Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2039 - Exempting Local Government From Fair Labor Standard Act - 05_23_1985Resolution #2039 May 23, 1985 Agenda Item #39 HW:js RESOLUTION WHEREAS, in 1974 the United States Congress extended the application of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act to the fifty states and their political subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court two years later in National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), held that the Congress had no power to enforce the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the FLSA against states in areas of traditional governmental functions; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 1985, however, the Supreme Court in Garcia v. San Antonio Mass Transit Authority, 53 L.W. 4135 (1985), overruled its opinion in National League of Cities but commented that the states and their political subdivisions, if dissatisfied with the Court's new deci- sion, could encourage the Congress to modify the law; and WHEREAS, the effect of Garcia has been to make all state agencies and political subdivisions subject to the provisions of the FLSA immediately, without adequate time to implement changes necessitated by the Court's decision; and WHEREAS, the resulting fiscal impact on Texas state and local govern- ments could be significant; overtime requirements for state and local governments, for example, could be particularly burdensome since the FLSA requires time and one-half payment for hours worked that were often previously compensated by equivalent time off from work; and WHEREAS, the City of Lubbock, Texas, has for many years provided an equitable compensatory time off system for City employees who work over- time, and many City employees prefer that system of compensation to the one that is now mandated; and WHEREAS, Garcia will create an excessive financial burden on the City of Lubbock; and WHEREAS., adherence to the provisions of the FLSA will result in substantially increased costs in a time of limited revenue, weaken the delivery of public services to the citizens of Lubbock, and penalize the City for choosing to hire governmental employees on terms that are dif- ferent from, but not necessarily less beneficial than, those sought by the Congress; NOW THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: SECTION 1. THAT the Congress of the United States is hereby requested to pass legislation which would exempt state and local governmental employees from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. SECTION 2. THAT the Secretary of Labor, while the Congress is considering the passage of legislation which would exempt state and local governmental employees from the FLSA, be requested to work with represen- tatives of the National League of Cities, the Texas Municipal League and other public interest groups to provide administrative relief under the Department of Labor's regulatory authority in the form of rules which provide some flexibility for key governmental operations such as police departments and fire departments. SECTION 3. THAT the City Secretary forward official copies of this Resolution to the President of the United States, to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, to the Secretary of Labor, to each member of the Texas delegation to the Congress, and to both members of the United States Senate from Texas, with the request that this Resolution be entered in the Congres- sional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Passed by the City Council this 23rd ATTEST: anett&-Boyd, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Ed Priest, Director of Personnel APPROVED AS TO FORM: arold Wil ard, Assistant- City Attorney day of _ May , 1985. ALAN HENRY, MAYOR - 2 - 0 CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Phil Gramm United States Senator United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Gramm: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City. Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/1 jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock. Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senator United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Bentsen: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of. the United States of America. Si ncerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/1 jb Enclosures (2) Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE June 3, 1985 The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Speaker of the United States House of Representatives 2231 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20501 Dear Speaker O'Neill: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The following Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Phone: 762-6411 Lubbock, Texas 79457 Extensions: 2025-2026 June 3, 1985 The Honorable George Bush President of the United States Senate Executive Office Building Washington, D.C. 20501 Dear Vice President Bush - The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/ 1 j b Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 78457 June 3, 1985 The Honorable William E. Brock Secretary of Labor Executive Office Building Washington, D.C. 20501 Dear Secretary Brock: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 . The following Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/ljb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Sam B. Hall, Jr. United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Hall: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Charles Wilson United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Wilson: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock,Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Steve Barlett