[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 64 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2502-H2519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1350
                WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 1406.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 198, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1406) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the 
amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
printed in the bill is adopted. The bill, as amended, is considered 
read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1406

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Working Families Flexibility 
     Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. COMPENSATORY TIME.

       Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 207) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) Compensatory Time Off for Private Employees.--
       ``(1) General rule.--An employee may receive, in accordance 
     with this subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime 
     compensation, compensatory time off at a rate not less than 
     one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which 
     overtime compensation is required by this section.
       ``(2) Conditions.--An employer may provide compensatory 
     time to employees under paragraph (1)(A) only if such time is 
     provided in accordance with--
       ``(A) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining 
     agreement between the employer and the labor organization 
     that has been certified or recognized as the representative 
     of the employees under applicable law; or
       ``(B) in the case of employees who are not represented by a 
     labor organization that has been certified or recognized as 
     the representative of such employees under applicable law, an 
     agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before 
     the performance of the work and affirmed by a written or 
     otherwise verifiable record maintained in accordance with 
     section 11(c)--
       ``(i) in which the employer has offered and the employee 
     has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary 
     overtime compensation; and
       ``(ii) entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such 
     employees and not as a condition of employment.
     No employee may receive or agree to receive compensatory time 
     off under this subsection unless the employee has worked at 
     least 1,000 hours for the employee's employer during a period 
     of continuous employment with the employer in the 12-month 
     period before the date of agreement or receipt of 
     compensatory time off.
       ``(3) Hour limit.--
       ``(A) Maximum hours.--An employee may accrue not more than 
     160 hours of compensatory time.
       ``(B) Compensation date.--Not later than January 31 of each 
     calendar year, the employee's employer shall provide monetary 
     compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued 
     during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to 
     December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by 
     paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to 
     the employer's employees a 12-month period other than the 
     calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be 
     provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-
     month period.
       ``(C) Excess of 80 hours.--The employer may provide 
     monetary compensation for an employee's unused compensatory 
     time in excess of 80 hours at any time after giving the 
     employee at least 30 days notice. Such compensation shall be 
     provided at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6).
       ``(D) Policy.--Except where a collective bargaining 
     agreement provides otherwise, an employer that has adopted a 
     policy offering compensatory time to employees may 
     discontinue such policy upon giving employees 30 days notice.
       ``(E) Written request.--An employee may withdraw an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2)(B) at any time. An 
     employee may also request in writing that monetary 
     compensation be provided, at any time, for all compensatory 
     time

[[Page H2503]]

     accrued that has not yet been used. Within 30 days of 
     receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the 
     employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with 
     paragraph (6).
       ``(4) Private employer actions.--An employer that provides 
     compensatory time under paragraph (1) to employees shall not 
     directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or 
     attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for 
     the purpose of--
       ``(A) interfering with such employee's rights under this 
     subsection to request or not request compensatory time off in 
     lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for 
     overtime hours; or
       ``(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.
       ``(5) Termination of employment.--An employee who has 
     accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under 
     paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or involuntary 
     termination of employment, be paid for the unused 
     compensatory time in accordance with paragraph (6).
       ``(6) Rate of compensation.--
       ``(A) General rule.--If compensation is to be paid to an 
     employee for accrued compensatory time off, such compensation 
     shall be paid at a rate of compensation not less than--
       ``(i) the regular rate received by such employee when the 
     compensatory time was earned; or
       ``(ii) the final regular rate received by such employee,
     whichever is higher.
       ``(B) Consideration of payment.--Any payment owed to an 
     employee under this subsection for unused compensatory time 
     shall be considered unpaid overtime compensation.
       ``(7) Use of time.--An employee--
       ``(A) who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to 
     be provided under paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) who has requested the use of such compensatory time,
     shall be permitted by the employee's employer to use such 
     time within a reasonable period after making the request if 
     the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the 
     operations of the employer.
       ``(8) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `employee' does not include an employee of a 
     public agency; and
       ``(B) the terms `overtime compensation' and `compensatory 
     time' shall have the meanings given such terms by subsection 
     (o)(7).''.

     SEC. 3. REMEDIES.

       Section 16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 216) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``(b) Any employer'' and 
     inserting ``(b) Except as provided in subsection (f), any 
     employer''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) An employer that violates section 7(s)(4) shall be 
     liable to the employee affected in the amount of the rate of 
     compensation (determined in accordance with section 
     7(s)(6)(A)) for each hour of compensatory time accrued by the 
     employee and in an additional equal amount as liquidated 
     damages reduced by the amount of such rate of compensation 
     for each hour of compensatory time used by such employee.''.

     SEC. 4. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES.

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

     SEC. 5. SUNSET.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed 
in House Report 113-51, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gibson) or his designee, which shall be considered read and shall be 
separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1406, 
the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013, and yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Today we have an opportunity to make life a little easier for working 
families across the country. This legislation doesn't create a new 
government program or bureaucracy. It doesn't spend taxpayer dollars or 
add to the national debt. The Working Families Flexibility Act simply 
removes an outdated Federal policy that denies private sector workers 
the flexibility they need to better balance family and work.
  For 75 years, the Fair Labor Standards Act has provided covered 
workers with basic wage and hour protections. Those covered by the law 
receive time-and-a-half in paid compensation for each overtime hour 
worked. The law plays a significant role in millions of workplaces; yet 
it does not reflect the realities of the modern workforce.
  For example, in 2011, 59 percent of families with children had two 
working parents, compared to 37 percent 40 years ago. Meanwhile, 8.5 
million workers today are single parents, and one in three 
undergraduate students also works full-time.
  Behind each statistic, Mr. Speaker, are men and women trying to 
juggle family and work; a single, working mom that needs extra time to 
attend a parent-teacher conference, a dad hoping to leave work early to 
catch his son's Little League game, a married couple working two jobs 
while raising a family and caring for an aging relative.
  Supporting a family is about more than providing an income; it's 
about being there for one another. We know there are a lot of workers 
who would seize the opportunity to earn a few extra dollars, but others 
may welcome additional paid time off to spend with loved ones.
  Shouldn't workers choose what's best for their families? Shouldn't 
workers choose?
  Unfortunately, Federal law denies many private sector workers this 
fundamental choice. The law assumes everyone would choose more money in 
the bank over more time with family. To add insult to injury, public 
sector employees have enjoyed this benefit for decades; yet we continue 
to treat those in the private sector differently.
  That's not fair, Mr. Speaker. It's not fair to millions of 
hardworking Americans. The Working Families Flexibility Act will remove 
this unnecessary barrier and allow private sector employers to offer 
employees the choice to accrue paid time off, or comp time, for working 
overtime. The bill does not change the 40-hour work week, and comp time 
would accrue at the same time-and-a-half rate as cash wages.
  The legislation includes numerous protections to ensure the use of 
comp time is strictly, strictly, Mr. Speaker, voluntary, such as 
requiring a written agreement between the employer and employee, 
allowing workers to cash out their accrued comp time whenever they 
choose, retaining all enforcement remedies available under current law, 
and adding new protections to prevent coercion and intimidation.
  At the heart of the legislation is worker choice. Workers choose 
whether to accept comp time. Workers choose when to cash out their 
accrued comp time, and workers choose when to use their paid time off, 
so long as they follow the same standard public sector employees do. 
Same standard, Mr. Speaker.
  Americans sacrifice a lot to provide for their families. Let's get 
the Federal Government out of the way and give workers the flexibility 
they need to thrive at home and at work.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Working Families Flexibility Act 
of 2013, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this legislation, which, again, is no 
stranger, sadly, to this Congress. This is the fifth time that the 
majority party has introduced it, going back to 1997; and each time, 
the huge flaws in this legislation have resulted in its complete 
collapse in terms of getting anything close to real support through 
both Chambers and through the executive branch. And once again, it 
doesn't deserve that support in this case.
  Despite the representations made in its title, that it promotes 
workers' flexibility, that it gives workers choice, the fact of the 
matter is, a closer examination of the bill shows the opposite is true.
  The better way to describe this bill is the More Work, Pay Less bill 
because what it does is take the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which 
created a bright line to protect people's right to a 40-hour work week, 
and make sure that that next hour after 40 hours is paid for with the 
time-and-a-half of wages. And, again, that created the weekend in 
America. That created the time off that families have taken for granted 
as middle class Americans for decades.
  What this bill does is it blurs that line; it creates total chaos in 
terms of trying to come up with a system to set up ground rules with a 
case-by-case contract, written contract, that's mandated by the 
language of the bill, and

[[Page H2504]]

then leaves it to the enforcement of State Labor Departments Wage and 
Hours Divisions, which are totally incapable of going into the tens of 
thousands of workplaces all across America and trying to figure out 
whether or not, in fact, the rules have been followed.
  A closer examination of the bill shows, on page 8 of the bill, in 
lines 7-10, that, in fact, all these representations that the worker 
gets to choose are, in fact, not correct. At the end of the day, the 
employer has the right to veto any comp time that this bill has allowed 
to accrue over any period of time. So the notion that somehow a person 
has that choice to accumulate comp time and then be able to use it for 
a family vacation, or a family emergency, in fact, does not meet the 
actual plain language of the bill that is before us today.
  And that is why organizations that represent working families, 
organizations that represent women, organizations that have been part 
of employment law for years and years and years in this country have 
resoundingly come out in opposition to this legislation. Over 160 
various organizations of every stripe representing religious groups, 
women's groups, labor groups, groups that, again, deal with employment 
law have basically looked at this legislation for the fifth time and 
given it thumbs down.

                              {time}  1400

  The fact is we should do that. There's no question, however, that 
workers do, in fact, need more help in terms of making sure that the 
wages that have stagnated over the last three decades get more support. 
And families, again, are strained by the fact that those stagnating 
wages have required second jobs and multiple spouses in the workforce.
  But the fact is that there are much better solutions than this 
legislation, the More Work Pay Less Act. In fact, what we should do is 
set up a standard for paid sick leave in this country so that a single 
parent waking up with a child whose temperature is over 100 degrees 
doesn't feel that they have no choice in terms of how to deal with that 
situation, that they have some guaranteed opportunity without losing 
the pay that they need to put food on the table or put gas in the tank, 
that they, in fact, have that choice which so many of us here as 
Members of Congress and our staffs certainly take for granted. We 
should apply the same standards in terms of sick pay that we enjoy to 
the working people of this country.
  This bill doesn't do it. This bill does not meet that test. Again, it 
sets up a system that is completely unworkable and unenforceable. It 
butchers the Fair Labor Standards Act's bright line that has protected 
the American weekend for decades and decades in this country, and in 
the name of workplace flexibility, in fact, tips the scales of power 
within the American workforce, once again against the worker, against 
the employee, who basically for far too long has suffered in this 
economy.
  We need better solutions. This is not the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I'm very, very pleased right now to yield 3 
minutes to the author of this terrific piece of legislation, a member 
of the committee, the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Working 
Families Flexibility Act of 2013. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, 
my chairman, for all of the hard work on this bill and the committee, 
as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to sponsor this bill. And I can tell you, as 
a working mom, my husband, Riley, and I certainly relate to and 
understand the pulls on families that are juggling so much between 
their work life and their home life. If you talk to any working mom or 
dad, you'll hear them say things like, wouldn't it be nice to have 
flexibility to attend my son's soccer game, coach a tee ball team, take 
care of my aging parent, or be there to support my children at a time 
when one of the spouses is being deployed by our military.
  These are all things that working moms and dads want to be a part of. 
Those that have elderly parents want to be there for their parents in 
their time of need. We can't legislate another hour in the workday, but 
we sure can give moms and dads a little bit of relief when it comes to 
flexibility in their workplace.
  Under this bill, no worker could ever be forced--despite the claims 
of my colleagues on the other side--no worker could ever be forced to 
take time off, paid time off, just like no business would ever be 
forced to offer it. For some people, having paid time off is far more 
valuable than money.
  The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that under the current law, the private 
sector doesn't enjoy the same privilege to offer this benefit to their 
workers as the public sector does. And as my colleague was just talking 
about sick time, sick leave, and the benefits that we may enjoy in the 
Federal Government, I think that the private sector should enjoy the 
benefit that Federal employees have now, and that's compensatory time 
and the right to choose what to do with their time.
  Our message to Americans, Mr. Speaker, is very clear. We must get 
Washington out of the way of how they use their time. It is your time 
to choose.
  All existing enforcement remedies under the current law are retained; 
but this legislation goes above and beyond to incorporate additional 
protections that will prevent coercion and ensure utilizing comp time 
is truly voluntary, including a requirement of a written agreement, a 
voluntary written agreement between the employer and the employee, a 
cash-out provision entitling the employee to ask for their paid 
overtime at any time, and a provision requiring employers to be found 
in violation of coercion to pay double damages.
  I want to read--I have lots of quotes from constituents, but there is 
one in particular that sums all of this up. I got a note from a young 
lady who lives a long way from Alabama's Second Congressional District, 
in California; and she writes:

       As a kid growing up with both parents who worked, I missed 
     a lot of time with them. I am also an only child so I didn't 
     really spend time with my actual family. I was either in 
     daycare or a friend's house during the 5-day workweek. And if 
     my mom took time off, she wouldn't get paid over that time 
     period----

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
  Mrs. ROBY.

