[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 2, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H3038-H3050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2017

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 299, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1180) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 299, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, printed in the bill, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 115-15 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1180

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Working Families Flexibility 
     Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. COMPENSATORY TIME.

       Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 207) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) Compensatory Time Off for Private Employees.--
       ``(1) General rule.--An employee may receive, in accordance 
     with this subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime 
     compensation, compensatory time off at a rate not less than 
     one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which 
     overtime compensation is required by this section.
       ``(2) Conditions.--An employer may provide compensatory 
     time to employees under paragraph (1) only if such time is 
     provided in accordance with--
       ``(A) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining 
     agreement between the employer and the labor organization 
     that has been certified or recognized as the representative 
     of the employees under applicable law; or
       ``(B) in the case of an employee who is not represented by 
     a labor organization that has been certified or recognized as 
     the representative of such employee under applicable law, an 
     agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before 
     the performance of the work and affirmed by a written or 
     otherwise verifiable record maintained in accordance with 
     section 11(c)--
       ``(i) in which the employer has offered and the employee 
     has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary 
     overtime compensation; and
       ``(ii) entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such 
     employee and not as a condition of employment.

     No employee may receive or agree to receive compensatory time 
     off under this subsection unless the employee has worked at 
     least 1,000 hours for the employee's employer during a period 
     of continuous employment with the employer in the 12-month 
     period before the date of agreement or receipt of 
     compensatory time off.
       ``(3) Hour limit.--
       ``(A) Maximum hours.--An employee may accrue not more than 
     160 hours of compensatory time.
       ``(B) Compensation date.--Not later than January 31 of each 
     calendar year, the employee's employer shall provide monetary 
     compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued 
     during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to 
     December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by 
     paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to 
     the employer's employees a 12-month period other than the 
     calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be 
     provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-
     month period.
       ``(C) Excess of 80 hours.--The employer may provide 
     monetary compensation for an employee's unused compensatory 
     time in excess of 80 hours at any time after giving the 
     employee at least 30 days notice. Such compensation shall be 
     provided at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6).
       ``(D) Policy.--Except where a collective bargaining 
     agreement provides otherwise, an employer that has adopted a 
     policy offering compensatory time to employees may 
     discontinue such policy upon giving employees 30 days notice.
       ``(E) Written request.--An employee may withdraw an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2)(B) at any time. An 
     employee may also request in writing that monetary 
     compensation be provided, at any time, for all compensatory 
     time accrued that has not yet been used. Within 30 days of 
     receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the 
     employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with 
     paragraph (6).
       ``(4) Private employer actions.--An employer that provides 
     compensatory time under paragraph (1) to an employee shall 
     not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or 
     attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for 
     the purpose of--
       ``(A) interfering with such employee's rights under this 
     subsection to request or not request compensatory time off in 
     lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for 
     overtime hours; or
       ``(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.
       ``(5) Termination of employment.--An employee who has 
     accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under 
     paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or involuntary 
     termination of employment, be paid for the unused 
     compensatory time in accordance with paragraph (6).
       ``(6) Rate of compensation.--
       ``(A) General rule.--If compensation is to be paid to an 
     employee for accrued compensatory time off, such compensation 
     shall be paid at a rate of compensation not less than--
       ``(i) the regular rate earned by such employee when the 
     compensatory time was accrued; or
       ``(ii) the regular rate earned by such employee at the time 
     such employee received payment of such compensation,
     whichever is higher.
       ``(B) Consideration of payment.--Any payment owed to an 
     employee under this subsection for unused compensatory time 
     shall be considered unpaid overtime compensation.
       ``(7) Use of time.--An employee--
       ``(A) who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to 
     be provided under paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) who has requested the use of such compensatory time,

     shall be permitted by the employee's employer to use such 
     time within a reasonable period after making the request if 
     the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the 
     operations of the employer.
       ``(8) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `employee' does not include an employee of a 
     public agency; and
       ``(B) the terms `overtime compensation' and `compensatory 
     time' shall have the meanings given such terms by subsection 
     (o)(7).''.

     SEC. 3. REMEDIES.

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

     SEC. 4. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES.

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

     SEC. 5. GAO REPORT.

       Beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act 
     and each of the 3 years thereafter, the Comptroller General 
     of the United States shall submit a report to Congress 
     providing, with respect to the reporting period immediately 
     prior to each such report--
       (1) data concerning the extent to which employers provide 
     compensatory time pursuant to section 7(s) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938, as added by this Act, and the extent 
     to which employees opt to receive compensatory time;
       (2) the number of complaints alleging a violation of such 
     section filed by any employee with the Secretary of Labor;
       (3) the number of enforcement actions commenced by the 
     Secretary or commenced by the Secretary on behalf of any 
     employee for alleged violations of such section;
       (4) the disposition or status of such complaints and 
     actions described in paragraphs (2) and (3); and
       (5) an account of any unpaid wages, damages, penalties, 
     injunctive relief, or other remedies obtained or sought by 
     the Secretary in connection with such actions described in 
     paragraph (3).