United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Barlett: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock,Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Ralph M. Hall United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Hall: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Phone: 762-6411 Lubbock, Texas 79457 Extensions: 2025-2026 June 4, 1985 The Honorable John Bryant United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Bryant: The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock,Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Joe Barton United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Barton: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 . The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Bill Archer United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Archer: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/ljb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Bill Archer United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Archer: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Jack Fields United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Fields: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 . The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/ljb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Jack Brooks United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Brooks: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock. Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable J. J. Pickle United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Pickle: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Marvin Leath United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Leath: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/ljb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Phone: 762-6411 Lubbock, Texas 79457 Extensions: 2025-2026 . June 4, 1985 The Honorable Jim Wright United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Wright: The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/ljb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock,Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Beau Boulter United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Boulter: _ Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Si ncerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock. Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Mac Sweeney United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Sweeney: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution,.I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/ljb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock,Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable E. "Kika" de la Garza United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Garza: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 . The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/1 jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock,Texas 78457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Ronald Coleman United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Coleman: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution,.I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/1 jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Stenholm: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Mickey Leland United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Leland: Phone: 762.6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/ljb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock,Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Larry Combest United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Combest: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 . The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Si nce rely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Phone: 762-6411 Lubbock, Texas 79457 Extensions: 2025-2026 . June 4, 1985 The Honorable Henry B. Gonzalez United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Gonzalez: The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Tom Loeffler United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 -Dear Representative Loeffler: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 . The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/1 jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Tom DeLay United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative DeLay: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 . The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/1 jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Phone: 762-6411 Lubbock, Texas 78457 Extensions: 2025-2026 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Albert Bustamente United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Bustamente: The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Martin Frost United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Frost: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 . The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution,.I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Mike Andrews United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Andrews: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RBJIjb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock. Texas 79457 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Dick Armey United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Armey: Phone: 762-6411 Extensions: 2025-2026 . The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/l jb Enclosures (2) CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE Post Office Box 2000 Phone: 762-6411 Lubbock, Texas 79457 Extensions: 2025-2026 June 4, 1985 The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz United States Representative House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Ortiz: The enclosed Resolution was passed by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas, in its Regular Meeting on May 23, 1985. As specified in Section 3 of the Resolution, I am requesting that you enter this Resolution in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. Sincerely, Ranette Boyd City Secretary RB/ljb Enclosures (2) G�-v a039 JOE BARTON 6TH DISTRICT, TEXAS COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEES: ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATIONS ENERGY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS Ms. Ranette Boyd City Secretary City of Lubbock P.O. Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 Dear Ms. Boyd: Conarea of the Etliteb btoteo �9oUge of 3aeprtantatlbeg Na bington, 33C 20515 June 26, 1995 1017 LONGWORTH BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (202) 225-2002 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEES: WATER AND POWER RESOURCES ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Thank you for sending me a copy of the resolution passed by the City Council of Lubbock requesting that state and local govermients be exenpt from canpliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. I understand your concern over the recent Supreme Court ruling that would force state and municipal govermients to conform to these standards. In overturning a 1976 ruling, the Supreme Court has reinstated amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act passed by Congress in 1974, thus requiring state and local goverm-ents to conform to the provisions of the act. I do not feel that Congress should have ever extended its authority into this area. I believe that the regulation of state and federal employees is best performed by state and local agencies without federal intervention. I share your concern that application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to state and local governments will significantly increase costs for those governments without providing additional benefits for, employees. Therefore, I would support legislation that would remove state and local goverm-ents from the jurisdiction of the Fair Labor Standards Act. I am glad to know that I have your support on this issue. Once again, thank you for contacting me to voice your concern on this issue. I look forward to hearing from you in the future. ce eIy, J e Barton er of Congress JB/bb BRYAN OFFICE: CONROE OFFICE: ENNIS OFFICE: P.O. Box 4802 INTERFIRST TOWER, SUITE 507 INTERFIRST BANK, SUITE 101 BRYAN, TX 77805 300 WEST DAVIS 303 WEST KNOX 1409) 846-1985 CONROE, TX 77301 ENNIS, TX 75119 (409) 760-2291 (214) 875-8488 FORT WORTH OFFICE: 3509 HULEN #110 FORT WORTH, TX 76107 (817) 737-7737 Resolution #2039 SOLOMON P. ORTIZ 27TH DISTRICT, TE%As 1524 LONGWORTN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WAsNINGTON, DC 20515 202-225-7742 DISTRICT OFFICES: 3649 LEOPARD SUITE 510 CORPUS CNRISTI, TX 78408 512-883-6888 3505 BOCA CHICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 438 BROWNsVILLE, TX 78521 512-541-1242 Congress of the 444nited states toune of "reuentatims Waghfngton, Blt 2095 August 14, 1985 Mrs. Ranette Boyd, City Secretary City of Lubbock P. O. Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 Dear Mrs. Boyd: COMMITTEES: ARMED SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEES: MILITARY INSTALLATION AND FACILMES SEAPOWER AND STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MATERIALS MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES SUBCOMMITTEES: FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT MERCHANT MARINE PANAMA CANAL AND THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL Thank you for your letter regarding the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. Congressman Ortiz is participating in an overseas review of U. S. military facilities and asked me to respond to your inquiry on the effects of this decision. Due to the unusual hours associated with occupations such as law enforcement and fire protection, the Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that the provisions on the Fair Labor Standards Act should not apply to state or local governmental employees. In the Garcia decision, the Court has reversed their 1974 ruling to protect the various other employees of state and local governments. In lieu of receiving overtime pay, fire and police personnel have bargained for compensatory time off. I believe that this right should be retained for these employees, provided an agreement is made as a result of collective bargaining. We must also ensure, however, that all sectors of state and local employees are guaranteed a similar form of reimbursement for uncommon working conditions. Any employee, whether he or she belongs to a bargaining union or not, must be legally covered by the labor laws that protect our nation's workers. Once again, thank you for contacting Congressman Ortiz. He hopes you will call on him whenever he may be of assistance. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely, Florencio H. Rendon Administrative Assistant to Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz SPO/tvz Resolution #2039 PHIL GRAMM TEXAS 's21 nueb Zf .fez Zenafe WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 August 30, 1985 Ms. Ranette Boyd P. 0. Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 Dear Ranette: Knowing of your concern regarding the court —ordered application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to state and local governments, I am pleased to inform you of the recent decision by the Reagan Administration to offer technical assistance to the State of Texas. The President will aid Texas in its effort to comply with the FLSA by offering a loan of staffers from the Employment Standards Administration of the Department of Labor. These experts' salaries will continue to be paid by the Department of Labor. In order to participate in this program, the Governor must contact Susan Meisinger, Deputy Under Secretary for Employment Standards. As you know, I share your concern over the far—reaching implications of the Supreme Court-s decision in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority and, as a result, have cosponsored legislation which would relieve state and local governments and their employees from the maximum hour provisions of the FLSA. However, I am happy to have worked with the President on an interim solution and am hopeful the problem will be rectified by legislative action. I appreciate having the opportunity to serve as your United States Senator and hope you will contact me if I can be of service to you. Yours respectfully, /O P IL GRAMM United States Senator 44.6 39 THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 18, 1985 Dear Ms. Boyd: Thank you for sharing your correspondence regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Garcia. Because of your efforts, we were able to present to the President a true picture of the implications of that decision, a picture that Congress will also appreciate as it tackles remedial legislation. Officials from across the nation have demanded legislation to rectify the consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in Garcia v. San Antonio Mass Transit Authority. Because of the President's long -held belief in decentralized government and the strong state -local endorsement of S. 1570, the President is giving it the Administration's full support. In the Garcia decision, the Court ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to all state and local. government employees. States and localities consider the cost of the decision to be $3 billion, and service cutbacks inevitable. It is now up to Congress to address this situation. A start has been made with the introduction of S. 1570, but that bill must be reported from both the Senate Labor Committee and the House Committee on Education and Labor, enacted by both .chambers before it can be signed into law by the President. The Administration greatly appreciates the efforts you are making to date to further the bill's progress. Garcia was certainly a setback for the concept of a healthy and vigorous federal system. The Administration continues to believe that state and local governments must play an independent role if the country's traditions of free- dom and prosperity are to be preserved. We are demonstrating this belief by our support of S. 1570, and we thank you in advance for the assistance you can provide. Sincerely, Mitchell E . Daniels, Jr . Deputy Assistant to the President Director, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs Ms. Rannete Boyd Lubbock City Secretary Post Office Box 2000 Lubbock, TX 79457 �e��rtrne�tt �� �tt�tiee STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BRADFORD REYNOLDS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR UNITED STATES SENATE CONCERNING IMPACT OF GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO* METROPOLI AT�N TRANSIT AUTHORITY ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 -1- Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear on behalf of the Department of Justice -at this hearing concerning the impact of Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 105 S. Ct. 1005 (February 19, 1985), on the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 55 201 et seq. (FLSA), to employees of state and local governments. By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held in Garcia that the wage and hour standards of the FLSA are fully applicable to state and local governments as provided in the 1966 and 1974 amendments to the FLSA. The Court thus overruled National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), which held that the Tenth Amendment precludes application of the FLSA to,the tradi- tional governmental functions of the states. In a sweeping opinion, the majority in Garcia took the position that because the states' interests are -- in the Court's view -- adequately represented in Congress, the Court would not question Congress' judgment in applying the FLSA to the states. Four Justices dissented and criticized the majority's reasoning in the strong- est terms; and it seems clear that they are prepared to overrule Garcia if given an opportunity in the future. Although the Justice Department argued in Garcia that the FLSA applies to employees of a public transit authority, we were deeply disappointed by the Court's reasoning in Garcia. The - 2 - decision essentially reads the Tenth Amendment out of the Consti- tution as an effective limitation on the power`of Congress to regulate the states under the Commerce Clause. In fact, the Tenth Amendment receives only passing mention in the majority's opinion. The Court's reading out of the Bill of Rights a pro- vision expressly reserving powers to the states stands in stark contrast to its reading into the Bill of Rights in other cases various individual rights that are nowhere to be found in the text. _ The Court's decision goes beyond the misinterpretation of an isolated constitutional provision; it misapprehends the fundamental role of the states in our system of government. According to the Garcia majority, states apparently enjoy no special constitutional autonomy in relation to Congress. They are now held as nothing more sovereign than ordinary private entities when Congress seeks to flee: the awesome muscle of its power to regulate commerce. But the states are far more than administrative