       I didn't really spend time with my actual family. I was 
     either in daycare or a friend's house during the 5-day 
     workweek. And if my mom took time off, she wouldn't get paid 
     over that time period, even though she would work overtime. 
     So when I read about this bill, I was touched and compelled 
     to tell you that if this bill passes it really would change 
     people's lives and help families around America. Thank you 
     for recognizing how valuable time is to people, and for 
     giving us an option of how to use our time.

  I thought that was compelling. Mr. Speaker, I think that sums up this 
bill in its entirety. This doesn't solve our Nation's debt problems or 
our deficit, but this provides some relief to working families in 
America, to those working moms and dads.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 2 minutes 
to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mrs. Roby and I are friends, but we have a very substantial 
disagreement about this bill.
  I call it the Pay Working Families Less bill because what it will 
result in is a cut in pay for almost everybody. Yes, there will be 
those who will volunteer who can afford to do comp time. Others will 
not be. And so they will not be able to earn overtime because the 
employer will invariably--not because they're bad people--but will 
invariably go to the person that will, in fact, do it for free.
  I understand it's comp time, but they won't get paid. Most workers at 
this level need the pay. They need to pay their mortgage, they need to 
pay their car payment, and they need to send their kids to school. It 
would, of course, be cheaper to run a business if we didn't pay people 
at all. But it wouldn't be America.
  Mr. Speaker, today in the House it's deja vu all over again. This 
bill has been here before. In 2003 it was pulled

[[Page H2505]]

from the floor. Why? Because at that point in time, there were a 
significant number of Republicans who thought this was a lousy idea and 
thought it would undermine the Fair Labor Standards Act and the pay of 
working people. Unfortunately, there aren't that number of Republicans 
left in this House.
  It's deja vu all over again not only because this bill would send 
American workers back to the days before the 40-hour workweek, but 
we've also seen this same bill introduced and then, as I said, 
withdrawn. That's because it would eliminate the 40-hour workweek as we 
know it.
  Now, I know my friends on the Republican side disagree with that 
premise. I've been an employer. I've seen employers. They're not bad 
people, but they're trying to maximize profits, and they wouldn't be 
paying minimum wage if they didn't have to; and very frankly, the 
minimum wage is way below what it ought to be.
  This bill says that we would provide the workers with comp time, but 
permission as to when a worker could take accrued comp time would be 
entirely in his or her boss' hands.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. So that that letter, while a very nice letter, doesn't 
take that into consideration. The result would be longer hours for 
workers with no overtime pay and only the hope that their bosses will 
let them take their earned time off when asked. How we have skewed the 
rules and play against the middle working class of America. You ought 
to read the book ``Who Stole the American Dream?'' by Hedrick Smith.
  Workers wishing to collect their overtime pay would be forced to wait 
until the end of the year, essentially granting employers an interest-
free loan.
  Mr. Speaker, this isn't fair, it isn't right, and it isn't going to 
become law; and everybody on this floor knows that--everybody. All 434 
of us that are here today know that this bill is not going to become 
law. But we're wasting our time on it. Instead of wasting time on a 
partisan measure that would never make it through the Senate, we ought 
to be working on creating jobs and restoring fiscal discipline, not a 
partisan rollback of workers' rights, but a bipartisan compromise to 
help put more Americans to work.
  Again, I say, if those Republicans who were Members of this House in 
2003 were still here, this bill would not be on the floor.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I'm always interested to listen to the 
characterizations of a bill that simply aren't true.
  It's my pleasure right now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington, the chair of the Republican Conference, Mrs. McMorris 
Rodgers.

                              {time}  1410

  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I want to recognize and express appreciation 
to the chairman of the committee and the author of the legislation, 
Mrs. Roby, for their tremendous leadership on this important issue.
  I'm proud to rise in support of the Working Families Flexibility Act 
because it is time for our labor laws to enter the 21st century, just 
like our workforce has.
  I support this legislation because it is time for those in the 
private sector to have the same freedom and flexibility that those in 
the public sector have had for years. As a mom, a working mom, I have 
two young kids--Cole is six and Grace is two. I understand firsthand 
how important it is to have the flexibility to meet the demands of your 
job and still the obligation of your family. And I am so grateful, like 
millions of working moms in this country, that I do have flexibility. 
It's not easy, that's for sure, but the current law makes it way too 
hard for many hardworking moms and dads in this country.
  The workplace today is not the workplace of the 1930s, when many of 
these laws and regulations were first written. In fact, the most 
significant economic and sociological change in our society in the last 
half century has been the entry of women into the workforce.
  Today, 75 percent of women between the ages of 25 and 55 are in the 
workforce, and we've seen a significant growth in the number of working 
moms. In fact, today, 60 percent of moms with children under 6 are in 
the labor force. The workforce has changed, and it's time for the laws 
to change with it.
  Most of our labor laws and regulations were drafted in the 1930s, at 
a time when most households had a single income. For too long, Federal 
laws and regulations have lagged behind, and it's time we bring them 
into the 21st century. This legislation does just that. It amends the 
Fair Labor Standards Act to allow the private sector to provide time 
off instead of overtime compensation if that's what the employee 
prefers.
  Labor laws--written years ago--require that full-time hourly workers 
be paid time and a half if they work longer than 40 hours a week. For 
the most part, hourly employees who want to take occasional time away 
from their jobs either must take annual leave or leave without pay. 
These rules are particularly outdated given that we live in a world 
where people no longer need to be chained to their desk for precisely 8 
hours a day, especially in light of cell phones and Internet 
connections, mobile offices and part-time work.
  Current law doesn't provide any workplace flexibility for those in 
the private sector. This legislation changes that. It gives private 
sector employees the same choice as those in the public sector, while 
getting the Federal Government out of the way and putting decisions in 
the hands of people rather than Washington bureaucrats. That's why we 
must pass this law. It promotes freedom and choice, and it makes life 
easier for Americans all across this country.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, as somebody who was a private sector small 
employer for over 25 years, I just have to say that today, under 
existing law, employers already have the flexibility to give workers 
paid time off. The only new flexibility this bill gives is flexibility 
for employers to not pay people overtime. The fact is employers have 
that choice to give their workers paid time off.
  With that, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the esteemed 
chairman of our committee, who has led the fight for working families 
for over 30 years in this Congress, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a 
shell game. It's a trick. It's a Trojan horse. If an employer wants to 
give you time off, as the gentleman from Connecticut said, the employer 
can give you time off. He can give you comp time to go to your parent-
teacher conferences, to take care of an ill member of your family, take 
care of yourself. But they don't do that. So they're going to dangle 
overtime here.
  If you're willing to work overtime, sometime in the future they might 
give you that comp time. But it's not your comp time; it's the comp 
time that the employer will choose when and where you can take it. So 
if you work overtime this week and your child is very sick next week 
and you ask for the time and he says, no, we're busy, I can't give you 
the time off, you lose.
  Your employer can bank up to 160 hours of your comp time before 
there's any obligation. That's almost 4 weeks of overtime. For many 
people, that overtime is really important. But this bill says your 
employer can go to you and say you can have the overtime--which may be 
very important to your family budget. It was when I was young and 
married and had children. I worked every hour of overtime I could get 
when I was in the Merchant Marines working on oil tankers. I worked 
every hour I could get in the canneries. I worked every hour I 
could get in the refineries because I needed that for my family budget. 
I didn't need comp time, I needed income.

  But now the employer says you can have overtime, but I'm going to pay 
you back in comp time. If you say no, you have no protections. Your 
employer might say, okay, I'll find somebody else. Or your employer may 
offer it to you again and you say I can't do it, I need the overtime, 
and then you could be fired.
  They want to keep saying you're protected and you have the same 
rights as people in the Federal employment system. You don't. There's 
nothing in the law that prevents your employer from

[[Page H2506]]

