Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1406) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, which should be called the More Work, Less Pay bill.

As my colleagues know, last week Majority Leader Cantor outlined his party's agenda for the month of May. The words he used to describe it was as a ``full legislative agenda,'' yet here we are only debating this bill on the floor of the House and I think finishing the business of the House around 1:30 p.m. today with plenty of time for Members of Congress to play golf, to go to the beach, whatever they want to do. This is hardly a full legislative agenda.

Let me add, Madam Speaker, that this bill is about overtime. Under this current legislative agenda, Congress wouldn't even come close to qualifying for overtime at a time when we have increasing national needs, balancing the budget, moving forward with jobs and the economy, comprehensive immigration reform. There are so many issues crying out for our attention, but here we are debating yet another bill that not only won't go anywhere, but also would actually make life harder and more unpredictable for American families.

This bill claims to provide working families flexibility, but in reality it allows employers to avoid paying overtime and get interest- free loans from their own employees.

There are many hourly employees who struggle holding two or three jobs, depending on overtime to pay bills, to keep food on the family table. If this bill were to become law, employers would be able to save a couple of bucks by essentially requiring people, in effect, to take comp time instead of overtime pay if they want extra hours.

Many American workers want to work more, not less. Under this bill, people's paychecks would be reduced and people don't have a real choice. It's no wonder that the vast majority of labor unions and workers oppose this bill and are not asking for this bill or this ``kind of help.''

I also want to correct something that has been claimed by my Republican colleagues, that somehow this bill gives private sector employees the same protections as public sector employees. That is not true. Most public sector workers are already protected against arbitrary and unfair treatment by civil service laws. Private sector workers don't have anything like that kind of protection.

That's why my colleague, Mr. Tim Bishop of New York, offered an amendment in committee specifying that private sector employers could provide comp time instead of overtime if they provided the same job security protections that public employees already receive. But this amendment was voted down in the Rules Committee yesterday, and we're not even allowed here on the floor of the House, where we're going to finish by 1:30 p.m., to have a debate. Somehow, there is not even enough time. Ten minutes is all we asked for on Mr. Bishop of New York's amendment.

Madam Speaker, the presentation of this bill is not consistent with the content of the bill. Of course it sounds good. Why wouldn't employees want the choice of being able to choose how they take their time? It all sounds good.

But like so many things that Congress does, the devil is in the details.

Contrary to what this bill says, employers can already give their employees time off if they so choose. Many do. We had Representative Joe Courtney in our Rules Committee yesterday who talked about when he was in the private sector and he had employees who had to attend school meetings, et cetera, he gave them time off. That's what most responsible employers do. We don't need legislation to tell employers it's okay to give their employees comp time.

Contrary to what the majority party here in the House says, employees wouldn't get paid under this bill until the end of the year for saved comp time--at no interest. No interest. So effectively, an interest- free loan to the company. Let's say an employee does overtime, works 45 hours a week for 3 weeks, accruing 15 hours of overtime. If they want this so-called flexibility that's provided under this bill, they choose to say, ``I may use this as comp time.'' That's their choice. However, they pay dearly for that choice in a number of ways.

Number one, if they don't use that comp time after a year, they get paid the original amount by the company. While it is true that if they got a raise in the intervening period, they get paid at that level of the raise, there is no accounting for interest or the net present value of those dollars. That's less of an impact when inflation is 1 or 2 percent, but still, it's an interest-free loan to the company. There's a much greater impact should interest rates ever return to their historical norms. And it wasn't that long ago that interest rates were in the high single digits, even double digits, effectively taking money from the worker and giving it to the company.

Number two, let's say the employer does want to use this comp time. Effectively, the employer has a unilateral veto over that. All they have to do is show that it creates undue disruption. That's the standard of unilateral employer veto.

Now, this is nothing like what occurs under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the FMLA. We've heard them say it's the same; it's not. Under FMLA it's a factor that leave doesn't create undue disruption. There's a variety of factors. It's not a sole determinant as determined by the employer.

In this case, the language is wide open to effectively provide a complete veto right of when that employee takes their time off. So again, our friend works 45 hours a weeks for 3 weeks, accrues 15 hours of overtime, and they get sold on this program. They say, ``I'll set aside the 15 hours.'' They try to take it off for their kid's birthday, they try to take it off when their kid is home from school. The employer says, ``No, you can't take it off that week.'' So it turns out that at the end of the year they still have their 15 hours.

