[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 2, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H3013-H3019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1180, WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY
ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 5,
2017, THROUGH MAY 15, 2017; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 299 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 299
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1180) to
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide
compensatory time for employees in the private sector. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce
now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
115-15 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from May
5, 2017, through May 15, 2017--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of May 4, 2017, or May 5, 2017, for the
Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules
as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his
designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration
pursuant to this section.
Sec. 5. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of May 5, 2017.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. 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
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 299 provides for the
consideration of H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act. This
resolution provides for a closed rule since no amendments were
submitted to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, the workforce of the 21st century is a lot different
from the workforce of the thirties and forties when many of our
Nation's labor laws were first written. As such, many of these laws are
outdated and out of touch with the realities facing today's workers.
For example, in nearly half of two-parent households, both Mom and
Dad work full time. That is up from roughly 30 percent in 1970.
Meanwhile, millennials now represent the majority of the workforce.
Given the changes in the workforce, there are new challenges related
to the work-family balance. From children's field trips, to taking care
of an elderly family member, to a single parent juggling different
tasks while their spouse is on a military deployment, the demands are
greater than ever. That is where the Working Families Flexibility Act
comes in.
This commonsense bill would improve the quality of life for many
hardworking men and women by removing outdated Federal restrictions
imposed solely on the private sector.
Already, workers in the public sector at the Federal, State, and
local level have the ability to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay
if they prefer. This bill would give that same option to workers in the
private sector.
Here is how it would work. An employee and their employer would come
together and mutually agree to enter an arrangement where the employee
would receive time and a half in time off or comp time instead of time-
and-a-half overtime pay. In other words, employees would have the
choice between paid time off and cash wages for working overtime.
As I mentioned, this provision is already available for workers in
the public sector. That is because, in 1985, Congress amended the Fair
Labor Standards Act to give public sector employees greater
flexibility. In fact, in a report filed by the House Education and the
Workforce Committee more than 30 years ago, our Democratic colleagues
wrote that this change in law recognized the ``mutual benefits'' of
comp time for State and local governments and outlined the ``freedom
and flexibility'' comp time would offer public sector workers.
Shouldn't workers in the private sector be entitled to the same
freedom and flexibility given to government workers?
Now, I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
say this bill is somehow bad for workers. That could not be further
from the truth. Let me clear up some of the false information put out
by union bosses and special interest groups.
First, this proposal is completely voluntary. Both an employee and an
employer would have to agree to a comp time agreement, and their
agreement would have to be put in writing.
Second, no employer can coerce or intimidate their employees into
taking comp time. An employee who feels they have been mistreated can
file a charge with the Department of Labor, at no cost, or they can
bring their own legal action. Employers who take advantage of their
employees would face the same penalties as they would for other wage
violations.
Now, as a labor and employment attorney, I have been a part of these
kind of legal matters in the past, and I can honestly say that no
sensible employer would take advantage of an employee and risk double
damages, exorbitant attorney fees, and a legal battle with the Federal
Government.
Third, employees have control over when to use their comp time, as
long as reasonable notice is given and the request doesn't unduly
disrupt the workplace. This is the same standard used in the public
sector, and it is the same standard used under the Family and Medical
Leave Act. I imagine it is also
[[Page H3014]]
the same standard used in each of our congressional offices.
Fourth, this bill includes a 5-year sunset that would require
Congress to come back and reaffirm this law after reviewing the impact
of comp time. This would give us the ability to change the law based on
the real-world impact.
Fifth, the bill would set the maximum comp time accrual amount at 160
hours, which is less than what is allowed in the public sector. This
provision was actually included after Democrats expressed concerns that
workers would accrue too much comp time.
Sixth, an employee has the right to cash out their comp time at any
time and for any reason. This is a decision that the employee alone can
make. Additionally, at the end of the year, employees would receive a
cash payment for any unused hours.
Finally, this is not a far-fetched or radical idea. In fact,
President Bill Clinton had his own comp time proposal during his
Presidency.
So this bill is great for workers and actually gives them greater
choice and flexibility in the workplace. In fact, our committee, the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, heard a real-life example of
how comp time would make life easier for families during a recent
hearing on the bill. We heard about a clerical worker for a mental
health company who recently found out she was pregnant and was putting
in a lot of overtime during a transition to a new computer system. This
mom-to-be simply wanted to waive the overtime pay and, instead, be
credited the time for maternity leave.