firing you because you can't work the schedules your employer wants. 
They can say it all day along, but it's not in this legislation.
  If your employer goes broke before the time that they have to give 
you your comp time, you're out. And if you don't like the way your 
employer treated you and fires you because you couldn't possibly do the 
comp time or you couldn't do the overtime, you can go sue in court. How 
many middle class families can go sue their employer in court, have 
that kind of money?
  This is what it has always been since 1997, when this bill was 
introduced--1997. Yes, the workplace has changed. States and cities and 
employers are giving people paid time off so they can take care of 
their families when they need to take care of their families. But 
that's not what this bill is. It's an assault on the 40-hour workweek. 
It's an assault on overtime. An employer can get the work and never 
really have to pay the overtime.
  If you're in seasonal employment, if you're in an up-and-down 
business, you work like crazy and he says okay, things are slower in 
this part of the season, take that time off. You don't get to say, 
well, I don't really need that time off; I wanted to save that time for 
a parent-teacher conference. I'm sorry, we're going to be busy when 
that parent-teacher conference is.
  You get what's going on here? This isn't women friendly. This isn't 
mom friendly. This isn't family friendly. This is friendly to people 
who want to get rid of overtime and break down the 40-hour week that 
protects families so they're not working overtime.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I now am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise today in this Chamber as the son of a working, single-parent 
mother who still works at the Delta Faucet factory in Greensburg.
  I rise today in this Chamber as the son of a family who would have 
benefited from the flexibility and the time that is presented in the 
opportunity of the Working Families Flexibility Act.
  I want to commend my committee chairman, Representative Kline from 
Minnesota, and I want to commend my committee colleague from Alabama 
(Mrs. Roby) for bringing forward this commonsense, family friendly 
legislation.
  This bill is about freedom, the freedom to choose whether working 
overtime means more money in your pocket or more time to spend with 
your family.
  This bill is about equality, the equality of giving private sector 
employees the same opportunities that their public sector counterparts 
have had for years. Despite the rhetoric on the other side of the 
aisle, this act provides private sector employees the same kinds of 
opportunities that public sector employees have had for years and used 
successfully.
  This bill is also about time, the extra time workers will have to 
spend doing what they want to do or need to do if they decide that's 
more important to them than having a few extra dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will make life a little easier for the 
working men and women of this great country by giving them the freedom 
to choose how they spend their time. That's something we all should 
support.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
Representative from Oregon, a colleague on the House Education and the 
Workforce Committee, Ms. Bonamici.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1406, 
the so-called Working Families Flexibility Act, which would deal yet 
another devastating blow to working families who are already scraping 
by in these tough economic times. Let's look at the facts:
  Approximately two-thirds of Americans are living paycheck to 
paycheck.
  Since 2000, hourly wages have flat-lined, but productivity has risen 
23 percent.
  Employee compensation as a share of national income is at its lowest 
in 50 years, but corporate profits are stronger than ever.
  American families are putting in longer hours for less pay; and, 
colleagues, this bill makes things worse.
  If this bill becomes law, which we know it won't, a single mom living 
paycheck to paycheck could work more than 40 hours a week and receive 
no overtime pay in her paycheck. She would still have to pay the 
babysitter that week for the extra hours she spent on the job with no 
guarantee she'll be able to take the comp time off when she needs it. 
She would have to accept the days off her employer offers--that might 
not match her schedule--or else wait up to a year to receive the pay 
that's rightfully hers. And if the business closes, she's out of luck 
and out of pay.
  Instead of getting a paycheck that includes overtime, she'll be 
forced to decide between an interest-free loan to her employer, or time 
off when it's convenient for her boss, not for her. Under this bill, 
millions of working families who are already living on the edge would 
work longer hours and take home less pay. They would have less 
flexibility, not more.
  Colleagues, if we really want to talk about flexibility, let's talk 
about paid sick leave. I urge my colleagues to take a stand for working 
people and oppose this bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Indiana, a member of the committee, Mrs. Brooks.
  Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
on behalf of moms and dads and those who aren't parents that would be 
possibly impacted by the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. 
Currently, private sector employees do not have the same choice their 
public sector counterparts have enjoyed. Specifically, there are so 
many obstacles that prevent workers from being able to take comp time 
in lieu of cash wages. This commonsense piece of legislation removes 
those barriers and gives the private sector working moms and dads more 
flexibility.
  We are getting ready to celebrate Mother's Day this weekend, and I 
wanted to make special note of the difficulties working moms have 
finding a job that respects their family choices and pressures. I 
recently finished a book--talking about books earlier--called ``Leaning 
In'' by Facebook's COO, Sheryl Sandberg. She says, ``Too many standards 
remain inflexible and unfair, often penalizing women with children.'' 
She notes that 50 percent of employed mothers are unable to take time 
off to care for a sick child.
  She also discusses a Human Rights Watch study that found parents 
delayed having their babies immunized or dealing with their own health 
issues because they can't get time off. The study found parents believe 
``there is virtually no protection for workers seeking flexible 
schedules.''
  The bill on the floor now would give those working moms and dads the 
flexibility they want, need, and deserve. This empowers working parents 
to make the right decisions for their family. If dad can take work off 
for a doctor's visit, mom can choose to take cash if that's what she 
decides. If he can't, then she can choose to take the comp time. It 
gives them that flexibility.
  As a woman and a mom who has worked in the public sector and the 
private sector, I know firsthand how this does help working parents, 
and it helps those government workers attain that flexibility they 
deserve. It's time we bring that flexibility to the private sector. 
It's the 21st century. We have to reform our workplace. This bill helps 
us accomplish that. I urge adoption.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Maryland 
(Ms. Edwards) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record opposing the GOP's wretched Mother's Day 
gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1406, 
the deceptively-named, Working Families Flexibility Act--or, as I call 
it, The Working Families to Death Act. This bill--which is really an 
old, recycled idea from 1997--would allow employers to provide hourly 
workers with comp time rather than paying time-and-a-half on wages for 
more

[[Page H2507]]

than 40 hours of work. Simply, for hourly workers, this bill equals 
more work for less pay.
  Republicans have stated that ``hourly workers do not have the same 
rights that salaried employees and all federal employees have.'' And 
that they are ``trying to make equity and fairness.'' Further, they 
highlight that ``flexible work arrangements have been available to 
federal government workers since 1978'' and ``it is high time that the 
workers in the private sector of this country enjoy the same 
benefits.''
  Can you guess when those statements were made? Not this week or last 
week but in 1997 and 2003. Today's latest attempt to pass this ``comp 
time'' bill is part of the GOP's rebrand to become more family-
friendly. The bill's sponsor stated, ``time is more precious to [a 
working father] than the cash payments.''
  In reality, this bill creates more flexibility for employers and 
places workers at risk of being fired if they choose overtime pay to 
help meet their obligations rather than comp time. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this bill and work on policies that provide true, earned 
flexibility and fair wages for all workers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A Member asking to insert remarks may 
include a simple declaration of sentiment toward the question under 
debate but should not embellish the request with extended oratory.
  The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I now yield to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for the 
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the 
Record opposing the GOP's dubious Mother's Day gift--more work and less 
pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members to confine 
their unanimous-consent request to a simple declarative statement of 
the Member's attitude toward the measure. Further embellishments will 
result in a deduction of time from the yielding Member.
  The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record opposing the GOP's reprehensible Mother's Day 
gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the ``GOP's 
Mothers'' Day Gift: More Work, Less Pay.''
  This misnamed ``Working Families Flexibility Act'' only offers 
greater flexibility to employers and lower wages to workers. Under this 
measure, workers will not get paid for hours that exceed 40 hours per 
week. That compensation will instead go into a fund controlled by their 
employer.
  Employers would be allowed to refuse a worker time off to deal with a 
family member or attend a parent-teacher conference. This is not real 
flexibility for workers. This proposal is simply another assault on 
working families and it should be defeated.
  It is particularly ironic that House Republicans would offer this 
legislation in the week leading up to Mother's Day. As working women 
and mothers in New York and throughout the nation struggle with a tough 
economy, this ill-conceived measure would pull the rug out from under 
them, making them work more for less compensation.
  It is time to focus on real solutions that help working families 
prosper. Vote down this bill so we can focus on creating jobs, speeding 
our economic recovery and addressing challenges faced by working men 
and women.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record opposing the GOP's shameful Mother's Day 
gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. 
Titus) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record opposing the GOP's deplorable Mother's Day 
gift--more work and less pay for working mothers. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Nevada?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act, more 
aptly called the ``Paying Working Families Less Act,'' would have a 
negative impact on families in Nevada and across the country. H.R. 1406 
offers the empty choice of comp time in lieu of overtime wages without 
providing sufficient employee protections or real flexibility for 
workers to use their comp time when they need it the most. Nevadans are 
already struggling to make ends meet while caring for their families. I 
oppose H.R. 1406 because I believe that our nation needs legislation 
that will protect working Americans and strengthen the middle class. 
This legislation does the opposite.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentlelady from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record opposing the GOP's indefensible Mother's Day 
gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record opposing the GOP's thoughtless Mother's Day 
gift--more work and less pay for working moms.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in opposition to 
H.R. 1406, the Republican More Work, Less Pay Act.
  Hardworking American families deserve reasonable working hours and 
scheduling flexibility, livable wages, fair overtime pay and job 
security. Unfortunately, H.R. 1406 is a misguided policy which provides 
none of these. American workers need real choices in the workplace 
which put the interests of American families first. They don't need 
stunts like H.R. 1406.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from 
Connecticut (Ms. Esty) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement 
into the Record opposing the GOP's scandalous Mother's Day gift--more 
work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California 
(Ms. Waters) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record opposing the GOP's vile Mother's Day gift--
more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1406. This bill 
should be known as the ``More Work Less Pay Act.''

[[Page H2508]]

  Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938 to 
encourage a 40-hour workweek. FLSA also ensured that hourly workers 
would be fairly compensated for working over 40 hours a week. 75 years 
later, we are now debating a bill that will, in effect, eliminate 
overtime pay for millions of hourly workers.
  Last year, nearly 60 percent of the workforce in this country aged 16 
and over, were paid an hourly wage. This amounts to 75.3 million people 
in the United States according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
  Further, the Bureau found that 3.6 million of these workers earn 
wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. I 
represent the 43rd congressional district of California. In my home 
state, the minimum wage is 8.00 an hour. The impact of an $8.00 minimum 
wage is clear. We have one of the lowest percentages of workers who are 
earning at or below the federal minimum wage. There are several states 
that cannot say the same. Yet, like in all states, Californian's who 
earn overtime still rely upon that extra income.
  The legislation before us today needlessly targets millions of 
workers. These workers have come to rely on their overtime to make ends 
meet. We are not talking about millionaires but everyday hard working 
men and women. They utilize their added income to pay their rent and 
mortgages. They are using their overtime to feed their families and 
clothe their children. Hourly workers in this country are working 
overtime to pay for gas for their cars or pay their bus fare to get to 
work.
  H.R. 1406 provides absolutely no legitimate incentive for employers 
to give their employees time off. Under this bill, an employer could 
defer paying overtime for up to a year. This would, in effect, provide 
an employer with an interest free loan.
  Under this ``More Work Less Pay'' bill workers are not guaranteed 
compensatory time, commonly known as ``comp'' time. An employer retains 
the right to refuse to grant comp time. Under current law, workers are 
required to receive their overtime pay in their very next check.
  If an employer fails to pay overtime to their employee then the 
employee has a right to sue his or her employer. In 2011, the Labor 
Department recovered $225 million in back wages for employees. In that 
same year, there were 7,006 wage and hour suits filed in federal court. 
The numbers of employees suing their employers for back wages has 
steadily increased.
  Today, thousands of workers are currently fighting to ensure they are 
receiving their earned income. This is not the time to add into the 
fray, ``comp'' time flexibility and overtime pay cuts. If this bill did 
as it claimed and provided hourly workers with flexibility then there 
would be thousands of workers marching to D.C. championing this bill, 
instead nearly 200 labor unions and women's organizations oppose this 
measure.
  I believe we can all agree that working families do need flexibility. 
They need the flexibility that their extra earned income can afford 
them.
  The Jobs Report released last Friday reflected that our economy added 
165,000 new jobs in the month of April. Instead of focusing on 
legislation to create additional jobs, boost our economy, and increase 
the earning potential of workers in the United States. Republican 
leadership has chosen instead to focus on legislation that cuts the pay 
of working families.
  A pay cut called flexibility is still a pay cut.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from the 
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record opposing the GOP's deplorable Mother's Day 
gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I join women Democratic Members in 
opposition to this H.R. 1406--a ``more work, less pay bill.''
  Contrary to the title of this bill, it will take away the right 
workers currently have to overtime pay and instead authorize employers 
to substitute compensatory time to private sector employees. This bill 
is a smoke and mirrors proposal that sets up a deplorable false choice 
between time and money when working families need both.
  H.R. 1406 allows employers to offer comp time in lieu of overtime to 
their hourly workers without guaranteed right to use the time when they 
need it, even in time of a personal or family emergency. The 
Republicans try to compare this benefit to federal employees but this 
is not a fair comparison. Hourly workers do not have the same rights 
that salaried employees and federal employees have. Compensatory 
agreements can be terminate at the will of the employer. This 
legislation shortchanges workers both financially and logistically.
  This must not be done at any time, but certainly not at a time, when 
households are challenged by rising cost of living, they need cash for 
their time.
  This idea did not work in 1997, 2003 and will not work in 2013.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record opposing the GOP's disrespectful Mother's Day 
gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
1406, the misnamed ``Working Families Flexibility Act.'' This bill 
would take away critical overtime pay from families still struggling 
from the effects of the Great Recession. It might provide more 
flexibility for some businesses, but it would create real hardship for 
everyone else.
  Under this bill, employers could offer comp time to replace earned 
time-and-a-half wages for overtime. But workers who opt for that time 
off would not be guaranteed to get it when they want it--employers 
would have the right to deny comp time off requests, even if the 
request was needed for a personal or family emergency. Employers could 
dictate when you got your comp time--and they could make those 
decisions unilaterally. If you want to take comp time to care for a 
loved one or see your daughter in a school play, your employer can say 
no. And you have no right to appeal. And if the business closes or lays 
you off before you have a chance to use your comp time, you get nothing 
at all.
  Under this bill, a worker would have the option of foregoing overtime 
pay and hoping that sometime in the future she can get time off when 
she needs it, not when it's convenient for her employer. That's option 
one--work more and get paid less. Or she can take option two: demand 
overtime pay and find out that another worker--one who is willing to 
accept the employer's offer of future comp time--is given the extra 
hours.
  That unfairness is the reason that over 160 organizations 
representing working women oppose H.R. 1406--groups like Jewish Women 
International, the Coalition of Labor Union Women, the National Council 
of Women's Organizations, Wider Opportunities for Women, the National 
Women's Law Center, and the National Partnership for Women and 
Families.
  The U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce also opposes this bill. Their 
CEO Margot Dorfman writes, ``H.R. 1406 would reward those employees who 
agree to ``comp time'' in lieu of overtime payments. Employers 
incentivized by a reduced payroll might well give ``comp time'' 
employees the preferred shifts, the needed hours, and the promotions. 
There is no protection in H.R. 1406 against this kind of employer 
behavior.''
  The American Sustainable Business Council and Restaurant 
Opportunities Center United joins in opposition to H.R. 1406, because 
it ``would create headaches for any employer who must track banked 
hours across multiple employees.'' They add, it ``becomes a scheduling 
and accounting challenge when employees decide to trade in banked 
hours, requiring business owners to make unexpected shifts in personnel 
and paychecks. Obviously, small businesses with fewer resources and 
employees would be even harder hit by these enormous logistics than 
larger corporations.''
  It's true that working women and men need greater flexibility and the 
ability to balance family and job obligations. That's why today we 
should be debating the Healthy Families Act to guarantee paid sick 
leave. We should be debating expansion of the Family and Medical Leave 
Act to provide the paid leave needed to allow working women and men to 
address family needs.
  Instead, the Republican majority has decided to bring this bill to 
the floor--a bill that threatens overtime pay and gives employers more 
ability to determine schedules for their workers. That is no solution 
for working families.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Alabama 
(Ms. Sewell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert

[[Page H2509]]

my statement into the Record opposing the GOP's appalling Mother's Day 
gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California 
(Ms. Hahn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement 
into the Record opposing the GOP's dreadful Mother's Day gift--more 
work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida 
(Ms. Castor) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert 
my statement into the Record opposing the GOP's awful Mother's Day 
gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. COURTNEY. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) 
for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in 
the Record opposing the GOP's revolting Mother's Day gift--more work, 
less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and unyielding 
opposition to H.R. 1406, the so-called ``Working Families Flexibility 
Act of 2013.'' I thank Mr. Courtney for this opportunity to speak on 
behalf and in support of the working women and men in my District and 
against this terrible bill, which has been offered repeatedly over 
several Congresses, and each time it has found strong opposition and 
ultimate defeat.
  This bill should it become law would take income out of the hands of 
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.
  According to statisticians with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
there is no survey to offer insight on the issues addressed in this 
bill--the desire of employees to receive ``comp time'' instead of cash 
for their work.
  We do know that 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 Administration along with many of my colleagues will not support 
H.R. 1406--and it will not become law for very good reasons. H.R. 1406 
supporters say that it would not prevent employers from cutting the 
overtime hours and reducing the take-home pay of employees who 
currently have the right to overtime compensation. But will workers be 
in a position to assert this right given the economic climate and their 
own situations.
  So-called ``comp time'' or the ``company time'' legislation would 
allow employers to pay workers nothing for overtime work at the time 
the work is performed--in exchange for a promise of time off in the 
future.


  ``comp time'' would reduce new worker and could jeopardize existing 
                          worker take home pay

  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the average weekly 
overtime hours for manufacturing workers in 2012 was 4.2 hours or over 
44 hours a week. In a year 4.2 additional hours of overtime, 
considering 2 weeks for vacation would total 210 hours.
  The average income of a Boilermaker with less than 2 years of 
experience would earn $35,856.00 a year or about $18 an hour. In real 
dollar terms, a Boilermaker making $18 an hour, when working overtime 
would earn $27 an hour. Under H.R. 1406, the total forgone hours for 
the average workweek for a manufacturing worker over a year is 210 
hours--if the worker is a Boilermaker it means a loss of $5,670 
annually.
  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.


          ``comp time'' would hurt workers and their families

  Another clue that this bill may be way off the mark for what workers 
need--is the reaction of organized labor to it being brought before the 
House of Representatives for a vote. Labor is in strong opposition to 
H.R. 1406 because they know what this bill would mean to workers and 
their families, just as I and many of you know--it would mean forced 
labor hours without giving workers the guaranteed right to get paid for 
their work. The skill acquired by a worker is something they own and 
can bring to the market place in exchange for a fair wage. This is an 
important component of a capitalistic system that should be valued and 
respected.
  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.
  H.R. 1406 places unnecessary competitive pressure on employees to 
accept ``comp time'' because employers believe it is an easy way to 
reduce operational costs for their businesses. H.R. 1406 provides no 
meaningful protection against employers pressuring workers to enter 
into ``comp time'' agreements.
  The first quarter of 2013 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
recorded an increase of overtime hours worked to 4.3 hours per week for 
manufacturing jobs this is an increase over the last quarter of 2012. 
If Congress allows the free market to work then the numbers of employed 
persons will increase.


  ``comp time'' would threaten the protections offered by the 40 hour 
                                workweek

  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.
  The 40-hour workweek discourages employers from demanding overtime by 
making overtime more expensive.
  This bill by contrast, encourages employers to demand more overtime 
by making overtime less expensive.
  This gives all of the power to employers to demand their employees 
work longer hours without adequate compensation.
  By making it cheaper for employers to demand overtime, ``comp time'' 
would lead to more mandatory overtime, longer hours, and more 
unpredictable work schedules for workers.
  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.


            ``comp time'' is a pay cut for america's workers

  Millions of workers depend on cash overtime to make ends meet and pay 
their housing, food, and other living expenses.
  These workers would see a substantial reduction in their take-home 
pay if they were compensated with time off rather than cash up front.
  It is true that ``comp time'' is paid leave, but most workers would 
have been paid anyway if they had not taken the time off, and under

[[Page H2510]]

H.R. 1406 they are paid nothing for their overtime work at the time 
they work it.
  Again, H.R. 1406 takes the power out of the hands of the employees. 
H.R. 1406 does not ensure that workers' choice to reduce their income 
through ``comp time'' is truly voluntary.
  H.R. 1406 provides no meaningful protection against employers 
assigning overtime work preferentially to employees who accept ``comp 
time''.
  Under 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.
  If Congress wants to do something for workers we should support the 
President's Budget for state paid leave programs. His proposal would 
not force workers to choose between taking time off for family needs 
and receiving income, or even risk losing their jobs. The President's 
minimum wage proposal would also support working families by making 
sure that all workers receive enough hourly income to make ends meet.
  That is why I oppose H.R. 1406 and urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting against this terrible legislation.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I yield to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I ask unanimous consent to 
insert my statement in the Record opposing the GOP's bill. It should be 
called the Fake Flexibility Act and should more aptly be named More 
Work For Less Pay For Working Mothers.
  Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to the Majority's so-called Working Families Flexibility 
Act. The American people should not be deceived by this fake 
advertising.
  True workplace flexibility should be a two-way street for both 
employees and employers.
  I am a longtime sponsor of work-life balance legislation, including 
the original bill titled the ``Working Families Flexibility Act'' that 
provides both employers and employees with protections in discussing 
flexible work arrangements.
  Over the last 50 years there have been tremendous changes to our 
workforce. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 70 percent of 
children are raised in families that are headed by either a working 
single parent or two working parents. In addition, studies show that 60 
percent of those who provide care to an adult or to a child with 
special needs are employed.
  The numbers show the real case for flexibility in the workplace.
  And yet, Americans must not be deceived about the recycled bill on 
the floor this week. The more aptly named ``More Work, Less Pay Act'' 
undermines the basic guarantees of fair pay for overtime work and time 
off from work under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  I urge my colleague to bring to the floor true workplace advancement 
legislation and oppose the H.R. 1406.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I yield to the gentlelady from Arizona (Mrs. 
Kirkpatrick) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in 
the Record opposing the GOP's miserable Mother's Day gift--more work 
and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I yield now to the gentlelady from New Mexico (Ms. 
Lujan Grisham) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent to 
insert my statement in the Record opposing the GOP's dubious Mother's 
Day gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I yield now to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Johnson) 
for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing the GOP's 
unscrupulous Mother's Day gift--more work and less pay for working 
mothers. Happy Mother's Day to all mothers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. 
Capps) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you to my colleague for yielding.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing 
the GOP's appalling Mother's Day gift. Happy Mother's Day by giving 
more work and less pay to working moms.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Speier) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record 
opposing the GOP's ``shame on you'' Mother's Day gift--more work and 
less pay for working moms.
  Is this really what we want to give mothers on Mother's Day?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Matsui) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing 
the GOP's heartless Mother's Day gift--more work and less pay for 
working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I yield to my neighbor and good friend, the gentlelady 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the 
Record in opposition of a sham bill that, in fact, takes money away 
from men and women, particularly from women, and that is in no way a 
way to ensure the economic security of women in this Nation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I now yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. 
Frankel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record opposing the GOP's uncaring Mother's Day gift--
more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, if I could be given the time remaining, 
I'd appreciate it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut has 15\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2511]]

  Mr. KLINE. May I inquire as to the time remaining on our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 16 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KLINE. I want to thank my colleagues on the other side. It was an 
excellent show. It expanded the lexicon in the thesaurus.
  I now yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, a subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1406, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support this.
  In my previous life, I served as an employer for over 30 years, as a 
single parent and as a mayor of a city.
  We had an issue several years ago with our fire department on 
compensatory pay versus overtime. We agreed with the firefighters. It 
worked out fine. The firefighters all understood they couldn't all be 
gone on the same day. They worked with us great, and it was not a 
problem. It works in the public sector. I don't know why it cannot work 
in the private sector.
  All this bill does is leave the decision to receive comp time. It's 
completely voluntary. You don't have to do it. You can choose to do it 
if you want to. Number two, workers can withdraw from the comp time 
agreement whenever they choose. They can do that. It's not a problem. 
All existing protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act are 
maintained, the 40-hour workweek and how overtime compensation is 
accrued. It is up to the employee to decide when to use his or her comp 
time as long as there is reasonable notice to the employer.
  I certainly have heard mentioned what happens if an employer goes 
bankrupt. Well, what happens when a city like Stockton, California, 
goes bankrupt?
  I will finish by saying over and over that more work and less pay for 
working mothers doesn't make it true. I support this bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Bass) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. BASS. I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the 
Record opposing the indefensible Mother's Day gift--more work and less 
pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record opposing the reprehensible Mother's Day gift--
more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I now yield to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. 
Shea-Porter) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing 
the GOP's awful Mother's Day gift--more work and less pay for working 
moms. Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to an outstanding colleague on the Education and the Workforce 
Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. So it's Friday afternoon at the nursing home, and Debbie 
and Donna are approached by the boss.
  The boss says, I have 5 hours of overtime this weekend. You can 
either have cash or comp time.
  Debbie says, I'll take the cash. I need the money.
  Donna says, I'll take the comp time.
  Donna gets the overtime.
  The next Friday rolls around--the same boss, the same request.
  Debbie says, I'll take the cash. I'll take the overtime.
  Donna says, No. I'll take the comp time.
  Donna gets the overtime.
  It doesn't take very long for people to figure out what the right 
answer is when you're asked for overtime. You might say, Well, Donna is 
going to be okay because she gets all this comp time.
  Donna comes back and says, Next Friday is the pageant at my 
daughter's school for second grade. I want to take the morning off so I 
can go to my daughter's pageant.
  The boss says, No, that's not convenient for me. No.
  Now, I suppose in some theoretical universe Donna could hire a 
lawyer, sue her boss, and try to get to see her daughter's second grade 
pageant--not in the world that she lives in and the world we live in. 
The boss decides when she uses the comp time.
  The end of the year comes, and she hasn't used it yet. The boss 
writes a check to Donna without interest. Donna has made an interest-
free loan to her employer. If the employer goes bankrupt in that year, 
Donna is out of the money altogether.
  This is not about flexibility. It's about the conversion of someone's 
wages and assets. This is an assault on the 40-hour workweek. It is not 
worthy of this institution. It's wrong for our country. We should vote 
``no.''