prefectures operating under congressional direction. The Framers intended that state and local governments would be a buffer against the centralizing tendencies of the federal government and the threat to our liberty that those tendencies present.. The various debates at the Constitutional Convention produced, as James Madison put it in The Federalist, a government that was neither wholly federal nor wholly national, but a composition of 3 - both. Half a century later, Alexis de Tocqueville would celebrate democracy in America as precisely the result of the political vitality spawned by this "incomplete" national government. The institutional design was to divide sovereignty between two different levels of political entities, the nation and the states. This would avoid an unhealthy concentration of power in a single government. It would provide, as Madison said, a "double security ... to the rights of the people." Federalism, along with separation of powers, the Framers thought, would be the basic principled matrix of American constitutional liberty. "The different governments," Madison concluded, "will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." But institutional restraints on power was not all that federalism was about. There was also a deeper understanding among the Framers --, in fact, a far richer understanding -- of why federalism mattered. And it is this understanding.that is too often lost in our judicial shuffles and legal squabbles over federalism. When the delegates to Philadelphia convened almost 200 years ago in May 1787 to revise the ineffective Articles of Confederation it was a nearly foregone conclusion, that the basic debate �7ould concern the proper role of the states. Those who favored a diminution of state power, the Nationalists, saw - 4 - unfettered state sovereignty under the Articles as the problem; not only did the Articles of Confederation allow the states -to undermine congressional efforts to govern, it also rendered individual rights insecure in the hands of "interested and overbearing majorities." Indeed, Madison in defending the Nationalists' constitutional handiwork in The Federalist'went so far as to suggest that only by a "judicious modification" of the federal principle was the new Constitution able to remedy the defects of popular, republican government. But to those who doubted the political efficacy of the new Constitution -- those whom we may call the Confederalists a too severe modification of the federal principle would damage the new nation. In their view, good popular government depends quite as much upon a political community that would promote civic or public virtue as on a set of institutional devices designed to check the selfish impulses of the majority. As Herbert Storing has shown, this concern for community and civic virtue tempered and tamed somewhat the Nationalists' tendency toward.simply a large nation. Their reservations, as Storing put it, echo still through our political history. Today it is this understanding, that federalism can contribute to a sense of political community and hence to a kind of public spirit, that. is too often ignored in our public dis- cussions about federalism. But in a sense, it is this - 5 understanding that makes the American experiment in popular government truly the "novel" undertaking the Framers thought it to be. By recognizing the states' sovereignty and preserving their ability to govern, we better secure our ultimate goal of political liberty for all Americans through decentralized govern- ment. Let there be no mistake on one point, however. The Admin- istration does not advocate "states' rights" in any narrow or negative sense; we advocate states' responsibilities. And in the vast majority of cases, state and local governments have managed their affairs in a fully responsible fashion by.reaching agree- ments with their workers, by providing services to their citizens at cost acceptable to their taxpayers, and by securing justice for their inhabitants. . While the damage to judicial application of the constitutional doctrine of federalism caused by Garcia will likely remain until the Supreme Court can be persuaded to remedy it, the Court's reliance upon Congress as the sole bulwark againstfederalencroachments means that the direct, practical harm of the Garcia holding can be undone by legislation. Even if not constitutionally required to.do so, Congress should for sound policy reasons preserve to state and local governments the authority they need to manage their own affairs. - 6 - Federalism is at the core of our constitutional.system, a principle that is reflected not just in the Tenth Amendment,. . but throughout the structure of our Constitution. Thus, it is not only up to the federal courts'to be faithful to federalism; it is also up to the executive and.legislative branches of the federal government to acknowledges and strive to preserve state sovereignty. That, we submit, is exactly what your bill_and these hearings are all about, Mr. Chairman Therefore,..if we are to remain true to fundamental principles of federalism, legis lation redressing the injury caused by Garcia must be -passed. Application of the FLSA.to state and local governments - creates many problems for them. These problems have.been identi- fied during your hearings and will be addressed specifically by. the Secretary of Labor in his testimony today. Of particular concern to the Justice Department are the serious problems created for state and local law enforcement. For example', the most important time for police work following a murder is the; 24-36 hours immediately following the crime many investigators literally work around the,clock when starting such 'a case. Similarly, firefighters must fight fires when they are