As her human resources professional testified: ``I had to explain to
her that we were unable to do so because it was against the law. It was
difficult conveying this message to this single mom-to-be who felt she
should be allowed the option to choose for herself whether to take the
overtime pay or paid leave when her child was born.''
{time} 1245
That is why this bill is necessary, for people like this working mom.
That is how this bill will make a real difference.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know comp time won't work for every worker or
family, so if an employee wants to continue receiving time-and-a-half
overtime pay, then they can continue to do so and this bill will have
no impact on them. But this bill would create a new option for
employees to better meet the needs of the 21st century workforce.
Workers today want and need the type of freedom and flexibility that
this bill provides. This bill would allow a working mom or dad to put
in a little extra time at work in order to have that time off to attend
a child's baseball game, dance recital, or field trip. This is all
about freedom, flexibility, fairness, and choice.
Certainly, more work and changes will be needed as we adapt to the
workforce of the 21st century, and I look forward to learning more
about proposals from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But
the simple fact that there are other proposals out there should not
stop us from passing this commonsense bill to give working families the
flexibility they need and deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 299 and
the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Over the last several months, I have heard from thousands of my
constituents over the phone, by email, and record numbers at townhalls.
Frankly, the overwhelming message is frustration with the Trump
administration and Republicans in Congress--no calls to pass this bill,
which every group that advocates for workers' rights and unions
opposes. The people in my district say that, to the contrary,
Republicans continue to put the priorities of the few over the
priorities of hardworking Americans.
People are frustrated that, instead of working with Democrats,
Republicans are focused on gutting healthcare coverage, increasing
premiums, and stripping away workers' rights. People in my district,
across my State, and across the country are worried. The members of our
immigrant community--our neighbors, family, and friends--will continue
to be demonized by the President of the United States. So while I don't
expect this kind of rhetoric or policies to change overnight, I feel it
is important to share these concerns with this body.
Now, earlier this week, frankly, I was encouraged. There were some
signs of positivity. Congressional Democrats and Republicans announced
a bipartisan funding bill through the end of the year that shows a
bright spot of what we can do together when we try. I hope we can all
agree that a government shutdown would be catastrophic. In my district
alone, I am reminded of the devastating impact of congressional
inaction when I hosted a townhall in Estes Park just last week. The
government shutdown in 2013, right during tourist season, cost our
small and vibrant town nearly half a million dollars in tax revenue and
millions of dollars in sales, threatening the existence of many Main
Street businesses that rely on that tourism revenue and keeping Rocky
Mountain National Park open. Estes Park sits at the entrance of Rocky
Mountain National Park, and Rocky Mountain National Park was closed for
most of the 16-day shutdown a few years ago.
But somehow, despite those obvious economic indicators in jobs,
Donald Trump tweeted just this morning that our country ``needs a good
shutdown.''
What does that even mean?
We need a good shutdown like we need a root canal. It would put
people in my district out of work and cost the private sector millions
of jobs.
But I am hopeful now that we will avoid a shutdown; that, thankfully,
the spending bill, through 2017, prohibits funding on a new border
wall. It minimizes cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency,
allowing them to continue their work to keep our air and our water
clean; and Planned Parenthood will continue to receive Federal funding.
Now, that being said, of course, that budget isn't perfect, and we
will have the chance to debate it on the floor. The Republicans insist
on massive government deficit spending for increased military spending
that digs our mountain of debt for the next generation even bigger. The
tax-and-spend Republicans continue to spend hand over fist and increase
the deficit at the cost of the next generation of Americans.
Now, the bill before us, the Working Families Flexibility Act, is
another example of Republicans putting ideology and special interests
over the needs of workers and American families. The trend isn't new.
It comes out of the typical playbook we have seen for decades.
In fact, this very bill has been introduced multiple times over the
past 22 years, never with any success. Nearly identical bills were
introduced in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2015, and
now 2017. That is 10 times over 22 years. Each time, the bill never
becomes law, and it won't become law now either. But that is how the
Republicans want to spend their time in this body when we actually have
important things to discuss that could become law, like fixing our
broken immigration system.