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I need to inquire again as to the time 
remaining because as I listened to my colleagues come down for 
unanimous consent requests, it seems to me I heard the Speaker saying 
that the gentleman's time was going to be charged. How did that add up?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota has 14\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's interesting math.
  I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to a friend and colleague, the 
gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the committee for 
all the hard work that you've done, and especially to my good friend 
and fellow Republican Women's Policy Committee member, Representative 
Martha Roby, who introduced this very important bill because she 
realizes that as a mother of two children that the workplace must 
change to adapt to our increasingly stressful lives.
  Americans are struggling to balance their lives, doing everything 
they can to maintain their careers while still spending time with their 
families. We in the Congress can help. If H.R. 1406 becomes law, a 
working mom and dad can choose to use the time and a half overtime he 
or she earns as actual paid time off instead of cash. They would be 
able to use this time to see their daughter's piano recital or their 
son's baseball game when they would otherwise have to be at work.

  But, of course, even with this commonsense piece of legislation, 
there are detractors. Many myths have been spread about this bill. 
You've heard them here today. And the opponents refer to it as a ``pay 
cut for working moms,'' but this simply is not true.
  Also, I've heard that it's the assault on the 40-hour workweek. It is 
not. However, what is an assault on the 40-hour workweek is ObamaCare, 
which will force job creators to cut back their employees from full-
time to part-time in order to keep their doors open. The decision to 
receive comp time is completely voluntary.
  This is not a partisan issue. In 1985, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Joe 
Biden, and Steny Hoyer all supported giving the public sector employees 
the flexibility to choose comp time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I cannot 
think of a better Mother's Day gift. This is something we can do right 
now to help families at a time when they need it most.

[[Page H2512]]

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and his leadership.
  I rise in opposition to the Republican Party's Working Families 
Flexibility Act. It should be named the ``Fake Flexibility Act.'' It's 
a failure to advertise truthfully. If you were true, you would call it 
the ``More Work and Less Pay Act.''
  Under this bill, 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 men and women of their earned income 
and fail to guarantee them the right to use that overtime when they 
need to use it for a personal or family emergency.
  Shamefully, the United States ranks among the least generous of 
industrialized countries when it comes to family-friendly policies. We 
are one of three countries that fail to provide paid leave for the 
birth of a child. True workplace advancement benefits both businesses 
and worker interests. Instead, the Republican bill hurts employees by 
giving them less pay at a time when American wages are stagnant.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and bring up the 
Democratic minority's alternatives for paid sick leave, paid leave for 
the birth of a child, and true flex time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I'm now very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman and I thank Mrs. Roby 
for bringing this forward.
  It's really about time, because on the deathbed, very few people say, 
Boy, I wish I had spent more time at the office.
  I've got to tell you, from being in business all my life--and I think 
maybe that's the problem in Washington, not enough of you have actually 
been on the floor of a business because you think it's always about 
some kind of a fair treatment. But your definition of ``fair'' is not 
fair.
  When I look at men and women, I don't look at them as men and women. 
I look at them as moms and dads and grandmas and grandpas and aunts and 
uncles. They love to go to soccer games. They love go to baseball 
games, and they love to go to all those Cub Scout meetings. But you 
know what? We want to just give them the flexibility, the same as we do 
in the public sector.
  What an odd concept to actually give people the freedom to do what 
they want with their time and to work a little overtime so they can 
pick up extra time. My gosh, what a confusing concept that would be.
  And this is not by gender, by the way. If you think this is about 
working mothers, it's also about working fathers. Do you know how many 
times people don't have that time to go see their sons and daughters in 
a school play or a baseball game? You want to take that away from them 
with some kind of phony act today, and you'll line up 15 deep? Talk 
about insincerity and inflexibility; that's your party.
  You're supposed to be the party of the women. We're supposed to be 
the ones that don't like women. We're giving them a gift that you can 
never give: the gift of time. Nobody has the ability to do that.
  This bill makes it possible for people to spend that precious time 
with those precious few that they want to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, again, as someone who was a private sector 
employer for over 25 years, there is nothing under existing law that 
prevents an employer from giving an employee paid time off. I did it 
many times.
  Now it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to my colleague from the 
State of Florida, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the real 
effect that the Working Families Flexibility Act would have on our 
families.
  Contrary to its name, this bill does not protect working families. 
Many hourly workers in south Florida and across the country depend on 
the opportunity to collect their hard-earned overtime pay to support 
their families and make ends meet. This antifamily, antiworker bill 
would make it harder for employees to provide for their families and 
easier for employers to pay less for overtime work with hazy promises 
of time off later. The bottom line is that comp time doesn't pay the 
bills.
  This legislation provides no guarantee that employees would get to 
use their time off when they need it; or if an employer goes out of 
business, workers may never get compensated at all.
  I've heard no one on the other side of the aisle answer what happens 
when a boss says ``no'' to a request for comp time for that school play 
or taking their child to a doctor.
  Employees who depend on overtime pay to put food on the table may be 
forced to compete with fellow employees who are willing to trade their 
overtime wages for comp time.
  Passing this bill would deepen the financial insecurity of wage 
workers, especially Hispanic women who are more likely to be hourly 
wage workers, more likely to be responsible for family caregiving, and 
less likely to have negotiating power in their jobs.
  There are other bills on the table that offer far more meaningful 
solutions, and I urge the Republican majority to take them up and take 
care of America's working families instead of giving them the short end 
of the stick as this bill does.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
this piece of legislation.
  This Sunday is Mother's Day. It's a very bittersweet day for me. As a 
father of three children, I am constantly reminding my wife how 
important this day is and how important her job as a mother is. But 
it's 14 years ago this month that I lost my mother, my inspiration, my 
teacher, someone that I think about every single Mother's Day.
  I ask myself what would my mom, Sally Davis, say when we give the 
option to provide more flexibility to working mothers. In Illinois 
alone, my home State, there are over 1 million single parents that need 
this flexibility to be able to make the decisions they need to raise 
their families.
  As a father of three school-aged children, I've coached baseball 
games, I've watched my daughter cheer, and I've shuttled my kids to 
doctor appointments. It's part of raising kids and being a parent. 
However, more than 60 percent of employees feel they do not have enough 
time to spend with their families. Why not give these families the same 
flexibility that those in the public sector--many of my constituents in 
Springfield, Illinois, and throughout have the same opportunity to use? 
Why not to give them that flexibility? Just last year, employees at the 
IRS took more than 246,000 hours of comp time instead of additional 
government pay.
  No legislation is perfect, Mr. Speaker, but this legislation gives 
families, gives mothers, gives fathers the opportunity to choose and 
work with their employers to do so.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues 
to think of their mother and ask them what would they do.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a champion for working 
families and my neighbor.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us. It 
aims to end overtime pay, bring to an end the 40-hour workweek. This is 
another attempt by the House majority to accelerate a race to the 
bottom, strip workers of basic rights and protections, and undermine 
the foundations of the American middle class.
  The Working Families Flexibility Act does exactly the opposite of 
what it describes. There is no flexibility. The legislation guts the 
75-year-old statute guaranteeing overtime pay for work over a 40-hour 
workweek, overtime pay that those single moms need. Hardworking 
American families, they rely on it. It allows employers, if they so

[[Page H2513]]

choose, to provide comp time for all of this extra work, except there 
are no guarantees that workers can take the time when they need it, and 
there are no avenues for workers to file grievances if employers do not 
comply. This bill forces employees to work extra hours without overtime 
pay and get nothing in return.
  Yes, we need serious economic solutions to the problems that families 
are facing. Wages have stagnated for decades. Forty percent of 
Americans make less today than what the minimum wage was worth in 1968. 
And in America today, unlike in every other competitive economy in the 
world, 42 million workers cannot take off time when they are sick, when 
they need to care for a sick child or an ailing relative.
  We need legislation that provides employees with paid time off if 
they need it. The Healthy Families Act would allow workers up to seven 
job-protected paid sick days for each year. It builds on and reflects 
pro-family policies that have been passed in Connecticut; Seattle; 
Portland, Oregon; San Francisco; Washington, D.C. This majority has 
said ``no'' to an airing of this legislation. They want to eliminate 
worker protections and further undermine workers' paychecks and 
benefits.
  And America's families, they sent us here to represent their 
interests and address their needs, not to further erode their economic 
instability. Vote against this bill. Support paid leave, minimum wage, 
and pay equity if you want to help Americans families.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chairman of the 
Workforce Protection Subcommittee.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  I find it unbelievable to sit here and listen to the divisive, 
erroneous, fear-mongering information that's being put forth by the 
other side of the aisle. It's unbecoming. Today's workplaces are a lot 
different than they were just a generation ago. Technology continues to 
alter the way goods and services reach consumers, and cultural changes 
have transformed the nature of America's workforce.
  This important legislation, this compassionate legislation, allows 
private sector employees to choose--and I say ``choose,'' Mr. Speaker--
choose paid time off or comp time as compensation for working overtime 
hours, and this policy has already proven extremely successful.
  For nearly 30 years, government sector workers have been able to earn 
comp time. In fact, last year employees at the IRS took more than 
246,000 hours of comp time in lieu of overtime pay. No complaints. Yet 
working parents and individuals in the private sector are not afforded 
with this same choice.
  This is simply not right. Certainly every employee faces a unique set 
of circumstances and challenges and responsibilities. For some, taking 
time at home is a good thing for them. Additional pay is not necessary 
for them at that point, but having the opportunity to spend time with 
their children, to go to parent-teacher conferences and do other things 
with family is more valuable than a few extra dollars in the bank.
  Choice and flexibility helps employees meet the demands of their jobs 
and address the needs of their families. That's why I'm proud to 
support this bill, this pro-family, this pro-worker bill. This is what 
is meant for this time, and I encourage my colleagues to get off the 
divisive rhetoric and get to the unifying effect of saying, We will 
encourage people in their lives, their families, and their incomes.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to my colleague from 
the State of Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. The bill would amend the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938 to authorize private employers to provide 
comp time or compensatory time off to private employees at the rate of 
1.5 hours per hour of employment for which overtime compensation is 
required.
  Essentially, workers would be promised comp time instead of overtime 
pay. Many families depend on overtime pay to make ends meet. The Fair 
Labor Standards Act guarantees workers will receive overtime pay for 
over 40 hours per week. The bill only promises the potential for future 
comp time without any real protections for the workers. Hardworking 
Americans would be unprotected against long hours and less pay without 
the guarantee of any compensation. H.R. 1406 falsely promises more time 
with their loved ones by allowing them to choose paid time off. 
Unfortunately, workers will only get more time with their families 
after they've spent long hours, for less pay, at the approval of the 
employer.
  I stand with America's workers to oppose this legislation, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do the same. The 40-hour week has stood for 
75 years, and it should continue.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his 
leadership in bringing this bill forward, as well as the bill's 
sponsor, the gentlelady from Alabama, a working mom whose inspiration 
is her kids at home and her husband that she is responsible for and 
with in order to make life work for them in Alabama. So I want to 
appreciate her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill, the Working 
Families Flexibility Act. If you are a working parent in this country, 
you know from experience that there's hardly ever enough time to spend 
with your family.
  Recently, I spoke with a constituent from Richmond. Her name is 
Nicole Lambert. She's a working mom who runs an early childhood 
education center. It's quite often that Nicole is approached by one of 
her employees requesting more flexibility with how they can use their 
overtime. Some of her employees need to take off to take their child to 
the doctor, some need to go and meet with a teacher. But under the 
current law, Nicole is not able to present her hardworking staff with 
this option. She understands that this bill would give her employees 
more flexibility to balance both work and their lives at home.
  Mr. Speaker, for too long working families in the private sector have 
not been able to choose a more flexible schedule when working overtime; 
but for the past 30 years, government employees have been afforded this 
luxury. It's time for all of us to present all parents in America with 
this option.
  As a father of three, I can tell you as a working parent I know that 
it is very necessary to be there for your children. And I bet no matter 
who you are as a working parent, if you asked a mom or a dad what they 
need more of, it's time. Washington should not be standing in the way 
of any employer voluntarily offering this benefit for any employee 
choosing more time. That's the bottom line, Mr. Speaker. Washington 
should not be in the way of more freedom in the workplace.
  I know this policy will work, from speaking with local government 
employees who already enjoy this advantage.
  Vicki is a working mom and a police officer in my district. She works 
long hours, and she raises her children.