They finally get paid, but because of net present value and interest, they are out 2 or 3 percent of that. Again, with higher interest, they could be out 10 percent. They could be out 15 percent of that. We can and must do better for American workers.

This bill would have a devastating impact for workers in my home State of Colorado. Me and my staff talked to Debbie Olander from United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 7. Debbie is a leader in our community, and she told me that wage step is already a big problem for workers in Colorado, and this bill would make it easier for employers to avoid overtime obligations and make it harder for employees who need those hours to pay those bills.

What happens if the employer goes out of business in the intervening year? Of course, the person whose wages are due can line up with other creditors, but who has the time or, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, the ability to wait to see if you ever get paid by a bankrupt employer? Instead of improving the lives of working families by giving greater flexibility, this bill allows employers to avoid paying overtime.

My Democratic colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee and I agree that we must give working families flexibility to meet workplace and family needs. That's why we support bills like the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help ensure that women are paid as much as men in the workplace, and the Healthy Families Act, which would establish a national paid sick day standard.

I've also heard from hundreds of workers from my district and across the country who support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In more than half of the States, it's still perfectly legal in this day and age for an employer to fire an employee just because they're gay and what they do in their off work time. It's none of the employer's business who an employee is dating. To think that in this day and age it's legal in half the States for an employer to fire an employee because of who they're dating is absolutely absurd. We need to solve that by passing the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.

American workers are asking for these kinds of protections, unlike this sort of program that's being discussed today, which workers oppose or don't see as necessary. Well, you know, based on again the schedule for Congress, me and my colleagues aren't about to accrue any overtime anytime soon unless things change around here. Here we are, examining bills that are catchy, have good titles, might sound good on the surface, but don't address any of the real issues faced by American workers, the American economy, or our country as a whole. We need an agenda that's consistent with the needs of working families.

Madam Speaker, despite this fixation on changing the image and appealing to voters, many on the other side of the aisle seem to be recycling old ideas. In fact, an identical version of this bill was introduced in 1996, 1997, and 2003. It failed to pass the House each time. Madam Speaker, what this body needs is not just new branding, it needs new ideas, ideas that will actually help working families and make our country stronger.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Before further yielding, I yield myself a moment to respond.

I thank the gentlelady for the correction. What I was referring to is the vote in the Rules Committee yesterday on an open rule which we voted on in committee. Had we considered this bill under an open rule, I or Mr. Bishop, or any other Member of this body, could have brought forth his amendment.

You're correct, it was not submitted to the Rules Committee. It was offered in the committee of jurisdiction, on which I also serve. And I argued, you might recall, to the chair yesterday that this bill is a fine candidate for an open rule. Given that there's nothing else this body's doing today and we're getting done at 1:30, we might as well allow amendments like Mr. Bishop's and others to be able to be debated by the House and considered by the full House.

I also want to discuss something that the gentlelady said, something about how a mischaracterization of the opponents of this bill is somehow saying the private sector is bad or the government's good. I haven't heard anybody argue that. The private sector is great. The private sector is a chief engine of economic growth. This discussion is about the private sector.

In fact, it's the other side that's somehow trying to model policies that they say already exist in the public sector and force the private sector to comply with them. We're not here seeking to try to copy what exists in the public sector and apply it to the private sector. The private sector is the primary engine of economic growth.

I think where perhaps we disagree is that I hear from many on the other side that somehow government is bad. I believe, and many on my side believe, that the minimum amount of government is necessary to ensure the success of the private sector, to ensure the rules are followed and there's an open and competitive environment that allows the private sector to thrive and succeed and create jobs for American families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 377, Representative DeLauro's Paycheck Fairness Act. To discuss her bill, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Before further yielding, I want to address this fallacious concept that the gentlelady from North Carolina has brought up in previous debate as well as this one that somehow the White House discriminates against women. Again, that's been proven as untrue. We actually have a young lady on our Rules Committee staff who worked for the White House and tells us she earned the same amount as men.