This bill somehow claims to provide employees with more flexibility,
but the only flexibility are for the bosses. Instead of receiving
overtime, workers would receive comp time; so their paychecks won't get
anything out of extra time worked. It is important to note that this
legislation applies to the private sector and only to employees subject
to overtime provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act. The current
overtime threshold is set at just under $24,000, so only employees that
make less than $24,000 are affected by this bill. We have tried
mightily to increase that threshold to keep up with inflation, but we
have met resistance by the Republicans every step of the way.
In 2017, the Federal poverty level for a family of four is about
$24,000. So we are talking about only giving overtime to families that
are below the poverty level. These families rely on that overtime to
pay their bills, to pay their rent, and to put food on the table. These
are the families who would benefit most from receiving overtime pay. In
fact, a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that 40
percent of people making less than $22,500 a year worked some overtime
hours and needed that income to get by. This same 40 percent are the
very people
[[Page H3015]]
who would lose out under the Republican bill today.
My Republican colleagues claim that no one is forcing workers to
accept comp time instead of overtime pay, and comp time is technically
optional. But this argument represents how out of touch Republicans are
with the real-life workforce conditions and actual working families.
In practice, the power differential between employers and employees
means that many employees would feel obligated to accept comp time
instead of overtime pay, even if that is not what works best for them.
Especially in nonunion workplaces, employees could feel pressure to go
along with their employers' demand or risk not even being offered
overtime or comp time in the future.
Now, Republicans have also made the argument that public sector
workers receive comp time. They are right. But that is not apples to
apples. Public sector union membership is around 34 percent, and public
sector employees have vast protections that private sector employees
lack. As an example, public sector workers can't be fired except for
good cause, and they have administrative appeal rights. They can't be
discriminated against based on their desire to take overtime pay
instead of comp time. Nonunionized private sector workers can be
legally discriminated against in assigning their hours based on their
decisions to take comp time versus overtime pay.
If the Republicans want to enlarge this discussion to include
providing additional workplace protections to workers in the private
sector, we are happy to have that discussion both on the committee
where I serve with my colleague, Mr. Byrne, as well as on the floor of
the House.
Republicans somehow argue that this bill provides flexibility for
workers to get time off, but I will remind my colleagues that nothing
in the current Fair Labor Standards Act prevents employers from
offering time off right now. In fact, the Fair Labor Standards Act
allows the ultimate flexibility. Employers can already provide paid or
unpaid leave on sick days, maternity, and paternity under the FLSA.
They don't need this legislation to provide them flexibility. They just
need to do the right thing.
This bill also ignores the fact that not all businesses are
successful. Before coming to Congress, I started several businesses. I
know this firsthand. A statistic is that 59 percent of restaurant
businesses go out of business within 3 years. I am zero for two. I
tried starting two restaurants. They both failed. Maybe that means if I
try again someday, I will be finally due for a success.
But what is important is that when something goes out of business, we
don't leave the employees in the lurch. What you are effectively doing
here by deferring the overtime pay into potential future time off, if
the company goes out of business, that employee would have to get in
line with other creditors and risk never being paid. That is not a
theoretical risk. The majority of new businesses don't last 10 years.
They go out of business. Depriving people of the payment for the work
they have done already is not the right way to treat workers in those
businesses, and it is not their fault when the bad decision is made by
their bosses.
In our committee markup of the bill, my Democratic colleagues offered
a number of amendments to improve the legislation. Representative
Bonamici offered an amendment that would allow comp time to earn
interest before workers' use. Under the current way this bill is
written, low-wage workers are being asked to give an interest-free loan
to the company. That doesn't make sense. The amendment didn't pass. If
employees receive overtime pay, they should receive interest on it as
well.
Representative Wilson offered an amendment that would exempt workers
who are earning less than 2\1/2\ times the minimum wage, so the
employees earning the very least wouldn't be subject to the law and
could actually rely on their overtime pay. Again, that amendment was
rejected by Republicans.
Representative Blunt Rochester on the committee offered an amendment
that would limit the bill so only workers eligible for at least 7 days
of paid sick leave receive comp time. Yet, again, Republicans rejected
this amendment.
In total, committee Democrats offered eight amendments to try to
improve this bill. Every single one was rejected.
Instead of bringing forward the same, tired, 22-year-old policies
that I certainly don't hear my constituents requesting, Democrats have
offered real solutions that benefit working families. Working families
would benefit from an increase in the overtime salary threshold. Last
year, the Department of Labor proposed an increase to that threshold,
and 248,000 workers in Colorado alone would have benefited under that
rule.