                              {time}  1500

  She tells me her life is made a little easier because she's allowed 
to work a few extra hours, save it up in case there's a sick day or an 
after-school event that she must attend.
  It's simply unfair for those who work for Nicole in the private 
sector to be prohibited from receiving the benefits that Vicki does, a 
government employee.
  This is a bill that should easily garner bipartisan support because, 
frankly, it puts parents before politics and will give people more 
freedom to make their lives work. There's simply no good reason to deny 
hardworking parents the opportunity to take their children to the 
doctor or to attend a parent-teacher conference.
  I want to thank my constituents for their relaying stories to me 
about their life story, about how this bill helps.
  And again, I'm very grateful to the leadership and the role model 
that the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby) and Chairman Kline have 
set forth in this effort. This act will help parents all across 
America, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Bishop), my colleague from the Education and 
Workforce Committee.

[[Page H2514]]

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Courtney for 
yielding, and for his leadership on this issue.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1406. I have a great many concerns about 
this bill, but let me focus on just one. There is little question that 
this bill will result in unjust actions being taken against employees 
who choose the traditional overtime pay option over the comp time 
arrangement.
  Under this legislation, employers have the right to only schedule 
employees that have agreed to enter into comp time arrangements without 
consequence. Suddenly, workers who rely on overtime income to help feed 
their family or put a child through college will see their hours 
curtailed and instead given to workers who choose comp time 
arrangements.
  There is not one word in this legislation that would protect a worker 
who needs cash for his or her overtime hours. They will clearly lose 
out to those workers who are willing to take paid time off or 
compensatory time off, as opposed to time-and-a-half overtime.
  There are a great many workers, and I grew up in a family that had 
one of those workers, that rely on overtime to pay the bills, to put 
their kids through college, and to see to it that they get to live 
lives of dignity. This legislation will take away that ability from 
those families.
  Republicans claim that this is somehow part of a new, family friendly 
approach to governing. Well, one of the first votes I cast as a member 
of the Education Committee, as a new Member of Congress in 2003, was 
against a bill called the Family Time Flexibility Act. The bill in 
front of us today is literally identical to that 2003 bill, minus the 
title.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1406.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my friend and colleague, a leader in so 
many areas.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
his work on this effort. And I also want to say thank to you Mrs. Roby 
from Alabama for the outstanding job that she has done on the Working 
Families Flexibility Act.
  I have loved talking with my constituents about this issue. And it is 
absolutely amazing, when you say, tell me what you think about this. 
Would you like to have the option, the ability to control what your 
compensation method is going to be? And so many of my constituents, 
whether they're rearing families, whether they have teenagers that 
they're working with, whether they're caring for elderly relatives, 
say, this is a great idea. And it is so worthy of discussion, and it is 
about time for Congress to do something that's just plain old good 
common sense.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason for this is, take a look at what is happening 
now. In 1975, when I was newly married and beginning to start a family, 
there were only 37 percent of all the families where both parents were 
working outside of the home.
  Look at what is happening now that my children are having their 
careers, and my daughter has two children. You've got just under 60 
percent where both parents are working outside of the home. On top of 
this, you have those of us who are caring for elderly relatives.
  And as the majority leader just said, any time you run a survey and 
ask women what they want, they would love to have more time, and they 
also want more control over how they're able to manage their lives and 
the lives of their families. And this is a piece of legislation that 
does that.
  I agree with what some of my colleagues have said. This Obama economy 
has really forced more families than ever to work more than one job. It 
has been very difficult. And having more options makes it easier for 
those families to manage.

  I thank the leadership for the work on the bill.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 4\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and ask unanimous 
consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing the GOP's 
shameful Mother's Day gift--more work and less pay for working moms. 
Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record opposing the GOP's deplorable Mother's Day 
gift--more work, less pay for working moms. No way to say Happy 
Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday morning, millions of mothers 
nationwide will wake up to the excited faces of their children wishing 
them a ``happy Mother's Day.''
  Mothers will receive gifts of all kinds from their sons and 
daughters--tokens of love and gratitude for all that moms do every day.


                          MORE WORK, LESS PAY

  Yet today, House Republicans are offering up a different Mother's Day 
gift: more work, less pay.
  House Republicans are putting forward the so-called ``Working 
Families Flexibility Act.''
  The name may make it sound appealing, but don't be fooled--this bill 
is nothing more than smoke and mirrors meant to hide its true purpose:
  To end the 40-hour work week;
  To cut pay for women;
  To undermine the economic security of the middle class.
  This legislation claims the mantle of flexibility, yet only means 
greater flexibility for employers and lower wages for workers.
  This proposal is simply another ideological assault on workers, 
another mean-spirited attack on workers' rights, and another Republican 
message bill that will never become law.


                           WHAT THE BILL DOES

  More work, less pay--that's what this bill is about.
  It guts protections for workers and removes flexibility for working 
families.
  It amounts to an interest-free loan to employers--paid for by 
workers' wages and unused comp time hours.
  It is nothing more than a mirage--claiming to give flexibility to 
workers to take time off to care for family or attend a parent-teacher 
conference while actually handing flexibility to their bosses to cut 
pay or call for more hours.


                        SAYING ``NO'' TO WORKERS

  This legislation is brought to you by the same people who attack and 
undermine working families at every turn--the same people who say:
  ``No'' to raising the minimum wage.
  ``No'' to the Paycheck Fairness Act
  ``No'' to extending unemployment benefits that strengthen our 
economy.
  ``No'' to any measure that could expand the middle class.
  The same people who will only say ``yes'' to more hardship for 
workers, to more pain for the middle class, to more work and less pay.


                               OPPOSITION

  No wonder this bill is opposed by more than 160 women's organizations 
across the country, from Arkansas and Arizona to Washington and 
Wisconsin, who wrote a letter to Congress calling this measure ``an 
empty promise [that] would cause considerably more harm than good.''
  No wonder President Obama has pledged to veto this bill, declaring 
that ``this legislation undermines the existing right to hard-earned 
overtime pay, on which many working families rely to make ends meet, 
while misrepresenting itself as a workplace flexibility measure . . .''


                                 CLOSE

  The Republican proposal is the last gift anyone should give our 
families on Mother's Day.
  That's why I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to 
work together on steps to invest in working families, to bolster small 
businesses, to create jobs, and to build a strong, thriving middle 
class.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Meng) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement 
in the Record opposing the GOP's callous Mother's Day gift--more work 
and

[[Page H2515]]

less pay for working moms. Not a Happy Mother's Day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Beatty) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. BEATTY. I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the 
Record opposing the GOP's appalling Mother's Day gift--more work and 
less pay for working moms. And that's a Happy Mother's Day?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut's time will 
be charged.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, you've seen them, many, many women, hourly workers. 
You've seen them with their sneakers on, their rubber-soled shoes, 
standing at bus stops, getting on buses in order to get to work and to 
get back in time to be with their children.
  But those workers need cash, Mr. Speaker. They need cash to make ends 
meet in housing, food and other living expenses. It's also our men as 
well.
  These workers would see a substantial reduction in their take-home 
pay if they were compensated with time off rather than cash up front. 
We know that if H.R. 1406 was passed they would be paid nothing for 
their overtime work at the time they work.
  We also realize that employers can schedule workers to work up to 160 
hours of comp time. Workers will be cheated out of the accrued overtime 
earnings, these same mothers and many, many men who depend on this 
overtime pay. You've seen them.
  The same mothers that will receive for their gift on Mother's Day a 
little outstretched hand with maybe a daffodil or a rose in it from a 
little 5-year old, mothers who need the cash.
  Let me tell you that the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce is against 
this legislation because they know that there will be preferential 
treatment. There will be pets, and the employers will pick those who 
have taken the comp time.
  You've seen these mothers. They get the outstretched hand and the 
little flower. Pay them their money.
  This is a bad bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and unyielding opposition to 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 
terrible bill, which has been offered repeatedly over several 
Congresses, and each time it has found strong opposition and ultimate 
defeat.
  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.
  Workers can request ``comp time'' during any 40 hour work week if 
they need it.
  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the average weekly 
overtime hours for manufacturing workers in 2012 was 4.2 hours or over 
44 hours a week. In a year 4.2 additional hours of overtime, 
considering 2 weeks for vacation would total 210 hours.
  A Boilermaker with less than 2 years of experience earns $35,856.00 a 
year or $18 an hour. A Boilermaker making $18 an hour working overtime 
would earn $27 an hour.
  In 2012 manufacturer workers overtime averaged 4.2 hours a week that 
would be 210 hours for 50 weeks of work.
  A Boilermaker over a year could accrue 210 hours in overtime--if this 
bill becomes law this could mean a loss of $5,670 annually.
  The first quarter of 2013 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
recorded an increase of overtime hours worked to 4.3 hours per week for 
manufacturing jobs this is an increase over the last quarter of 2012. 
If Congress allows the free market to work then the numbers of employed 
persons will increase.
  Labor is in strong opposition to H.R. 1406 because--this bill would 
mean forced labor hours without giving workers the guaranteed right to 
get paid for their work.
  Workers already have the right to ask for ``comp time'' within any 40 
hour workweek when they need it.
  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.
  If Congress wants to do something for workers we should support the 
President's Budget for state paid leave programs. His proposal would 
not force workers to choose between taking time off for family needs 
and receiving income, or even risk losing their jobs. The President's 
minimum wage proposal would also support working families by making 
sure that all workers receive enough hourly income to make ends meet.
  That is why I oppose H.R. 1406 and urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting against this terrible legislation.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I appreciate the 
committee's leadership on this important measure.
  I rise today in support of the Working Families Flexibility Act, a 
House of Representatives initiative that will give families and 
individuals across the Fifth District the freedom of workplace choice 
and limit the Federal overreach in our daily lives. At a time when our 
economy is struggling, we must look for ways to help our hardworking 
families and individuals.
  Under current law, public employees can choose between using overtime 
hours for pay or for paid time off. Unfortunately, this same option is 
not afforded to those who work for private companies. With small 
businesses and family farms being the engine of our rural economy, this 
option is therefore not available to many of my constituents.
  This bill before us today changes all of that. By ensuring private 
workers can accrue paid time off instead of overtime compensation, we 
will provide Fifth District Virginians greater flexibility in balancing 
their work schedules with the demands of family life. And we will take 
these important decisions out of the hands of Federal bureaucrats and 
place them into the hands of hardworking Americans.
  It is high time that this outdated regulation be replaced with the 
principles of individual freedom and individual choice. I urge my 
colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
  I thank Representative Roby for sponsoring this important initiative.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, it's now my privilege to yield 1 minute to 
my colleague from the State of Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. This really is an insidious bill. I've been listening to 
the debate on the floor, Mr. Speaker, and I have to tell you there are 
some things I heard that I think need correcting.
  First of all, median hourly wages in this country are $12.80 an hour. 
That's about $26,000 a year. And what that means is that for most 
workers, for some of our workers who are hourly workers, this bill 
really goes at the heart of the 40-hour workweek. In fact, what it does 
is it puts in jeopardy some of our most vulnerable in the workforce. 
Ninety percent of our hourly workers don't work under collective 
bargaining agreements, and that means that they don't have the 
protections that public sector workers have who get to enjoy comp time 
when it's available to them. They really do need the time and a half.
  It's not like the other side is proposing that we have earned sick 
leave, earned vacation, earned maternity leave. Instead, they want to 
take away pay and get a no-interest loan from workers instead of paying 
them time and a half for their overtime. There's no flexibility. The 
power is only in the hands of the employer who gets to decide when the 
comp time can be taken, whether it can be taken, and how it should be 
paid.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, if I could just inquire through you, 
again, we have no further speakers, so I'm prepared to close.
  Mr. KLINE. We have no further speakers, either.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Could the Chair give me one last update in terms of how 
much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.