burning.. The strict 40-hour work week.mandated by the..FLSA was adopted .for factory workers who produce goods on an employer's schedule;.it simply is not applicable to employees who work in response�to external events. r 7 The negative effects caused by Garcia are evident. We believe that Congress has a responsibility to provide relief from these effects to state and local governments. We commend you, Mr. Chairman, for promptly introducing legislation, S. 1570, to provide such relief and for holding these hearings to develop a record of Garcia's impact and to consider legislative remedies. We endorse S. 1570 as an excellent vehicle for providing needed relief. The soundness of its approach is evidenced by the strong endorsement that the bill has already received from state, county and local governments. The whole point here is that it is not the place of the federal government to dictate rules and solutions to problems when the states are best able to understand the situations they face and to act accordingly. Here, state and local governments are best situated to consider and explain how application of the FLSA to them will interfere with vital operations and services, and to structure appropriate legislative remedies. In summary, we support S. 1570 and will defer to state and local governments for any necessary technical changes. We look forward to arriving at a solution that will.guarantee the necessary sovereignty of the states and preserve their ability to provide needed services at a reasonable cost on terms that are mutually acceptable to voters and workers. i g That concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions you and other,members of, the subcommittee may have. DOj-L983.09 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. BROCK SECRETARY OF LABOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE September 10, 1985 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee; I appreciate your -invitation to be here, today, at the continuation of the Subcommittee's hearings on Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision.in Garcia, the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have now been made generally applicable to employees of*State and local governments. The Garcia decision has raised major concerns that State and local governments.will have increased payroll costs and reduced flexibility in workforce utilization. Officials from many of these jurisdictions --as well as organizations representing them --have contacted the Department, seeking relief from its impact, and flexibility in adjusting to it. They have also testified before this Subcommittee and the Joint Economic Committee expressing similar views. Let me start, Mr. Chairman, by telling this Subcommittee that the Administration supports the enactment of your bill, S. 1570, and we commend you and Senator Wilson for your efforts in this area. It is a good approach to addressing the concerns expressed by State and local governments and their employees because of the problems created by the Garcia decision. - 2 - The bill would provide an exemption from the overtime pay requirements of FLSA for all employees of State and local governments and interstate agencies. The bill would also exclude from the definition of "employee" individuals who volunteer services to such agencies even though they are paid a nominal fee. -The effective date of the bill would be February 19, 1985, the date of the Garcia decision. Mr. Chairman, Garcia is now the law of the land.It says essentially that Congress has a free hand in enacting legislation under the Commerce Clause regulating` activities of State and local governments. Since the Supreme Court has now ruled that this is a Congressional issue, I think it would be appropriate to briefly review the Congressional and judicial history.of the application of the�-FLSA to State and local governments. Limited areas of State and local government activity first became subject to FLSA in 1966. These 1966 amendments specifically extended coverage of the Act to: (1) -employees engaged in the operation of schools; (2) employees engaged in the operation of hospitals and residential care facilities for the sick, the aged, and the mentally ill or defective; and (3) employees engaged in the operation of mass transit systems. This first extension of FLSA coverage to State and local governments was challenged on constitutional grounds, but upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Maryland v. Wirtz, decided June 10, 1968. - 3 - The FLSA was next amended by the Education Amendments of 1972, which extended FLSA coverage to employees of public and private preschools. Then in 1974, the FLSA was extended to virtually all remaining State and local government employees ;who had not been previously covered. However, this extension was immediately challenged, and on June 24,.1976, the Supreme Court ruled in National League of Cities v. Usery, that . Maryland v. Wirtz should be overruled and that the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of FLSA could not be constitutionally applied to the "traditional governmental functions" performed by State and local governments. To the extent, however, that a State or local government agency was engaged in "nontraditional" functions, the Court held it constitutional to apply the FLSA. After the League of Cities decision, the Labor Department sought to list certain "nontraditional" functions. As part of that effort, the Department concluded that mass transit was "nontraditional" and thus covered by FLSA.,; When informed of that decision, the Sarr Antonio Metropolitan.Transit Authority brought suit to prevent its implementation. Mr. Garcia, an employee of the Transit Authority, filed suit to recover back overtime pay. The Department of Labor counterclaimed for enforcement of the Act. The Transit authority won in the District Court, but both Garcia and the Labor Department appealed directly to the Supreme Court. 