Democrats continue to write bills that provide commonsense solutions.
We have offered legislation that would provide up to 12 weeks of
partial-paid parental leave. Only 14 percent of the workforce has paid
family leave through their employers. As a parent of a 5- and a 2-year-
old, I know how important that is to be able to spend time with your
newborn kids.
Democrats have also introduced a bill that would allow employees to
earn up to 7 sick days per year. That would be a tremendous help to the
4 in 10 private sector employees who don't have access to any paid sick
leave at all under current law.
Democrats have also offered legislation to combat pay discrimination.
In 2017, women working full time are still paid 80 cents on the dollar
compared to what men make. Democrats have offered legislation that I am
proud to cosponsor that would address that kind of pay disparity. Those
are the kinds of bills that the American people need, that workers
need, and that we need to help lift people out of poverty and into the
middle class.
Today, House Democrats introduced the Equality Act. I was proud to
join so many of my colleagues in a bipartisan bill to prohibit
discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Sadly,
in many States, it is still legal to fire someone just because they are
gay. The Equality Act would finally extend Federal workplace
discrimination protections to LGBT Americans in all 50 States and the
territories.
Finally, House Democrats will soon be introducing the bill that would
raise the minimum wage. In my home State of Colorado, voters chose to
raise the wage last November, and many other States have minimum wages
higher than the Federal minimum wage. But it shouldn't come down to
what State you live in to determine if you even earn enough to put food
on the table and pay your rent. It is long past time we update the
Federal minimum wage, and the Raise the Wage Act would do just that.
Yet, again, we are offering many solutions that we would love to
discuss and love to vote on, and, instead, the Republicans are offering
a bill to strip existing rights away from workers.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us represents the same old policies the
Republicans have offered for decades. They have never succeeded, and
they won't succeed now. This time around, they are offering a bill that
might be great for some of the bosses, but it undermines the lives of
hardworking Americans that keep our country going.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Working Families Flexibility Act and the
rule before us, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman referred to an old playbook being used
here. He is right. It is an old playbook. It is a playbook that was
used by House Democrats in 1985, by President Bill Clinton during the
1990s. This is not a partisan playbook. This is actually--or used to
be, actually--a bipartisan idea to give workers flexibility in the use
of their time. That doesn't sound radical to me. It is not radical at
all.
What has changed is Democrats used to be for this, and now, for
whatever reason, they are not. They would rather lock workers into
these restrictive arrangements where you have working mothers, like the
one I used in my initial remarks, who can't get their flexible time off
that they want because we do not allow them to do that under the
Federal Labor Standards Act.
Comp time is just not technically optional, as my friend said, under
this
[[Page H3016]]
law. It is optional by law. It is a voluntary thing by law. There is no
question about that. Employers cannot coerce or intimidate an employee
to do that under this law. It is strictly prohibited, and there are
serious legal repercussions for an employer who attempts to do that.
There are no differences in the protections for someone under this
bill and the protections that public employees have when they seek to
have this sort of flextime under the laws that pertain to them. It is
the same protection. So it doesn't matter whether you are in the
private sector or the public sector; under this bill, you are going to
be protected.
{time} 1300
Let me tell you something, as someone who has practiced in this area.
It is not an idle threat to an employer to face a regulatory proceeding
from the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor or to face a
private lawsuit. Those are a big deal. If you lose, you have to not
only pay double damages, you have got to pay the employees' attorneys
fees, which can be significant. No sensible employer is going to go out
there and intimidate and coerce and think they can get away with it.
They can't.
Wages, under our bankruptcy laws, are the first priority of what is
paid out during the winding up of a bankruptcy proceeding. Before any
other creditor is paid, wages get paid. In my experience, I don't
remember wages ever not being paid in a bankruptcy. That is always
assumed. They get taken care of quickly. Most employers do the right
thing.
My friend talked about employers needing to do the right thing. Most
employers do the right thing. Just like I know my colleague, when he
had a business in the private sector, did the right thing by his
employees. Most employers do. Yet too often in this body, we act as if
the assumption is that employers are going to do the wrong thing, and
then we come down with this heavy-handed overregulation, punitive
approach that restricts the freedom of both employers and--let's get
back to it--the workers themselves to work these things out.
This is a commonsense solution to a real problem in the new workplace
of the 21st century, where most moms and dads are working and where we
have this new millennial generation that wants flexibility. They expect
it. When you go to them and tell them: Oh, you can't have it because it
is a Federal law, they don't understand.