Of course, for the same job, women get paid the same amount. That's what paycheck fairness is about. It doesn't say if you do a different job you get paid the same amount, and it doesn't mean that every man and every woman is compensated the same. It's just for the same job, same pay. As for the Obama administration, every one of their actions and the White House's actions have been consistent with that. We believe it should apply to the private sector because, of course, not every woman in the country has the privilege of working for the White House.

We're talking about American families with real private sector jobs out there, not these government jobs that the other side keeps alluding to.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps.)

Before further yielding, I want to again address this great and sudden desire that the gentlelady from North Carolina has expressed to make sure that government policies apply to the private sector, to try to say somehow the way that government employees are treated needs to be the way that every private sector employee is treated. Usually it's the private sector that leads the way, not Big Government like the gentlelady from North Carolina is arguing. In fact, it's even a misinterpretation of what the public sector does.

The public sector has civil service protections for its employees. That's something that doesn't exist in the private sector. That's why, if we had been able to, under an open rule--which we don't have because, of course, somehow this body has to finish up by 2 p.m. so everybody can go home. But if we were allowed to have an open rule and actually bring forth amendments on this, we would be able to introduce Mr. Bishop's amendment, which would have facilitated this discussion of, well, if it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander. If the Republicans are so keen to apply public sector personnel policy to the private sector, then why not apply civil service protections to the private sector?

Again, the truth of the matter is there's a night-and-day difference between the types of protections and policies that public sector and private sector employees have. One of the goals of the Civil Service Act was to add a degree of professionalism to public sector jobs, to take away the patronage components that had a corrupting influence on the system. By and large it succeeded in that goal, to its great credit. It's a very different set of rules that we have with regard to the private sector.

So, again, I think that that is, to a certain degree, a false analogy, and I hope that the information I provided helps correct that in the eyes of those who are listening.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a colleague of mine.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I would just like to indicate I have one remaining speaker.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

I would like to inquire if the gentlelady has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

First of all, conflating somehow paycheck fairness with compensation of women at the White House is comparing apples and oranges.

Nothing that we are supporting or that the Paycheck Fairness Act includes says that women and men should all be paid the same regardless of what their job is. It simply says ``equal work, equal pay.'' There's no evidence in the Daily Caller or anywhere else that for the same job, in the White House or anywhere in the administration, that women are paid less. They are not.

Even if you had paycheck fairness--again, we passed our law; it becomes the law of the land in the private sector--it doesn't mean every woman gets the same pay as every man. It simply means that for the same job men and women get the same pay. It is quite possible there could still be a differential either way. There's not a problem with that. It depends on what jobs people have. But for the same job, it should be the law of the land, just as it has been President Obama's policy that men and women receive the same pay.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the ``more work, less pay bill,'' is yet another attempt to roll back workers' rights under the guise of doing just the opposite.

I wish we were here talking about things that would benefit American families like the Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure women receive equal pay for equal work; making sure that people can't be fired from their job just because of who they date. It is none of the boss's darn business.

But instead of collaborating with Democrats to produce a compromise bill we can be proud of, instead, this House is considering a bill that would

weaken over time and is nearly identical to bills that have failed in three prior Congresses.

There are many measures that we could be taking up to help grow the economy, reduce the deficit, create jobs, invest in the middle class, replace our broken immigration system with one that works; but this bill is none of those.

I wanted to point out and highlight the work of the Democrats on the Educational and the Workforce Committee. The Web site is Democrats.edworkforce.house.gov. They produced a video that shows exactly what this ``more work, less pay'' legislation is.

Mr. Speaker, I support giving American workers and families more flexibility. There could be a way to work together; but, again, this body has not done so. It does just the opposite. Instead of having an open rule under which many of us could bring forth amendments to discuss, Democratic Members offered several sensible amendments, which were rejected by the House majority, both in the committee of jurisdiction and the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 377, Representative DeLauro's Paycheck Fairness Act, of which I am an original cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can bring up the Paycheck Fairness Act. I urge a ``no'' vote on this restrictive rule and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 198 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013.

Madam Speaker, it's hard to raise a family and earn a living at the same time. The reality is that every hour you spend working to provide for your family is an hour you can't spend with your family, seeing your children off the first day of school, taking them to a doctor's appointment, or attending parent-teacher conferences. As a mother who worked while my daughter was growing up, I understand the firsthand

struggles of working parents. That is why my colleagues and I have introduced H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act.

