the power and purpose of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act by making private sector workplaces less fair and 
certainly less flexible.
  Instead of ensuring fairness and flexibility for employees, H.R. 1406 
gives employers the legal cover for forcing employees to work more and 
then, in turn, paying them less. This bill does nothing to assist 
working families; rather it is an assault on the wages of working 
families all across the country. What would improve the lives of 
working families is a proposal to increase the minimum wage, such as 
introduced by Ranking Member Miller and cosponsored by me and 134 
members of this House. H.R. 1010 would increase the minimum wage in 
three tiered steps and then index future increases to inflation. Such a 
proposal would actually provide more flexibility by putting more money 
in the pockets of working families today and in the future. However, 
instead of considering a proposal which would directly benefit American 
workers, this Committee is considering a misleadingly named bill which 
does just the opposite.
  Flexibility in the workplace is something that the government 
welcomes. However, H.R. 1406 is not the way to achieve that goal. 
Flexible workplaces do not force employees to choose between working 
more and earning less. Instead, flexible workplaces provide adequate 
leave options under the Family Medical Leave Act. Flexible workplaces 
provide a competitive, living wage for employees regardless of their 
gender. Flexible workplaces provide sufficient paid sick leave. H.R. 
1406 does nothing to advance any of these proposals and most of all 
does nothing to foster a flexible work environment.
  H.R. 1406 is nothing more than a message moment for the majority 
party. The bill weakens the worker protections under which we have 
lived comfortably for 75 years. This bill provides less flexibility, 
not more. Even if this deeply flawed bill passes this House, it will 
not be considered by the Senate nor will it become law. It is a 
diversion from the real issues that this Committee was tasked with 
tackling: creating jobs and fostering economic growth.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 198 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     377) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 
     more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the 
     payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Each 
     section of the bill shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 377.


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

[[Page H2459]]

     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________