I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand. Yes, I
understand that this law was put together in the 1930s. Maybe it made
sense for the workplace in the thirties, but it doesn't make sense for
the workplace of the 21st century.
I am disappointed in my colleagues who used to be in favor of these
sorts of flexible arrangements and no longer favor it, but I get that.
I hope that the rest of us will use our common sense and use what we
all know is really happening in the workplace today and support this
very important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have a document from 1997 from then-President Bill
Clinton who opposed a bill that is basically identical to this one in
its current form. The President said he would veto this bill, if
passed, because he said this bill purports to give working families
greater flexibility, but, in reality, it grants employers more rights
at the expense of working people.
I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle stop using President
Clinton's good name in vain in passage of a bill that is nearly
identical to the one that he threatened to veto.
Of course, Democrats want to talk about flexibility. President
Clinton, myself, and Democrats of the Education and the Workforce
Committee are happy to do that, if there is a way to provide workers
with real choices to protect workers against employee abuse in making
their decisions, but the current bill, and the same bill that President
Clinton opposed, fails in that regard and fails to give employees the
rights that they deserve to exercise their comp time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Adams).
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1180.
H.R. 1180 encourages overwork by encouraging workers to spend more
time at work in order to earn paid time off, which employers may or may
not allow them to use in the future.
Many hardworking families throughout the 12th District of North
Carolina need overtime pay just to make ends meet each month. They
should not be compelled by their employer to accept comp time when
their monthly budget depends on how much overtime they receive in their
paycheck. Overtime pay can be the difference between paying for sending
a child to college or going into debt. Parents who earn an hourly wage
need overtime, not comp time, to care for their families.
Nothing in the Working Families Flexibility Act strengthens existing
workplace protections or promotes workplace flexibility. That is why I
offered an amendment last week when H.R. 1180 was considered in
committee to exempt comp time arrangements from mandatory arbitration
agreements.
This amendment would have ensured protections for employees that H.R.
1180 seek to take away. Unfortunately, the majority decided not to
support my amendment or any other amendments offered by my fellow
Democrats on the Education and the Workforce Committee.
Instead of today's bill, the House should consider legislation that
would create good jobs with family sustaining wages and benefits. I
strongly oppose H.R. 1180, and I encourage by colleagues to vote ``no''
on this bill.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague from North Carolina and I worked together on many
things, and I have great respect for her, but I think her argument
ignores a very important fact about this bill, and that is that you
can't be coerced into doing this. You have to do it voluntarily.
If you would rather get your time and a half in pay, that is your
decision. You are going to get it. The law requires that. There is
nothing that forces anybody to get that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of
Administration Policy from President William Jefferson Clinton from
1997, in which President Clinton lays out the criteria, by and large,
which is still the criteria under which Democrats would support a comp
time flexibility bill, had the Republicans been at all serious about
actually passing one into law rather than just passing a symbolic bill
that they have passed for 22 years.
[From the American Presidency Project, John T. Woolley & Gerhard
Peters, Santa Barbara, CA]
William J. Clinton: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1--Working
Families Flexibility Act of 1997, March 19, 1997
(House) (Ballenger (R) NC and 99 others)
The President will veto H.R. 1 if it is passed in its
current form. The President will not sign H.R. 1, or any
other comp time legislation, unless it adheres to three
fundamental principles: (1) real choice for workers; (2) real
protection against employer abuse; and (3) preservation of
workers' rights.
H.R. 1 purports to give working families greater
flexibility. In reality, it grants employers more rights at
the expense of working people:
H.R. 1 fails to offer workers real choice. In particular,
H.R. 1 would allow an employer to decide when a worker could
use his or her compensatory time-off by disapproving such
time-off if the employer claims it would ``unduly disrupt''
its operations. In addition, H.R. 1 would permit an employer
to ``cash out'' a worker's earned compensatory time over 80
hours.
H.R. 1 fails to protect workers against employer abuse. For
example, H.R. 1 offers inadequate protections for vulnerable
workers and part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees,
including garment and construction workers, and those who are
employed in industries with histories of Fair Labor Standards
Act violations. H.R. 1 also fails to prohibit employers from
substituting compensatory time-off for paid vacation or sick
leave benefits. Furthermore, H.R. 1 lacks meaningful remedies
for workers when employers penalize them for electing to
receive overtime pay in lieu of compensatory time-off. In
addition, H.R. 1 contains inadequate worker safeguards in
cases where an employer goes bankrupt or out-of-business.