4 - The Supreme Court heard oral argument,in.Garcia on March 19, 1984., but instead of deciding the case., ordered, reargument on whether the Tenth Amendment limitation,on Congressional action under the Commerce Clause set.forth: in League of Citiesshould be reexamined. In responding., to the reargument order, the Administration argued that.. the League of.Cities dist:inction.between "traditional",, and "nontraditional", government functions .should .be:reaffirmed, but that mass transit was a "nontraditional" governmental function and,,.thus, constitutionally,subjec,t to FLSA. The.Supreme Court rejected our position, and narrowly voted to overrule League of Cities. In,its'5 to_4 ruling,. the Court held that it was no longer.,constitutionally-acceptable to draw aline of proper Congressional regulation..of,.State, activity under the Commerce Clause by_determining whether an activity.was "traditional" or "nontraditional" in nature. The decision of the,.majority alluded to ", . the built. in.restraints that our system.provides through State.;participation in.federal governmental action..:' The four.dissenting.justices stated that the impact of:the decision would be.to remove from States and locahities,.the special constitutional protections for these, governmental units which Leaque.of Cities had., enunciated, and leave them at the mercy of Congressional.. action. Faced with the Court's decision, the.Department has a clear obligation'to ensureitsimplementation.. Thus:, pursuant - 5 - to the decision, the Department has adopted an investigation policy for administering FLSA with respect to State and local governmental units. This policy has five major elements. First, the Department has determined that April 15, 1985, the date the Court issued its mandate in Garcia, would be the appropriate benchmark date to be used by the Department's Wage and Hour Division in determining compliance with the Act. Second, effective June 141 1985--the date the investiga- tion policy was issued --the Department's Wage and Hour Division has been authorized to conduct investigations and complaint's concerning State and local governmental employment categories which, pursuant to National League of Cities, the Department had previously determined were "nontraditional", for which there was no significant litigation pending at the time of the Garcia decision. Third, until October 15', 1985, six months after the date of the Court's mandate, the Department will not initiate any FLSA investigations of "traditional" State and local government employment categories such as fire protection and law enforcement. Investigations which disclosed violations will assess back wages to April 15, 1985. This procedure will also be applied to mass transit since its status under FLSA was uncertain until the Garcia decision. 6 _. Fourth,,in order to afford a full opportunity to correct violations, the Department will not file any lawsuit against any State or localgovernment investigated without first providing at least 30 days' written -notice of our determination that it is in violation of 'FLSA, Fifth, the Department's investigation policy recognizes that the FLSA authorizes employees to bring their own lawsuits to enforce their rights under section 16(b) of the Act, and this policy has no effect on these 'rights, If successful in such litigation, an employee may receive back pay liquidated damages, attorney's fees and court costs. Moreover,"the Department's investigation policy expressly does not apply to any pending litigation, which will be -determined on''a case -by -case basis. As I mentioned, One of the most.urgent requests We have received from State and local.governments is to provide them with some degree..of flexibility in coming into compliance with the Act. Among the recommendations they hive made is for the Department to delay the application -of the Garcia decision, or to'phase in its application over a period of time, They have also asked us to revise the overtime hours provisions applicable to police officers and'fiiefighters under FLSA regulation's. However, we believe that the legisla- tive history of the Act and various decisions by the courts over the years preclude the Department from providing any - 7 - general regulatory relief of this sort. In fact, we feel we must rescind our regulations defining which governmental functions were exempt from the FLSA under National League of Cities. The requirements are primarily legislative, not administrative. Here is a short list of specific items that they have raised with us: o FLSA overtime pay requirements will now apply to all covered nonexempt employees, including very complex provisions applicable to police officers and fire- fighters; o FLSA has historically restricted the use of compensa- tory time off for overtime worked beyond the workweek, yet "comp time" was a widespread practice at the State and local level prior to Garcia o The acceptance of unpaid services may be illegal under the FLSA. For instance, it does not appear that paid ,firefighters will generally be able to act as volunteer firefighters for their full-time employer during personal time outside their regular tours of duty; o Many State and local governments have entered into collective bargaining agreements which contain complex provisions governing pay and work schedules; many of them will not conform with the FLSA; o Puerto Rico has indicated that because of the generally lower level of wages prevailing in the Commonwealth, many public employees have been paid less than the federal minimum wage. Major wage increases