Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall votes 72, 73, 74, and 75 last week, I would have voted ``yea.'' I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1003, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, and applaud the leadership for bringing it to the floor for early adoption.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. I thank him for emphasizing this point.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. BALLENGER. The gentleman is correct. Whether the agreement to accept comp time is negotiated by the union or by the individual employee, the use of comp time belongs to the employee who earned it. Neither the employer nor the union may require an employee to use comp time at a certain time.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the Record. The gentleman from Massachusetts referred to this bill as allowing an 80- hour, 14-day workweek, and I am sure he misspoke but I want to correct the Record. There is no such provision in H.R. 1. It has only to do with the 40-hour workweek and does not change anything. I want to say something ahead of time, Mr. Speaker, because I think the speeches today will be aimed at the evil employer syndrome that the committee has brought out. The Democrat members of the committee brought out over and over that all employers are basically dishonest and, therefore, will cheat their employees one way or the other. One of the quotations that has been used over and over again in studying this bill is, already we are losing $19 billion a year in unpaid overtime. This statement has no reason at all to be in this debate. This happens to be involving a thing called pay docking. We all studied this last year. It has to do with salaried workers who possibly may be allowed to have additional pay because of overtime hours. But they are salaried workers. We are not talking about salaried workers in any way, shape or form. We have only to deal with hourly workers. So the $19 billion they are talking about does not apply in any way, shape, or form. I want the people to know I have called local governments to find out how they felt about the use of this particular benefit that they already have. Let me just say the county governments, I talked to two county governments in North Carolina, both of whom are using this in varying ways, and let me just say varying ways are possible if the employee and the employer agree. We have checked with several local governments in California that decided not to use this. In other words, the possibility of saying yes or no to this is pretty much evident across the board. I think people should recognize that this is a permissive law. It allows the employer to offer it if he wants to and it allows the employee to accept it. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say over and over again, all employers are not evil and I wish everybody would accept that fact.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. I would like to say that let me first of all say taking comp time does not affect your pension. Now let me say we had several employees that testified before our committee, and I would like for people to hear what they said. This is from Christine Korzendorfer: Overtime pay is important to me; however, the time with my family is more important. If I had a choice, there are times that I would prefer to take comp time in lieu of overtime. What makes the idea appealing is that I would have the choice with the legislation you're considering. Knowing that I could have a choice in how to use my overtime would allow me to better combine my work and my family obligations. This is Peter Faust from Iowa: Time is precious and fleeting. There are always lots of ways to make money in this country and lots of ways to spend it, but there is only one way to spend time with yourself, family or friends; and that's to have time to spend. When I look back on my life, my regret will be and already is that on occasions when I needed to be there for my family or they asked me to be part of their life I couldn't be there because I either didn't have the time saved up or I couldn't afford the time off without pay. Pass this bill into law. And then Linda Smith from Miami, FL: With the implementation of bank comp time program, I could use my overtime hours to create time for pregnancy leave for a second child, for furthering my education, taking care of a debilitated parent or, closest to my heart, creating special days with my daughter. Accrued comp time will also allow me to take time off for doctors appointments and teachers conferences or to take care of a sick child without having to use accrued sick time. Today it's only prudent for individuals to take steps necessary to prepare for their future financial needs. H.R. 1 seemed to be a perfect vehicle to do something with our time. And then finally quoting President Bill Clinton: ``We should pass flex time so workers can choose to be paid for overtime in income or trade or trading it for time off with their families.''