H.R. 1 fails to preserve workers' rights. Workers who take
compensatory time-off
[[Page H3017]]
can be forced to work additional overtime in the same week--
even on the weekend--without being paid overtime premium pay.
The Administration supports the substitute amendment to be
offered by Representative George Miller, although procedural
obstacles in the House have prevented the amendment from
addressing all of the important issues that need to be
treated, including expansion of Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA). The Administration strongly believes that any
legislation to authorize compensatory time under the Fair
Labor Standards Act should be linked to expansion of the
FMLA. Expanding the FMLA to give working families greater
flexibility to foster the education of their children or
provide routine health care for their children or elderly
relatives will go a long way toward achieving the stated
goals of H.R. 1.
The Miller amendment, however, would ensure real employee
choice, by adding crucial provisions not found in H.R. 1. For
example, employers that adopt comp time programs would have
to make comp time available to similarly-situated employees
on a fair and non-discriminatory basis. Working families are
guaranteed real protection against possible comp time abuse
through the Miller amendment.
Furthermore, the Miller amendment would preclude employers
from using comp time to modify or reduce existing paid leave
plans. It would entitle employees choosing comp time to get
regular statements of their accrual and use of comp time; put
a reasonable limit on the number of hours of comp time that
can be accrued; and allow employees to seek damages when they
incur costs because an employer wrongfully denies them use of
the comp time they earned. The Secretary of Labor would have
the authority to bar employers with a pattern and practice of
comp time abuse from continuing to offer comp time. H.R. 1
has none of these protections. These are all improvements to
H.R. 1 that guarantee the legislation enhances rather than
decreases flexibility for America's working families.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Colorado (Mr. Polis) for yielding.
I rise today in opposition to this so-called Working Families
Flexibility Act, a bill that would hurt, not help, working people.
This bill would ensure workers have less time, less flexibility, and
less money. Under this proposal, workers would forego the overtime they
earn today in exchange for comp time in the future, except workers
can't choose when they can use that time.
There is nothing stopping a boss from denying a worker from using
their comp time to care for a sick child or attend a school event. The
only thing that this bill does is provide more flexibility for bosses,
while taking away hard-earned overtime pay that many workers rely on to
make ends meet.
This is an attempt to undermine hard-fought, 80-year-old worker
protections guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act. If Congress
wanted to give working families more flexibility, we should give them
earned paid sick days, combat pay discrimination, give them a say in
their work schedules, and raise the minimum wage. These are the
policies that working families truly need to thrive.
They are popular, commonsense ideas that, unlike this bill, don't
force workers into choosing between time and money. Families depend on
both. Let's work together to support real flexibility for working
families.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and
underlying bill, and I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding.
Contrary to its name, the Working Families Flexibility Act provides
no flexibility for working families but makes it harder to plan
financially at a time when wages have stagnated and American workers
are working harder than ever.
The 40-hour workweek is a long established American way of life--a
way of life won by hardworking American men and women. This legislation
aims to undermine the Fair Labor Standards Act and the 40-hour workweek
by handing even more power over to employers by giving them the right
to not pay for overtime hours.
This legislation amounts to a handout for large American companies at
the expense of their workers. Hardworking Americans can't afford to
loan their bosses overtime pay for months at a time. Employees would
also find themselves at a disadvantage if they wanted to get paid for
overtime instead of opting for comp time. Companies would find it in
their financial interest to select comp time workers instead of workers
who want overtime pay. This isn't the flexibility that American workers
need.
The bill is right about one thing: American workers do deserve an
update to the FLSA. If they really want to talk about helping American
working families gain more flexibility in the workplace, Congress
should be taking up bills on paid sick days, paid family and medical
leave, and a real increase in wages.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think my friends on the other side of the aisle don't
understand how this works. An employee comes to their supervisor or the
person who runs the HR office in the company and says: I would like to
get some comp time in return for the overtime I am getting ready to
work because I have got a specific reason to want to use it. The
employer says: Okay, when do you want to get the overtime and when do
you want to take the comp time? They work that out.