This commonsense legislation will allow private sector workers to choose paid time off instead of cash wages as compensation for working overtime, which is the same privilege that Federal, State, and local government employees have been able to choose for over 30 years.

The Working Families Flexibility Act is pro-family, pro-worker legislation that gives workers the flexibility to spend time with family, attend parent-teacher conferences, care for aging parents, or attend to other family needs that may arise.

If an employer and an employee agree on comp time, then the paid time off must be granted at time-and-a-half for each hour of overtime worked. Labor unions support flexible overtime compensation for their own members, and this benefit is already included in many public sector union collective bargaining agreements.

The flexible approach offered by this bill has worked for public sector employees since 1985. If the policy works for our public service employees, it will work for our private sector employees, as well. Fair is fair, Madam Speaker.

The bill maintains protections for workers to ensure that this new flexibility is not abused by making the decision to receive comp time completely voluntary and allows an employee to change his or her mind if he or she initially chooses comp time but later decides to receive cash wages for overtime. All existing protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act remain in effect under this legislation, and it is up to the employee when he or she decides to use accrued comp time. Additionally, an employee cannot be intimidated, coerced, or otherwise forced to accept comp time in lieu of cash wages for overtime.

The legislation also maintains all existing enforcement remedies for employees if an employer fails to uphold the agreement, and employers must provide 30 days' notice to employees if comp time will no longer be offered.

H.R. 1406 provides proper protection and flexibility for employees and will help American workers better balance the needs of family and the workplace. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from Colorado.

Madam Speaker, this bill sounds good because it is good. This is the theme from our colleagues across the aisle: everything about the private sector is bad; everything about government is good. That is their constant theme. This bill allows voluntary participation by employees. It does not require things.

I would also like to point out to my colleague from across the aisle, who is very quick to point out any mistake that I might make, is we did not have an amendment from Representative Bishop in the Rules Committee yesterday. Representative Bishop's amendment was offered in the Education Committee, but was not offered in the Rules Committee yesterday.

I would also like to say that government employees do not get interest paid on the time that they eventually get paid for instead of comp time, so we are not setting up a double standard here. What we're trying to do is eliminate a double standard, again, that our colleagues across the aisle love to have--bash the private sector.

Madam Speaker, we live in the greatest country in the world, and what made us a great country? Look at the rest of the world. What's made us a great country is the rule of law, which means we believe everybody should be treated the same way. It's our capitalistic system which has worked wonderfully well for this country, and every other system has failed all across the world. We don't need to do much but to look at what is happening in the rest of the world and how sorry their economies are, and it's our Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Those are the things that I think have made us great, Madam Speaker, and this bill will allow us to give people who work in the private sector, which is part of what's made us such a great country, the same privileges that people get who work in the public sector.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Speaker, I would believe that the comments of my colleague from Connecticut would be a little more sincere if she would direct the issue of pay disparity to the White House. The White House needs to do something about pay disparity. If we had leaders who led by example, then the White House would straighten out the pay disparity that exists there.

Also, my colleagues don't seem to want to talk about the bill before us today because it is such commonsense legislation. They have no real arguments to offer about defeating it, so they want to distract the American people onto other issues.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As my colleague from California knows, I am very fond of her and respect her a great deal; but I want to say that this bill is not a bad bill. This bill does not roll back the rights of workers at all.

And if the bill is so bad and what it does is give fairness to people in the private sector and it gives to the people in the private sector the same rights and privileges that people in the public sector have, then why are my colleagues not trying to roll back those rights for the public sector? It would make sense that all the horrible things they've said about this bill which apply to the public sector you would want to protect the public sector.

But that's not what my colleagues are doing. They're simply saying it isn't right to let the private sector employees have the same rights and privileges that public sector employees have. It doesn't make any sense for them to make that argument. It just doesn't make any sense to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act makes it easier for American workers to juggle the needs of family and the workplace. That's what it accomplishes.