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, [Mr. Riggs], a subcommittee chairman.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. This is a simple bill. It will allow private sector employers and employees, where there is agreement, to have the option of using comp time or paid time off in lieu of overtime pay. It is designed to give hourly employees the opportunity to have more flexibility in their work schedules so that, for example, they can better meet the demands of work and family. Let me just say that since I first introduced this bill in the 104th Congress, I have tried to address the concerns that others have had with this legislation. There have been changes made to this bill at each step of the process, at least 23, and the majority of these changes were made to give employees greater control over their accrued comp time and to make perfectly clear that the choice of comp time by the employee must be truly voluntary. Let me review the protections for the employees: Any agreement to take comp time must be voluntary on the part of the employee and indicated in writing. Where the employee is represented by a union, the agreement to take comp time must be part of the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the union and the employer. An employee can always opt out of a comp time agreement for any reason at any time. The employer then has 30 days to compensate the employee with overtime pay instead of comp time. The bill protects against coercion and has specific penalties for any employer who coerces an employee into choosing or taking comp time against his or her will. An employee could use accrued comp time whenever he or she wants to use this time and the only restriction on the employee's use of that time is that it not unduly disrupt the employer's operations. This is the same narrow standard used in the public sector and would not allow the employer to control the employee's use of comp time. In addition, the bill requires the employer to automatically cash out unused comp time at the end of the year as an added protection for the employee. There are surveys which show that there is strong support among hourly employees for having this option. Obviously, not every employee would use it.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, if I may again say, this has nothing to do with changing the 40-hour work week. I do not know where they are coming from. We have had three hearings on this bill. Every employee that testified, testified in favor of the bill. We had no employee testify against it. Only the Washington union leaders testified against this bill. Let me read a letter from some of the best companies in the country for employees: ``Working Mother Magazine recently recognized our companies as being among the top 100 with the best employment policies in the United States for working mothers. The article in Working Mother and other publications highlighted some of the creative solutions companies are developing to accommodate the unique needs of working parents. In our quest to create a family friendly work environment, we have explored a variety of benefits and policies. One of the issues consistently raised by our employees is a need for greater flexibility in scheduling work time. Unfortunately, our ability to provide this flexibility is significantly hampered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Because of the FLSA, we are not allowed to offer compensatory time off to our hourly employees. Many companies, like ours, offer an array of benefits to working parents such as child care assistance, extended maternity or paternity leave, and telecommuting. These programs can be expensive and that expense often makes them prohibitive to small employers. This bill allowing for flexible scheduling arrangements certainly represents a way that larger employers can further accommodate their employees. In addition, it represents a way small employers can respond to their employees' needs in a relatively inexpensive way. This letter was signed by Eastman Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, Hughes Electronics, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Company, Motorola, Texas Instruments, TRW Space & Electronics. Let me just say Working Mother said that these were the best employers in the country and they, as well as their employees, want comp time.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of our committee.

Mr. BALLENGER. I have one speaker who will close.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I only have one speaker left, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], a member of the committee.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the amendment prohibits, the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] prohibits, workers earning 2\1/2\ times the minimum wage, currently $11.88, or about $23,700 for the full-time worker, from accepting compensatory time. Many of these workers would like to have that option. In fact one of the individuals who testified at our subcommittee hearing, Peter Faust, in support of compensatory time told us that he makes about $20,000 per year. Why should he and everybody else who makes less than $23,000 be barred by the law from making this choice? Do the sponsors of this amendment not trust these workers to know what they want and what is best for them? The Owens amendment is premised on the argument that lower income workers are inevitably at the mercy of their employers and so cannot make a free and voluntary choice about compensatory time. The bill addresses the issue of employers' voluntary choice for employees including those who make less than $23,000 with numerous employee protections. Let me read what Mr. Faust said in his testimony. He said time is precious and fleeting. There are lots of ways to make money in this country and lots of ways to spend it. But there is only one way to spend time with yourself, family, or friends, and that is to have time to spend. When I look back on my life, I regret and always will that already those occasions when I needed to be there for my family and they asked me to be part of their life and I could not because I did not have time. I say to my colleagues that this man begged us on bended knee not to exclude him from this bill, and I think almost anybody would recognize that he can make a rational decision as can all other people in that wage scale. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, employees want more flexibility and choice in their work schedules. Unfortunately, there is a provision in the Federal law which prevents employers from being able to provide their employees with flexibility in one area: giving them the choice of paid comp time or cash wages for working overtime. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections recently heard testimony from witnesses in support of the Working Families Flexibility Act, which would allow employers to offer employees their choice of time or money. As Peter Faust, an employee with the Opportunity Village in Iowa said, ``There are a lot of ways to make money in this country and lots of ways to spend it, but there's only one way to spend time with yourself, family, or friends, and that's to have time to spend.'' Linda Smith, an employee with the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute in Miami, FL, testified that she could save her overtime hours up for furthering her education, taking care of a debilitated parent or spending time with her young daughter. Please support the needs of these employees and others by supporting H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by many of my colleagues in the introduction of the Working Families Flexibility Act which would allow private sector employers to provide their employees with the choice of taking time-and-a-half compensatory time as payment for overtime in lieu of cash wages. This legislation is family friendly and answers the call of many workers for increased flexibility and choices in the workplace. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs wages and hours of work, was written nearly 60 years ago for a predominantly male work force and a workplace primarily comprised of manufacturing firms. Yet, the demographics today are dramatically different. Sixty percent of women are employed outside of the home and two-earner families have become increasingly common. The Fair Labor Standards Act, however, fails to recognize these changes and, as such, restricts the ability of employers to meet the needs of their work force. Many employees are finding it increasingly difficult to find enough time for important family obligations or outside interests, making receiving compensatory time instead of cash overtime an attractive option. Seventy-five percent of respondents in a national public opinion survey favored giving employees the option of receiving time off instead of cash wages for overtime hours worked. Many employers who want to be family friendly find that flexible scheduling can be extremely difficult for employees who are paid by the hour and covered by the overtime provisions in the law. Suppose an employee has a terminally ill parent who lives several States away. Days off with pay can become precious for that employee when a 2-day weekend does not provide enough time to travel and spend time with that parent. When that employee works a few hours of overtime each week, he or she may prefer to be paid with time off rather than with cash wages. If the individual is employed in the public sector, then he or she would have the choice of receiving paid time off in lieu of cash wages for overtime hours worked. However, under current Federal law, if the individual is employed in the private sector then he or she cannot choose paid time off, even if that form of compensation is preferred. The Working Families Flexibility Act would allow employers to make compensatory time available as an option for employees. Employees would have the choice, through an agreement with the employer, to take overtime pay in the form of paid time off. As with overtime pay, the compensatory time would accrue at a rate of time-and-a-half. Opponents of the Working Families Flexibility Act have raised concerns about employees being coerced by employers into choosing compensatory time over cash wages. Thus, the legislation includes numerous protections to ensure that employees cannot be pressured into one choice or the other. Employees could accrue up to 240 hours of compensatory time within a 12-month period. The legislation would require the employer to annually cash-out any unused, compensatory time accrued by the employee. Employees could choose when to take accrued compensatory time, so long as its use does not unduly disrupt the operations of the business (the same standard used in the public sector and under the Family and Medical Leave Act.) Employers would be prohibited from requiring employees to take accrued time solely at the convenience of the employer. At any time, an employee could withdraw from a compensatory time agreement with their employer or request a cash-out of any or all accrued, unused compensatory time. The employer would have 30 days in which to comply with the request. The legislation would also require an employer to provide the employee with at least 30 days notice prior to cashing out any accrued time in excess of 80 hours or prior to discontinuing a policy of offering compensatory time. This legislation does not eliminate or change the traditional 40-hour work week. It simply provides employees with another option in the workplace--time off instead of overtime pay. This concept may be revolutionary to some, but to America's workers, who are increasingly frustrated about coping with the demands of work and family responsibilities, it is a long overdue change. I urge my colleagues to respond to the needs of America's workers by supporting the Working Families Flexibility Act.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago I signed the Contract With America. I am as proud of that decision today as I was then. I have been blessed and honored to have been part of history; to be part of a movement dedicated to a brighter and a more hope-filled future for America. Our friends on the other side like to say we are running from the contract. I say horse feathers. The Contract With America has changed the political landscape right here in Washington, DC. The days of tax and spend are history. No longer will Congress levy taxes on the people of this great country for inefficient and burdensome bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, 65 percent of the contract is now signed into law. We have changed Congress, we have cut spending and ended welfare, and most importantly, we have kept our promises.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, here it is, the Washington Times headline for today: ``White House Buries Critical Drug Report.'' Mr. Speaker, let me quote the story. The Clinton administration, which has cut drug interdiction efforts by nearly $630 million since 1992, is sitting on a Pentagon commission report suggesting that President Clinton's shift to a drug treatment strategy has failed. The report, sent to the administration officials in May but never made public, said interdiction was the most successful and cost-effective way of dealing with the Nation's drug problem. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the White House actively suppressed knowledge of this report. It boggles the minds to know that when confronted with evidence of failure of their own policies, that the White House would look the other way. It is simply too much to accept that the President would do virtually nothing, knowing full well of the explosion of teen drug use. This is unbelievable.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, last month, Newsweek magazine ran a story on the politics of the war on drugs. Here is a quote from the article: ``Although cocaine is still a major problem and heroin is getting worse, it is simply beyond argument that Bill Clinton has failed to use the powers of his office to lead the war on drugs.'' The articles goes on to report that 18 months ago, FBI Director Louis Freeh wrote a ``scathing'' memo detailing how illegal drugs were flowing into America like an all-conquering army. Freeh reportedly said there was no true leadership in the war on drugs. Madam Speaker, what else was in that memo? What could have motivated Bill Clinton's hand-picked FBI director to make these revelations? And why hasn't this memo been released? The Clinton administration should release the Freeh memo, and while they are at it, they can explain to the American people why they have done so very little to stop the flow of these drugs when they knew about it over 18 months ago.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, late last week the Boston Globe ran the following article--``Four more years? Here are 40 reasons to say ``no.'' I'd like to share their more amusing reasons to vote against Clinton. His ``Cabinet that looks like America'' contained 14 lawyers and 10 millionaires; ``100,000 more police on the street.'' Seen them yet? ``A tax cut for the middle class.'' Seen it yet? George Bush was right: Clinton did want to turn the White House into the waffle house. Shut down two of the four runways at Los Angeles International Airport so he could have his hair cut aboard Air Force one by Christophe of Beverly Hills; Christophe's going rate: $200 per haircut; Jocelyn Elders; Craig Livingstone. Clinton went on national television and answered questions about his underwear. Mr. Speaker, haven't we had enough?