The employer has the responsibility for having the system and the
paperwork for showing that they have complied with the law. From an
employer's point of view, that is an extra burden. It is really not in
the interest of an employer to do this. An employer would really prefer
to say: Look, I don't want to have to do this, because if I make a
mistake, I am going to get in trouble with either a private lawsuit or
the Department of Labor. So it is really better for the employer not to
have this option because it is not going to be an option in which they
can make a mistake.
This is for that employee to get the comp time so they can have some
flexibility in their schedule. That is who it is for. If they don't
want to use it, they don't have to use it. They can still be paid the
time and a half that they are paid today. No one can coerce them. The
law says you can't do that, and there are real penalties for it.
To the contrary, when we are hearing that somehow this is something
for the employers, no, it is not. This is for the workers--the new
workers of the 21st century, who sometimes I think we have forgotten
about when we have these debates in this body.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while we are debating a rule for a bill that would strip
workers of their overtime pay, since President Trump took office,
dangerous bills like this are more likely to become law.
Just a few weeks ago, President Trump signed a bill into law that
strips the American people of our online privacy, allowing internet
service providers to sell yours and my sensitive information to the
highest bidder without our permission.
This information includes location, financial and health data,
information about our children--even pictures of our children--Social
Security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history, content of
communication: emails, video chats. It is simply wrong.
For this reason, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer
an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Jacky Rosen's bill,
H.R. 1868, which would reinstate the Federal Communication
Commission's internet privacy rule.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, sometimes you need a redo or a retake. When
this body narrowly passed the bill that President Trump signed that
took all of our private data and allowed internet service providers to
sell it without our permission, it was a mistake. Hopefully enough
Members of this body have since realized it is a mistake and they will
now change their vote and support defeating the previous question
[[Page H3018]]
allowing for immediate consideration of Representative Rosen's bill to
protect our privacy.
As we know, broadband access through internet access providers is a
critical way to have access to a world of information and commerce, but
the price of that access should not be all of your private information,
including your kids' photographs and birthdays and your Social Security
number.
Under the bill that became law, everything you enter on the internet
on any site, regardless of their privacy policy, would be owned by your
broadband provider and be able to be sold by your broadband provider
without your consent.
That is simply wrong for America; it is wrong for consumers; it is
wrong for innovation. It casts a shadow over the entire internet
ecosytem, which not only has brought so much enjoyment to so many but
has created millions of jobs in my district and across our country.
{time} 1315
If we can defeat the previous question, we can do a redo on this
bill. We can pass H.R. 1868, which would reinstate a rule that has
broad, popular support. I haven't heard a single constituent of mine
say that they don't want their broadband privacy protected, and I have
had hundreds of them say that they do want their broadband privacy
protected.
I am hoping that, since my Republican friends have now had the chance
to have townhalls and to listen to their constituents, they will agree
that we should reinstate the Federal Communications' internet privacy
rule to protect our privacy subject to the terms of use; information
can be sold if you consent for it to be sold, but without your consent,
all the information you enter on the internet should not be the
property of the broadband provider for their use and for sale. It is
common sense. The vast majority of the American public agrees. I think
it is time to call the question on Congress to see if we can get
Congress to agree.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to my colleague and to the House, I did indeed have 11
townhalls 2 weeks ago after the bill he references passed. It didn't
come up one time because the American people understand what that was
all about, that there were two different Federal agencies battling over
something, and it didn't even solve the problem. The agency that put
that regulation out didn't have the authority to do it, and it didn't
solve the problem. The American people are sick and tired of agencies
that don't have the authority to go out there and they do something,
and it doesn't solve the problem.
If we want to get to the issue that my friend wants to get to, which
I think is important, we ought to get to, let's work together in a
bipartisan fashion and come up with a bipartisan, comprehensive bill
that addresses that. I would really like to be a part of that.
But that is not what we are here today about. We are here today about
this bill to provide flexibility to working people in the 21st century,
particularly millennials.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I am surprised that people in Alabama weren't clamoring to protect
their online privacy at the gentleman's townhall meetings. I will
certainly take him at his word. Perhaps it is because they were so
concerned with Republican attempts to increase their healthcare
insurance rates by 15 to 20 percent, Republican attempts to raise their
taxes, and Republican spending that will increase the deficit by $12
billion in this continuing resolution that were brought before us.
Maybe they were so overwhelmed by the Republican efforts to get rid of
their health care, increase the deficit, spend more money, and take
away their rights that they didn't get down their list of concerns to
broadband privacy.