I want to urge the people watching this debate to read the bill. Unlike the thousand-page bill that came out that people have to ``wait until it passes'' before they understand what's in it, before we understand what's in it, this bill is basically 8 pages long. Any American can read this bill and understand it. So I would say to you, if you doubt what we are saying on our side of the aisle, read the bill. That is the best way for the American public to be informed.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider it, there are some things to keep in mind.

First, it in no way undermines longstanding essential worker safeguards or forces workers to give up overtime pay if that's how they choose to be compensated. It simply provides an additional level of flexibility that government workers already enjoy. I don't know how many more ways we can make that point, Mr. Speaker, but we will continue to do that.

Further, the bill does not allow employers to bully employees into picking comp time over cash payment. It provides new important safeguards to ensure that the choice to use comp time over cash wages is truly voluntary. Employees can change their minds and request overtime cash payment in lieu of unused comp time.

For employees represented by a labor organization, the labor organization and the employer must first reach an agreement to provide this benefit before the employee can choose to exercise it. For an employee who is not a member of a labor organization, the agreement is between the employer and the individual employee and must be entered into knowingly and voluntarily by the employee and may not be a condition of employment.

The bill does not change the 40-hour workweek or how overtime is currently calculated and accrued, and it does not affect comp time provisions regarding employees of Federal, State, or local governments.

Mr. Speaker, in fiscal year 2012, IRS employees accrued 246,450 hours of comp time in lieu of overtime pay. That amounts to 30,806 full 8- hour days. Employees at the Department of Labor accrued 51,097 hours of comp time, or 6,387 full 8-hour days. Employees at the Department of Education accrued 12,408 hours of comp time, or 1,551 full 8-hour days.

It's clear that Federal employees appreciate this flexibility. What is unclear is why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so hell-bent on denying private sector employees this same flexibility. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

We hear the word ``fairness'' from the other side of the aisle constantly. This bill is fair, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 1406 simply affords private sector employees the same flexibility that Federal, State, and local government employees have enjoyed for over 30 years. It is unconscionable to me that our colleagues would vote against this and say you should be a second-class citizen if you work in the private sector.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman from Colorado has additional speakers, but at this time I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

A little while ago we had a debate about the pay in the White House. I have an article from the Daily Caller that I would like to enter into the Record, and I will quote briefly from the article. The article is dated January 15, 2013, posted by Caroline May:

While President Obama handily won the women's vote by 11

percentage points in November over Republican nominee Mitt

Romney, his administration paid the women on his payroll less

than his male employees last year.

A Daily Caller analysis of the administration's ``2012

Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff'' shows that

while women comprised about half of the 468 staffers--as the

President touted during his press conference Monday--they

also earned about 13 percent less, on average, than their

male counterparts.

The median 2012 salary for female employees of the White

House was $62,000; for men that number was $71,000.

The article ends with a quote from New York Democratic Representative Charlie Rangel. He, however, called Obama's failure to appoint more women and minorities to high-profile positions ``embarrassing as hell.''

``The questions I've heard are fair,'' Rangel said January 10 on MSNBC. ``The record does speak for itself.''

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Obama White House Paid Women Staffers Less Than Men in 2012

By Caroline May

While President Barack Obama handily won the women's vote

by 11 percentage points in November over Republican nominee

Mitt Romney, his administration paid the women on his payroll

less than his male employees last year.

A Daily Caller analysis of the administration's ``2012

Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff'' shows that

while women comprised about half of the 468 staffers--as the

president touted during his press conference Monday--they

also earned about 13 percent less, on average, than their

male counterparts.

The median 2012 salary for female employees of the White

House was $62,000; for men that number was $71,000.

The DC calculated the median male and female salaries by

determining employee genders based on their names. In cases

where the gender was not clear, The DC either identified the

specific employee in other ways or--in a few cases--assigned

gender based on the most common use of a given name according

to databases of baby names.

The 2012 pay disparity represented an improvement from the

disparity in 2011 figures the Washington Free Beacon reported

last year. According to that analysis, the median female

compensation in the White House was $60,000--$2,000 less than

in 2012--and the male employees' median was unchanged at

$71,000. That amounted to an 18 percent difference.

In his statement last year declaring April 17 Equal Pay

Day, Obama lamented the pay disparity between men and women

in America, echoing the well-worn yet often-questioned

statistic that ``women who worked full-time earned only 77

percent of what their male counterparts did.''