[[Page H2516]]

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We've probably reached the point where enough has been said where the 
full 4\1/2\ minutes maybe isn't necessary, but again, I would just like 
to reiterate a few points. And again, as somebody who was an employer 
in the private sector for over 20 years, and, again, the notion that 
somehow existing labor law makes it impossible for employers to respond 
to their staff's family emergencies, to vacations is really just a 
myth.
  The fact of the matter is that over the last 75 years under the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, which protects the 40-hour workweek, employers in 
tens of thousands of workplaces all across America have always made 
accommodations for their staffs with paid time. What is different about 
this bill is it's basically tying that flexibility to sacrificing your 
right under the Fair Labor Standards Act to time and a half for every 
hour earned over 40 hours. Given the fact that we're living in a time 
right now where the median income of this country has basically been as 
flat as a pancake for the last 30 years, that is basically tipping the 
scales once again against working families in an unacceptable fashion.
  If you read this bill closely, you have to execute a written 
agreement every time you want to set up a comp time arrangement. Can 
you imagine small employers out there, basically, and their workers 
have to sit down and write like a mini labor agreement every time they 
want to come up with one of these arrangements? It doesn't allow for 
emergencies when you have a system like that.
  The enforcement mechanism, which would be through the State 
Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division--if anybody has ever dealt 
with them before, they know that is mission impossible. There is no way 
that that unit--which, again, today benefits from a bright line system 
where you just check the payroll hours. If you hit 40 hours, you've got 
to pay the time and a half. Nobody has the time to go through and 
examine that agreement to see if it was free and voluntary and whether 
or not the exercise of comp time was done in accordance with it. You're 
basically creating a labor relations board in every State, in every 
workplace across America.
  Careful what you wish for as employers if you read this bill closer.
  But the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, it does not 
empower employees or workers in terms of giving them the ability to 
basically support their family and have time to deal with the important 
family issues, whether it's the birth of a child, making sure you're 
there on important school dates, or making sure that they're there when 
they're ill or in need of family and parental assistance.
  The fact of the matter is paid sick time is the way that you do that. 
That's the way you empower people. And that is what exists in the 
public sector. That's why comp time works in the public sector. Paid 
sick time is something that is part of every collective bargaining 
agreement in all 50 States in the public sector.
  Small employers, is that what the majority really wants to impose on 
every private employer in this country?
  The fact of the matter is that we need to scrap this bill which is 
before us for the fifth time since 1996 and go back and have a real 
dialogue in a real bipartisan collaboration in terms of coming up with 
real solutions for working families.
  I actually am an optimist and believe we can do that. I respect the 
chairman. I respect my chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections. But the fact is we can do far better than this recycled, 
rehashed bill which, again, has been rejected by over 160 organizations 
which represent working families and women.
  Again, let's vote this bill down, go back, and as a real body, 
deliberative body, come up with a better solution for working families.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our time.
  I agree with some of the comments made by my colleague. The gentleman 
from Connecticut has talked about the years that we, Congress, have 
tried to extend the use of comp time to the private sector employees so 
they can access the same benefits that those in the public sector have 
enjoyed for almost 30 years. Yet powerful special interests have stood 
in the way through a constant campaign of misinformation.
  We've heard a lot of those same, tired talking points from the other 
side today. We've seen some political stunts. We've heard divisive 
language, and we've heard just plain misinformation, things that this 
bill does not say.
  We've heard, for example, that an employer could coerce an employee 
into taking comp time instead of overtime wages. That is simply not 
true. The bill specifically prohibits employers from doing that. An 
employer ``shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or 
coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for 
the purpose of interfering with such employee's rights under this 
subsection to request or not request compensatory time off.''
  There are extensive protections in this bill for employees and for 
employers. But we've seen the straw men, we've seen the accusations, 
and we've heard some things that, frankly, are just absolutely 
preposterous.
  Let's go over some of the basics.
  The Working Families Flexibility Act allows for the voluntary--the 
voluntary--use of comp time. Any worker who wants to receive cash wages 
is free to do so and can do so at any time, even if the worker has made 
an agreement, and not every time, and not some extensive legal 
document. It can be as simple as checking a block or just signing a 
piece of paper that says I would like to take comp time in lieu of cash 
overtime. And they can do it once a year.
  Even after they've signed such an agreement, if the employee says, 
``Do you know what? I really do need that cash. I wanted the time; now 
I need the cash. Another emergency has arisen,'' the employee can 
demand the cash and get it and must get it.
  The Working Families Flexibility Act puts workers in control of their 
time. They get to take the time off when they want to. These are 
exactly the same standards that have been working almost 30 years in 
the public sector. They simply can't unduly disrupt the business. 
That's worked for almost 30 years in the public sector, and it will 
work in the private sector.
  Mr. Speaker, despite all the rhetoric, despite all the accusations 
and despite all the misinformation, we know that millions of mothers 
for Mother's Day would like to have time. Time is more important to 
them than money. This legislation would give them the option, the 
choice--the voluntary choice--to take that time.
  We heard an example of a young, 5-year-old child coming forward with 
a flower. A lot of moms would like to take that time to spend with that 
5-year-old. They can't do it under the current law. We want to give 
that mother and that father that time.

                              {time}  1520

  This is a commonsense proposal. It will help hardworking Americans 
balance the demands of work and family. We need to do that for them. 
This doesn't balance the budget, but it will help families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1406, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gibson

  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Redesignate section 5 as section 6 and insert after section 
     4 the following:

     SEC. 5. G.A.O. REPORT.

       Beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act 
     and each of the 3 years thereafter, the Comptroller General 
     shall submit a report to Congress providing, with respect to 
     the reporting period immediately prior to each such report--
       (1) data concerning the extent to which employers provide 
     compensatory time pursuant to section 7(s) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938, as added by this Act, and the extent 
     to which employees opt to receive compensatory time;
       (2) the number of complaints alleging a violation of such 
     section filed by any employee with the Secretary of Labor;
       (3) the number of enforcement actions commenced by the 
     Secretary or commenced by the Secretary on behalf of any 
     employee for alleged violations of such section;

[[Page H2517]]

       (4) the disposition or status of such complaints and 
     actions described in paragraphs (2) and (3); and
       (5) an account of any unpaid wages, damages, penalties, 
     injunctive relief, or other remedies obtained or sought by 
     the Secretary in connection with such actions described in 
     paragraph (3).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GIBSON. I thank the chairman. And I thank the gentlelady from 
Alabama (Mrs. Roby) for bringing the bill.
  I have an amendment, but I first want to say that I support the 
underlying bill.
  I take a look at the fact that almost 30 years ago, right here in 
these halls, in bipartisan work, Democrats and Republicans worked 
together here, led by the Democratically controlled Congress, and 
worked with the President--then President Reagan--to provide comp time 
for State and local workers. What we're doing today is taking that same 
concept and extending it out to the private sector.
  I reflect on my constituents. I think about the busy lives that all 
our workers have, and I think about how challenging it is to bring 
balance to those lives. I think this is an important concept to bring 
forward, to think about those who are pursuing higher education, 
mothers and fathers that are looking to bring balance to the workplace, 
but also to raising their children, and how important that is for our 
families, for individuals, and for our country. So I think it's 
important that we extend this concept to the private sector.
  Now, I have friends who have concerns, and we've heard some of the 
concerns here today. I have reflected very extensively on those. I will 
tell you that what I see in this bill--and the chairman actually, I 
think, summed it up very well just moments ago--is, first and foremost, 
that this is a choice for the worker on whether or not they want to 
join this program. I recognize that there are arguments that are 
concerning on that score. But also, if the worker decides to enter the 
comp time program and decides to take comp time and then something 
unexpected happens where they choose to change their mind, there are 
provisions in this bill where the individual can notify their employer, 
and within 30 days the business needs to pay the employee.
  So as I reflect on the wording in this bill, I think there is a 
balance. But I also recognize that there are still concerns out there, 
and I want those voices to be heard. So this is the purpose of my 
amendment. I think we should hear from our government, hear from the 
GAO to talk about the implementation on how well it's going. This 
amendment says that after 2 years of implementation of this law, that 
the GAO would report out to us on how well that's going, and also 
provide us data if there are abuses and what's being done about those 
abuses.
  So I see this as yet another protection to ensure that as we look to 
extend this concept from the State and local governments, that we have 
protections in there to ensure that our workers are having justice.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition, although I am 
not opposed to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just want to again 
recognize my colleague's hard work. He is a person that I respect and 
admire greatly.
  Again, I do not oppose the amendment. It's hard to oppose a GAO study 
of almost anything because the more we know and the more we learn, it's 
always a good thing. However, what I would say, just in observation, in 
passing, is that if you look at the scope of the study, which is to 
basically look at actual adjudicated complaints before the Secretary of 
Labor, and looking again at the scope of the U.S. economy in the 
private sector, the fact of the matter is it is not going to be a very 
accurate picture really in terms of the operation of this bill--again, 
an attempt albeit, but nonetheless not something that I think is really 
going to give us a very accurate picture in terms of all of the day-to-
day sort of conflicts. Blurring the lines of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act and creating an almost chaotic system of executing written 
agreements in every instance where a person wants to negotiate an 
overtime comp arrangement really, I think, is even beyond the scope and 
great powers of the Government Accountability Office--which does do 
great work.
  Because, again, will this study tell us how many workers were fired 
or discriminated against for their choices? No. Because there is no 
right to reinstatement or rescheduling under this bill. Will this study 
tell us how many times a worker was denied the precise day he or she 
asked for? No. Because the bill provides no right to use comp time on 
that specific day.
  I want to go back to that point. If you go to page 8 of the bill, use 
of comp time is, again, under the veto power of the employer. The 
notion that somehow employees have unilateral choice or power over 
using that comp time is not the way this bill is written.
  As far as the public sector is concerned, again, in all of those 
instances you have an elaborate grievance system which exists at State 
government levels, city government levels, which doesn't exist in the 
private sector. And it certainly doesn't exist in the Department of 
Labor's Wage and Hours Division--which, again, Mrs. Roby and I, in all 
of our back and forth, fleshed out the fact that that ultimately is 
where complaints would go and reside.
  So, again, a GAO study is fine, and I'm certainly going to join the 
gentleman in supporting his amendment, but this does not fix a flawed 
bill. Once we get past this amendment, I think all of the arguments 
that you've heard over the last hour or so in opposition to the bill 
still trump any benefit that Mr. Gibson's good-faith amendment brings 
to the bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBSON. I just want to say that the gentleman from Connecticut is 
somebody whom I've very much enjoyed working with. I think he is a very 
thoughtful Member. I consider him a friend. I have listened very 
carefully to his comments and certainly will give him further 
consideration. I still believe that this amendment will be helpful.
  At this point, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. I thank my friend, Representative Gibson, for offering 
this amendment, which I strongly support.
  Let me start by highlighting a provision of the Working Families 
Flexibility Act that is meant to ensure this policy works today and 
into the future.
  Section 5 of the bill states:

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

  The intent here is clear: Congress has an opportunity and a 
responsibility to review the use of comp time by private sector 
employers and employees, if need be, to make adjustments in the law 
before authorizing its continued use.
  Even though comp time has worked well in the public sector for 
decades, Congress should examine its use in the private sector to make 
sure that workers are protected. To further support this oversight of 
the law the Gibson amendment would require GAO to regularly review 
private sector use of comp time and provide information to Congress 
relating to changes that might be needed. This commonsense addition to 
the bill will help inform Congress as it continues to oversee the use 
of comp time by private sector employees.
  The Gibson amendment is about transparency and accountability, and 
will help ensure the use of comp time in the private sector is a net 
benefit to employers and employees.
  Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act will help more 
Americans balance family and work. Because the Gibson amendment would 
strengthen this important effort, I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider 
H.R. 1406, inaccurately named the Working Families Flexibility Act. 
Instead of helping hard-working

[[Page H2518]]

Americans earn an honest wage and more flexible work hours, this bill 
makes it harder on folks already struggling to make ends meet. The 
reality is that under this bill, workers will lose personal control 
over their schedule and their pay. In addition, the system this bill 
imposes is ripe for potential workplace manipulation and abuse.
  Under this bill, workers will not get paid more than 40 hours per 
week, no matter how much overtime they put in. Overtime earnings would 
become an interest-free loan out of workers' pockets. Workers' overtime 
pay will be held until the end of each fiscal year or allocated as 
time-off, all at the discretion of the employer. There is no guarantee 
in this bill that workers could even get the time off that they might 
need for a family emergency or doctor's appointment when they need it. 
Workers could even jeopardize their job security by refusing to go 
along with this new system.
  Mr. Speaker, in Michigan, we believe that hard work merits fair pay. 
We believe that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules should get 
a shot at the American Dream. Last year, the average Michigan household 
income was $43,970. Adjusted for inflation, this is the same as the 
average household in 1989. This bill makes it harder for people who are 
already working hard and playing by the rules to make life better for 
their family by not allowing them to decide what's best for them and 
their family. If they work more, they should get paid more.
  When I talk to folks in my district, I ask about the concerns they 
are raising around the dinner table. Michigan families worry about how 
to stretch work schedules and each dollar earned to meet the needs of 
their family. There is no part of that discussion where Michiganders 
want Washington to force them to sacrifice their personal decision-
making about whether overtime pay or comp time is the right choice for 
them.
  Too many families in my district and across our country are still 
trying to recover from the worst economic crisis in generations. Why 
then, instead of working towards commonsense ways we can ease the 
financial burden on working families, is Washington forcing a personal 
decision to forfeit their overtime pay? Why is Washington dredging up 
deeply flawed proposals that have already been rejected time and time 
again?
  Now more than ever, we need ways to support our middle class so 
families in Michigan and across the nation can thrive. We can develop 
solutions that make raising a family easier for everyone. We have a lot 
of work ahead to rebuild our economy and strengthen our middle class, 
but this bill does neither.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1406, 
the so-called ``Working Families Flexibility Act.''
  This bill, which might more accurately be titled the ``More Work, 
Less Pay Act,'' would undermine the right to overtime pay and further 
weaken worker protections. Instead of actual money, employers would be 
authorized to provide compensatory time off at a rate of 1.5 hours per 
hour of overtime worked.
  While this might sound like a good deal in theory, it's a raw deal in 
practice. First, it could end up denying countless workers the 
opportunity to earn extra money they may desperately need to pay their 
mortgage, cover medical bills, or provide a good education for their 
children. Just as unfairly, there is no guarantee that a worker will be 
able to take off the comp time they accrue. This bill would allow 
employers to claim that a request for time off--time that the employee 
has worked extra hours to earn--is ``unduly disruptive,'' and the 
request would be denied without any follow-up. We all know that you 
can't plan for medical emergencies and sometimes parent-teacher 
conferences don't fit easily into the workday. But unless your employer 
agrees to allow you to use the comp time you've earned, you're out of 
luck.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) implemented the 40-hour work week 
to allow workers time to be with their families; and to increase demand 
for workers when a firm has larger workloads. This bill would 
effectively put an end to the 40-hour work week without any guarantee 
of proper compensation for extra time worked, and would strip employees 
of the flexibility to meet workplace and family needs.
  Instead of making life more difficult for hard-working American 
families, we should be considering legislation to establish a fair 
minimum wage, equal pay for women, or the Healthy Families Act, which 
makes earned paid sick days available to millions of workers.
  American workers deserve better than this misleading and misguided 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1406, 
the Working Families Flexibility Act. It outrages me that my Republican 
colleagues continue to clothe despicable bills in inventive titles. In 
point of fact, H.R. 1406 offers no flexibility to working families. It 
does, however, grant employers the flexibility not to pay their 
employees overtime.
  The Working Families Flexibility Act is nothing short of an assault 
on American working families. It will put an end to the 40-hour work 
week that my father fought so hard to enact in the Fair Labor Standards 
Act. The bill will force employees to work longer hours without 
guarantee of fair pay. It contains no provision to allow employees to 
contest employer decisions not to grant time off for personal or family 
emergencies. In short, the bill's sole purpose is to empower employers 
and disenfranchise the American middle class.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize H.R. 1406 for the evil it is and 
call on them to stand up for working families by voting it down.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1406, the 
Working Families Flexibility Act. A more accurate name would be the 
Employer Flexibility Act, because the bill would give employers the 
flexibility to deny their workers overtime pay.
  H.R. 1406 would overturn a key provision of the landmark 1938 Fair 
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that ensures workers who work beyond the 40 
hour standard work week are to be paid overtime--a rate that is set 
higher than the normal rate in order to keep the number of hours 
workers are asked to work reasonable. H.R. 1406 would undo this 
important provision so that an employer could, in lieu of making 
overtime payments to an hourly worker, make the promise of some future 
time off.
  And this legislation goes one step further. The time off promised in 
lieu of overtime payment would be up to the discretion of the employer. 
The employer could deny requests for time off for up to a year before 
the legislation would require employers pay out the equivalent in 
wages. This is great for bosses, but it doesn't do much for working 
families.
  Let's call this effort what it is: it is an anti-worker bill. Its 
effect would be to harm our nation's hourly workers: housekeepers, fast 
food workers, store clerks and other vulnerable members of our 
community. These individuals need their overtime wages the most.
  This bill would also have a disproportionate impact on women, who 
have increasingly become the breadwinners in American families. A 
Center for American Progress study demonstrates that in more than two 
thirds of our families, women earn at least a quarter of the family 
income, and in many cases earn as much or more than their spouse. Among 
families with children in 2011, some 40 percent were headed by two 
working parents. Our federal policies must take this reality into 
account and meet our families half way by granting genuine flexibility 
while maintaining the important protections, like overtime pay, that 
help families thrive.
  Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Republican Party 
leaders have sought to roll back worker protections. The past few years 
we have seen Republican Governors attempt to break up public sector 
unions and more recently, House Republicans repeatedly offered 
legislation to eviscerate the National Labor Relations Board.
  If House Republicans wanted to help working families have more 
flexibility, they could start by undoing earlier efforts to make life 
harder for American workers and join Democrats in calling for a vote on 
the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women are paid the wages they 
deserve, or the Healthy Families Act so that families struggling with a 
child's illness or other crisis could get time off to deal with those 
challenges without jeopardizing their families' future. Another 
important improvement for working families Republicans have refused is 
to increase the minimum wage of $2.13 per hour for tipped workers--a 
wage that has not been increased in nearly twenty years.
  H.R. 1406 has no chance of becoming law. It will not be taken up in 
the Senate, and the White House has promised to veto it. Why are we 
wasting valuable time on it? I urge my colleagues to take action for 
U.S. workers now, and support family friendly policies that will help 
our workers, restore the economic vitality of our middle class, and 
strengthen the social and economic bonds that knit us together as a 
people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1406, 
the so-called ``Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013.'' After 
reviewing the text, I must confess I am confused about how the Majority 
came up with the name for this bill. The ``Pay Working Families Less 
Act of 2013'' certainly does not have the same ring to it--but it would 
be a fair title for legislation that undermines the rights that workers 
have struggled for generations to secure. By repealing overtime 
protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, this legislation 
offers flexibility for bosses eager to exploit their workforce and roll 
back pro-family reforms that 21st century families need. In their 
place, is the illusion of flexibility wherein an employee can take 
overtime compensation in time rather than pay--but only when the 
employer decides it is convenient.
  However, just giving employers more flexibility is not what this bill 
is really about--H.R. 1406's ultimate goal is the systematic 
evisceration of overtime laws and all the benefits

[[Page H2519]]

they guarantee. No longer will employers have an incentive to boost 
employment by hiring enough workers to do the job. No longer will 
employers be forced to do something as basic as treat employees 
equally. No longer will employers be forced to pay every employee time-
and-a-half for working more than 40 hours a week. Instead, they can 
shuffle overtime hours to employees who agree to take time rather than 
compensation.
  Of course, this bill purports to protect against such manipulation. 
H.R. 1406's sponsor has said that the bill addresses these concerns 
because it bans employers from intimidating, coercing, and threatening 
workers. However, she also very clearly and very tellingly failed to 
include protections against discrimination. This lets employers force 
their employees to compete against one another for who will do the most 
work for the least amount of compensation.
  If my friends across the aisle were serious about being friendly to 
families, they would find a way to help them without gutting important 
wage and hour protections that middle class families need to survive. 
If my friends across the aisle were serious about workers' familial 
responsibilities, they would support Representative DeLauro's Health 
Families Act. If they wanted to ensure that an illness did not bankrupt 
a family, they would help working families save by supporting the Fair 
Minimum Wage Act. If they cared about working mothers, they would 
support the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women aren't receiving 77 
cents for every dollar a man earns.
  Unfortunately, they simply are not serious--at least not about 
helping working class families find the stability and security that a 
flexible work environment offers.
  I urge my colleagues to provide working families with legislation 
that provides real workplace flexibility and oppose this flawed and 
disingenuous bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the so called ``Working 
Families Flexibility Act,'' which more accurately should be called the 
``Less Pay for Middle Class Families Act.'' I voted against similar 
legislation in 1997 and continue to strongly oppose this policy. In 
effect, this bill takes pay from the pockets of American families and 
loans it to their employers, with no condition that they pay it back 
for up to a year. If enacted, this policy would make life even more 
difficult for millions of middle class Americans. Even the bill's 
promise of flexibility is only true for the employer, which can 
determine on its own when the employee could use any accrued 
compensatory time. Enactment of this bill would translate into less 
money for American workers, more power for their employers, and breaks 
the time-honored tradition that extra work means extra pay.
  This bill is an affront to middle class families across America. I 
oppose it.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong opposition to 
the egregiously misnamed Working Families Flexibility Act. It should be 
named the Working Families Inflexibility Act. This bill takes all of 
the control and choice out of the hands of workers and hands it right 
over to employers!
   H.R. 1406 denies workers their earned overtime pay and deprives them 
of any promise of future compensation. It strips them of any guarantees 
of time off for personal or family emergencies. It would, however, 
guarantee them longer work hours and less control over their own 
schedules.
   H.R. 1406 would also mean a pay cut for the millions of workers who 
need cash overtime to help pay their housing, food, and medical bills. 
Middle-income and low-income workers living paycheck to paycheck are 
already struggling to make ends meet and have come to rely on their 
overtime pay. After all, time off does not pay the bills.
   The Fair Labor Standards Act and the 40-hour work week has been 
extremely successful for decades, why does the Majority want to change 
that other than to cater to employers and continue their war on the 
working American?
   Mr. Speaker, under the guise of family-friendly public policy, the 
Working Families Flexibility Act is simply another assault on workers' 
rights. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, by allowing employers to deny overtime pay, 
by substituting compensatory time off for overtime at the discretion of 
employers and by denying guaranteed time off for workers when they need 
it, the Republican attempt to give the nation's mothers a Mother's Day 
bill gets jeers instead of cheers. This same bill has died in committee 
or failed three times since 1996 and the President has pledged to veto 
it this time. We need new ideas for hard-pressed working mothers, not a 
redux that takes more than it gives. This was a message bill, not a 
serious attempt to help working mothers. The Senate won't touch it. So, 
happy Mother's Day. We can and will do better.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________