Certainly in my district, Mr. Speaker, dozens of constituents in my
townhalls--both Republican and Democratic constituents--brought this
issue up as a way of arguing how out of touch House and Senate
Republicans are to say that, at this time in our Nation's history, what
we need is less privacy, not more. I think that there are a lot of
things that people are concerned about, and that is certainly one of
them.
This debate is about that, frankly, Mr. Speaker, because, if we
defeat the previous question, I will be bringing forth Ms. Rosen's
bill. Members of this House will have an opportunity to vote on
bringing up Ms. Rosen's bill to protect our broadband privacy.
Mr. Speaker, the more work, less pay bill before us is yet another
example by Republicans to roll back workers' rights under the guise of
doing the opposite. Again, if the Republicans have a sincere desire to
actually enhance and improve workers' rights, then we are all for that.
The labor movement is for that. Let's talk about that. But don't
pretend like you have the voices and concerns of workers in mind when
workers' advocacy groups say you are stripping away their rights. We
are happy to have that discussion.
In many ways, the veto statement from President Clinton in 1997 still
lays out as relevant, today, some of the very criteria the Democrats
would want to see in a bill that we could support that would empower
workers to choose additional comp time, a concept that many Democrats
support.
I wish we were working to protect American families today. But
instead of collaborating with Democrats to produce a bill that actually
accomplishes the stated goal of increasing worker flexibility, instead,
the Republicans have chosen to move forward with their 22-year-old bill
that weakens the 40-hour workweek, that President Clinton threatened to
veto, that hasn't become law and won't become law, just perhaps as a
check-off box rather than to do anything to actually empower workers to
choose comp time instead of overtime. They are just checking the box
for the big bosses and moving on to the next item without seeing this
through into law.
There are a lot of bipartisan bills this body could be taking up this
week. Frankly, one of them is Representative Rosen's bill that I will
be bringing up when we defeat the previous question, but, sadly, this
bill is not one of them. I am very disappointed that even in the
majority, even in the governing capacity, even controlling the House,
the Senate, and the Presidency, Republicans are wasting time on what we
around here call messaging bills rather than real bills to address
issues that Americans want us to work on, like bringing down the cost
of college, fixing our broken immigration system, rebuilding our
crumbling roads and bridges, or reforming our complicated tax system to
make it more friendly for growth in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I support legislation that puts the needs of workers
first, but this bill before us does the opposite. This legislation
lifts up the big bosses with the hope that a worker may or may not see
a benefit down the line without interest if the company stays
in business. It is the wrong way to go about it. I oppose the rule. I
oppose the underlying bill. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank Congresswoman Roby for being the sponsor of this bill and
bringing it forward. As a young woman herself, she understands what's
going on in the workplace with people her age and how they try to
juggle all the demands of their time. She has come up with a very
commonsense approach to how we can deal with this in a way that makes
sense for everybody.
We just heard a lot about the labor movement and big bosses. I got
transported back in my mind. You would have thought we were in the
1930s and 1940s. I don't know if my colleague from Colorado has been
paying attention, but union membership is at its lowest level since the
1940s right now because, even after 8 years of the most pro-union
administration in decades, union membership continues to fall, and it
continues to fall because workers in America aren't buying what they
are selling because a lot of what they are selling is exactly what we
hear is the opposition to this bill, which is: Let's limit people;
let's restrict people; let's come up with all these things to tell them
what they can't do instead of telling them what they can.
[[Page H3019]]
What the American people want, what I heard in my townhall meetings,
they want the government off their back so that they can make their own
choices and live their lives the way they want to live them. This is
really true with the millennial generation.
I have four children who are adults right now. They are millennials.
They really want to have flexibility in their lives, and this bill,
Congresswoman Roby's bill, gets a little way toward that. I don't see
why we would be against trying to give not just young workers, but all
workers, that flexibility.
I have heard the arguments, and I have heard them several times now.
I have just got to tell you, they make no sense to me. Perhaps they are
something that made sense 50, 60, 70 years ago, but they don't make any
sense in 2017. It is a different time. It is a different day. Let's
give the workers of America some freedom and flexibility because that
is what they really want.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
299 and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 299 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1868) to provide that providers of broadband Internet access
service shall be subject to the privacy rules adopted by the
Federal Communications Commission on October 27, 2016. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
.amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1868.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an a amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________