He pointed to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which made

it easier for women to sue for lost wages due to pay

discrimination, and to the creation of the National Equal Pay

Task Force in 2010, as examples of the administration's

commitment to equal pay.

``At a time when families across our country are struggling

to make ends meet, ensuring a fair wage for all parents is

more important than ever,'' the president said. ``Women are

breadwinners in a growing number of families, and women's

earnings play an increasingly important role in families'

incomes. For them, fair pay is even more than a basic right--

it is an economic necessity.''

Obama's White House female employees achieved a slightly

better 87 percent of what their male counterparts earned,

compared to Obama's national 77 percent figure.

In recent weeks Obama has come under fire for the

composition of his inner circle--initially sparked by an

official White House photo of the president published by The

New York Times in which he was surrounded by all men. His

nomination of white men to all four second-term cabinet

positions so far has also drawn criticism.

Establishment media outlets and women's groups have been

troubled by the apparent lack of female leadership and

diversity the administration has exhibited so far--with the

National Organization for Women demanding to know ``President

Obama, Where are the Women?'' Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and

Gloria Steinem, all co-founders of the Women's Media Center,

have pressed Obama to adopt an inner circle that looks more

like American.

``[Obama] wouldn't have been re-elected without 55 percent

of the women's vote, something he earned by representing

women's majority views on issues, yet now he seems to be

ignoring women's ability to be not only voters, but

leaders,'' the trio wrote Friday in a CNN website essay.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell noted Sunday on ``Meet the Press'' that

women inside the White House ``are not happy'' with the male-

dominated face of Obama's administration.

Monday, Obama addressed some of the criticisms about the

composition of his cabinet, saying that it is too soon to

``rush to judgment'' and that women were influential

throughout his first term.

``So if you think about my first four years, the person who

probably had the most influence on my foreign policy was a

woman,'' Obama said. ``The people who were in charge of

moving forward my most important domestic initiative, health

care, were women. The person in charge of our homeland

security was a woman. My two appointments to the Supreme

Court were women. And 50 percent of my White House staff were

women. So I think people should expect that that record will

be built upon during the next four years.''

We have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I am willing to close after the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of this bill. I can't understand why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so opposed to fairness when fairness applies to the private sector.

I would like to point out to my colleague that we would have entertained amendments in the Rules Committee had they been germane or if they had not been withdrawn. As he well knows, being a member of the Rules Committee, the amendments that were introduced by his colleagues were withdrawn before the committee had an opportunity to consider the amendments or were ruled nongermane.

I also assume that, based on the comments our colleagues have made across the aisle, that because the rights and privileges that are given to public employees are so horrible that they cannot be extended to the private sector, that they will probably be introducing a bill to withdraw those rights and privileges because they're only hurting public employees, and our colleagues don't want to be hurting private sector employees.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to providing more opportunities for more Americans and helping make life work for more families. This legislation is a great step in that direction.

The rule before us today provides for consideration of a bill that gives employees across the country the flexibility that they deserve so they can better manage the many daily challenges of family life. Whether the employee is a new parent who wishes to stay at home with a newborn, a proud aunt who wishes to attend her nephew's baseball game, or a son or daughter who wants to care for an elderly parent, America's private sector employees should be able to determine for themselves what to do with the overtime compensation that they have earned.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

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.

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. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now yield to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Titus) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Hahn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

I yield to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

I yield to the gentlelady from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

I yield now to the gentlelady from New Mexico (Ms. Lujan Grisham) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

I yield now to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Johnson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

I yield to my neighbor and good friend, the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

I now yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Frankel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, if I could be given the time remaining, I'd appreciate it.

I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Bass) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

I now yield to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

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.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a champion for working families and my neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to my colleague from the State of Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my colleague from the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time left?

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, it's now my privilege to yield 1 minute to my colleague from the State of Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, if I could just inquire through you, again, we have no further speakers, so I'm prepared to close.

Could the Chair give me one last update in terms of how much time remains?

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. Speaker, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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

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.

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.

I thank Congressman Polis for yielding time and rise against the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1406, the More Work for Less Pay Act.