or sharp reductions in the level of services will be necessary to comply with the FLSA; and o Many State and local government employees work for more than one agency of the same governmental unit. In the case of police officers, the second job may be with a private firm but in an official capacity. In either case, because questions of joint employment are raised, overtime pay may be required under the FLSA where it wasn't -in the past. Some of these "second jobs" --valuable to the governmental unit and the public at large, as well as to the workers --may even disappear. These are just a few of the many difficult (and potentially costly) problems which confront State and local jurisidictions under the Garcia decision. The FLSA does not allow the flexi- bility which would be necessary for the Department of Labor to be able to address these issues through the administrative process. As the FLSA has been in effect since 1938, a consider- able amount of case law has developed reflecting the application of its provisions primarily to nongovernment employment. The existing and longstanding regulations and interpretations of FLSA are grounded on these decisions. Moreover, most State and local governments operate under strict statutory or State constitutional rules which mandate balanced budgets, thus limiting their flexibility in funding the increased expenditures resulting from Garcia. These fiscal implications are a major concern for many State and local governments. What does all this mean?. First, it means that almost 83,000 units of government will be required to dramatically change their payroll practices for the 7.5 million of their employees subject to the FLSA's minimum wage requirements and for 6.7 million employees subject to its overtime pay provisions. Second, they are now subject to certain record - keeping requirements mandated by regulations under the FLSA and face significant liabilities as a result of private suits by the employees alleging underpayment of the monetary require- ments of the Act. As you know, these problems have also given rise to intense Congressional interest, as evidenced by the number of bills that have been introduced, the three days of hearings this Subcommittee has held, and the hearing conducted by the Joint Economic Committee. The bills which -have been intro- duced to provide relief to State and local governments range from providing a complete minimum wage and overtime exemption for them to providing an overtime exemption for only police - 10 - officers and firefighters, to a bill intended to allow compensa- tory time off in lieu of paid overtime just for police officers and firefighters. Mr. Chairman, your bill, S. 1570, falls in the middle of this range of solutions -to the problem and provides the most effective and fair relief. We have carefully followed the hearings your Subcommittee has held on legislative proposals, noting the support for legislation that has been offered by a number of Governors, the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of State Personnel Executives, and the National Association of Counties. Also, as you know, Mr. Chairman, at the hearing you recently conducted in Oklahoma City, State and local government employees testified and echoed testimony from the employers that FLSA coverage will cause unnecessary hardship for employees and taxpayers; and that it will cause unnecessary reduction of services to the public. We have also received another manifestation of employee concern about the Garcia decision. The Leon County Police Benevolent Association of the City of Tallahassee, Florida has filed -suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida requesting that the court allow a voluntary agreement between their organization and the 'city through collective.bargaining which would permit employees to elect to use compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay for overtime hours worked Mr. Chairman, these representatives of State and local governments and their employees have testified to the severe administrative and financial burdens the Garcia decision imposes on them. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's latest pronouncement of the constitutionality of extending federal wage and hour requirements to integral functions of State governments, there now remains the broader question of the appropriateness of so doing in our federal system. Indeed, the Court spoke to this very issue in declaring the political process, itself, rather than the loth Amendment, ". . . ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated." Whether or not one agrees with the constitutional analysis that led to the conclusion that this consideration constitutes the only limitation on the reach of the Commerce Clause, it imposes on the federal government generally --and on the Congress, in particular --a special obligation to balance requirements for national, that is federal, responses to complex social problems against the need to respect the sovereignty of the States as States in our federal system. The Administration believes that imposing certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act on State and _ 12 local governments is an inappropriate reach of federal power into the functions of those sovereign governments. Therefore, the political process of which the Court spoke as ultimately protective of State sovereignty, and in which we participate today, should take corrective steps to assure that State sovereignty is not unduly infringed. The Administration has endorsed S. 1570 because it is a good approach to resolving the concerns I have outlined for the Subcommittee. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and I will be happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.