Congress should protect workers' wages and overtime rights, not undermine them. USA Today reported yesterday that stock markets and corporate profits are breaking records, but workers who rely on paychecks for their income have been running in place--financially speaking--and falling behind, despite their productivity increasing consistently for the last several years. That means they're working harder for less. Adjusting for inflation, an average worker who was paid $49,650 at the end of 2009 is now making about $545 less, and that's before taxes and deductions.

Living standards aren't rising for the middle class; they're falling. Yet the profits of Standard and Poor's 500 companies hit a record in the first quarter. The roaring market is making the richest Americans even richer, giving them even more money to spend.

How about this? Brian Moynihan, Bank of America, he earns about $12.1 million that is reported in the papers--I'm sure it's even more than that--and Goldman Sachs, their CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, $21 million that he's willing to admit; and John Stumpf at Wells Fargo, $22.9 million. Frankly, how much more do they need?

Now, meanwhile, during the first 2 years of the recovery, while average net worth rose for the top 7 percent of households, it fell for the other 93 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. The reason is clear: corporate America isn't sharing its record earnings with those who are earning them. In fact, higher corporate profits owe partially to the employers' success at paying workers less even while those workers are working harder, and holding down their raises and forcing overtime rather than hiring from the ranks

of the 12 million who remain unemployed.

Productivity has been rising at an average of 1.5 percent a year since the recovery began, while companies are squeezing more out of each worker even as inflation-adjusted wages have stagnated and hiring remains sluggish.

I thank the gentleman.

Still, so many Americans are out of work that employers can get away with giving no raises at all.

America is supposed to be about opportunity for all, not just the few. We're supposed to be about fair pay for hard work.

I ask my colleagues to oppose the Republican More Work for Less Pay Act, and I would urge us to pay fair wages for a fair day's work. All you have to do is go to parts of the country where people's faces are worn. You'll see what's really happening out in the real America. Let's oppose this Republican bill and the rule.

The bill gives employers the flexibility not to pay overtime to their workers; instead employees would be provided comp time.

However, employers, not the employee, are provided the flexibility to decide when and even if comp time can be used.

There is nothing in the legislation that guarantees that workers will be able to use the comp time they have earned when they need it.

In fact, the bill permits the employer to deny a comp time request if the employee's use of comp time would unduly disrupt operations.

Employers can even veto an employee's request to use comp time even in cases of urgent need under the legislation.

If an employee does not accept comp time, they could be penalized with fewer hours, bad shifts, and loss of overtime hours.

Given that it is cheaper to provide comp time than to pay overtime wages, this bill provides a significant incentive for employers to hire fewer people and rely on overtime to be paid for future comp time.

The Fair Labor Standards Act currently allow employers to provide workers with flexibility and time off without compromising their right to be paid fairly for the hours they work.

Consequently, this legislation is unnecessary based on current law.

Workers should not have to put in extra time beyond a 40-hour week and be forced to forgo pay to earn time to care for themselves or their loved ones.

The same bill proposed and died in committee in 2003 and failed in 1996 and 1997 to get through Congress.

[From USA Today, May 6, 2013]

Economy Leaves Wages Behind

(By Paul Davidson and John Waggoner)

Stock markets and corporate profits are breaking records.

The economy suddenly looks brighter after the government's

surprising report Friday that employers added 635,000 jobs

the past three months.

But instead of celebrating, many working Americans are

borrowing a line from the 1996 movie Jerry Maguire: ``Show me

the money.''

Hourly wages ticked up 4 cents in April to an average

$23.87, rising at about the same tepid 2 percent annual pace

since the recovery began in mid-2009.

But taking inflation into account, they're virtually flat.

Workers who rely on paychecks for their income have been

running in place, financially speaking. Adjusting for

inflation, an average worker who was paid $49,650 at the end

of 2009 is making about $545 less now--and that's before

taxes and deductions.

Stagnant wages aren't only tough on workers--the American

economy is paying a price too. Living standards aren't

rising. Consumer spending, which is 70 percent of the

economy, is more restrained. And the recovery advances at a

slower pace.

Ultimately, for the economy to thrive we need everyone

participating,'' says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's

Analytics.

The profits of Standard & Poor's 500 companies hit a record

in the first quarter. Their healthy earnings have boosted

stocks, and April's encouraging jobs report sent the stock

market even higher Friday. The Dow Jones industrial average

crossed 15,000 for the first time and closed at a record

14,973.96, up 142.38 points.

The roaring market is making the richest Americans richer

and giving them more money to spend. But in 2010, only 31

percent of U.S. households had stock holdings of $10,000 or

more, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

During the first two years of the recovery, average net worth

rose for the top 7 percent of households but fell for the

other 93 percent, the Pew Research Center says.

Meanwhile, Corporate America isn't sharing its record

earnings with employees.

``Don't hold your breath,'' for employers to become more

generous, says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's

Investors Service. One reason, he says, is that revenue

growth has been meager, up between 0.5 percent and 1 percent

in the last year.

In fact, higher profits owe partially to employers' success

in controlling labor expenses by getting workers to be more

productive, holding down raises and hiring conservatively.

Productivity, or output per labor hour, has risen an

average 1.5 percent a year since the recovery began.

Companies are squeezing more out of each worker even as

inflation-adjusted wages have stagnated.

Another reason for stagnant wages is the law of supply and

demand. Sure, the job market has picked up: Employers added

165,000 jobs last month and an average 196,000 a month this

year, up from 183,000 in 2012. And the jobless rate has

fallen from a peak of 10 percent in 2009.

Few incentives to boost pay

Yet today's 7.5 percent unemployment rate is still high.

Nearly 12 million Americans are unemployed, and millions more

want to work but are so discouraged they've stopped looking.

With an abundant supply of potential workers, employers have

little reason to shell out big raises.

``High unemployment hurts workers' bargaining power,'' EPI

economist Heidi Shierholz says. ``Employers know they can go

get someone else.''

So many Americans are out of work that employers could get

away with giving no raises at all, Zandi says, leaving

household income falling behind inflation. But employers

realize that would hurt morale and, in turn, productivity, he

says.

Still, wage increases that just barely keep up with

inflation don't make for a prosperous economy.

``We're not seeing the living standard growth of American

workers that we should be seeing,'' Shierholz says.

Stagnant wages also hurt consumer spending. Low- and

moderate-income workers typically spend nearly all their

paychecks, juicing the economy, while high-income workers

tend to save a portion, says Dean Baker, co-director of the

Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Larry Breech, of Milville, Pa., a retired farmer who makes

about $10,000 a year, says his per diem pay for substitute

teaching hasn't changed in several years.

``We will be frugal,'' he says. ``Fiscal restraint is

imperative.''

Consumer spending, which has been growing at an average

annual rate of about 2 percent during the recovery, would be

rising by 2.5 percent if employers simply passed their

productivity gains onto their workers, Zandi says.

Some workers are getting bigger raises. While the lowest 10

percent of income earners got average raises of 0.3 percent

last year, those in the top 25 percent saw their pay jump 3.1

percent, say the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Moody's

Analytics. Workers with higher skills and more education in

booming industries, such as energy and technology, can

command higher salaries.

Stephen Allen, an oil industry contractor in St. Louis,

says his wages have increased by more than 60 percent the

past three years. He makes about $85,000 a year.

For now, it's up to Americans like Allen and those with

large stock holdings to generate a bigger share of spending

and economic activity. The top 20 percent of households based

on income account for nearly half of consumer spending,

according to Barclays Capital.

good news for households

A bright spot is that despite puny wage increases, other

barometers of household finances show improvement. The

housing market is continuing a solid recovery. Climbing home

and stock prices have helped households overall recover the

wealth they lost in the recession and housing crash.

And the share of income Americans are using to pay off debt

has fallen to 10.4 percent, the lowest level since the

government began tracking the data in 1980, reports the

Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, falling gas prices are putting

more cash in consumers' pockets. Such developments can partly

offset sluggish wage growth and pave the way for higher

spending.

After working off debt the past three years, Allen says he

expects to be debt-free this summer ``and then save for a

down payment on a house.''

Still, economists say consumer spending won't take off in

earnest until inflation-adjusted wages return to a normal

growth rate of about 1.5 percent a year. Baker says that

likely won't happen until unemployment falls below 6 percent,

probably in 2016.

Then, employers will begin to worry about not finding

enough workers.

``They'll start to hire more aggressively,'' pushing up

wages faster, Zandi says.