     SEC. 6. SUNSET.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall cease to 
     be in effect on the

[[Page H3039]]

     date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 1180.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1180, the Working Families 
Flexibility Act of 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom, flexibility, and fairness. 
The freedom for workers to choose what is best for themselves and their 
families, more flexibility for men and women to balance work, life, and 
family, and greater fairness in how Federal policies treat workers and 
families.
  Under the legislation, private sector workers who are eligible for 
overtime pay would be able to choose between cash wages or paid time 
off. This simple choice will help improve the lives of many hardworking 
Americans.
  This option has long been available to government workers. More than 
30 years ago, Republicans and Democrats came together to amend an 
outdated Federal law and provide public sector employees more workplace 
flexibility.

                              {time}  1545

  That is why comp time is a popular benefit enjoyed today by police 
officers, firefighters, and other State and local government employees. 
But the Federal Government still denies many private sector workers the 
same opportunity. This double standard simply isn't fair. It is time to 
level the playing field for those in the private sector.
  Despite what we will hear from the other side of the aisle today, all 
we are doing is empowering workers with a choice. For some workers, 
more money in the bank may be the best choice for them. Nothing--I 
repeat, nothing--in this bill will take away that right.
  But other workers, if given the choice, would seize the opportunity 
to turn their overtime hours into paid time off. There are single 
parents who need more flexibility to spend time with their children; 
students who are struggling to juggle college and a full-time job; and 
a growing number of individuals need more time to care for an aging 
relative.
  Time is precious, yet Democrats in Congress think the Federal 
Government should decide how people use it. They think they know what 
is best for workers and their families. In the name of protecting 
workers, our colleagues and their so-called progressive allies have 
denied workers this choice for years. They continue to ignore the 
bill's strong protections, including several that are more robust than 
what is available in the public sector.
  The bill preserves the 40-hour workweek, and comp time would accrue 
at the same time-and-a-half rate as cash wages. The legislation also 
requires a written comp time agreement between each individual worker 
and his or her employer, or between a worker's union and employer.
  Additionally, workers can cash out their comp time at any time and 
for any reason. Employers who force their employees into a comp time 
arrangement would face costly penalties, and the Department of Labor 
would have full authority to crack down on bad actors.
  Mr. Speaker, by providing more freedom and flexibility, we can 
improve the quality of life of many Americans. We have an opportunity 
to make a positive difference in people's lives simply by getting the 
Federal Government out of the way and allowing individuals to choose 
what is best for themselves and their families.
  I want to thank Representative Roby for championing this effort, and 
I urge all Members to vote in favor of freedom, flexibility, and 
fairness for the American people by supporting H.R. 1180.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, under current law, if an employee wants to work 
overtime, put the money in the bank where it can earn interest, and use 
it to cover the cost of taking some time off later with the permission 
of the employer, he can do that today without this bill.
  But under H.R. 1180, instead of getting paid for overtime work in the 
next scheduled paycheck, the employee might not get paid until as much 
as a year later, when his employer decides to let him take that comp 
time.
  This legislation simply weakens the protections available in the Fair 
Labor Standards Act--the original family-friendly workplace law--at the 
very moment that we really ought to be strengthening the law.
  Under H.R. 1180, it would be legal to withhold workers' overtime pay 
for a long time. This would be otherwise a violation of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act.
  The bill would allow you to undermine the 40-hour workweek by 
creating a mechanism that allows employees to earn time off to be with 
their families only if they spend extra time at work beyond a 40-hour 
workweek.
  It undermines a worker's ability to earn overtime pay, which many 
workers rely on to send their children to college, save for retirement, 
or make a down payment on a house.
  Because the legislation makes it cheaper for employers to assign 
overtime to employees who agree to accept comp time instead of actual 
cash wages, this legislation makes it extremely likely that the only 
employees who will be asked to work overtime are those who agree to get 
comp time instead of actual time and a half paid cash.
  Furthermore, the legislation creates significant uncertainty for 
workers. An employer could decide that an employee cannot take comp 
time on the dates requested because the employer said it would be an 
undue disruption to business operations.
  My Democratic colleagues and I are working on a Working Families 
Agenda with real solutions that would boost wages for working people 
and help them balance work and family life. An employee should be able 
to earn time off without sacrificing overtime pay. This is exactly what 
the Healthy Families Act would do. It would allow workers to earn up to 
7 paid sick days.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, 92 groups that actually represent working 
people sent a letter urging the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce to oppose the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter which is led by the 
National Partnership for Women & Families. It points out that we should 
be taking up real solutions, such as legislation, to raise the minimum 
wage, Schedules That Work Act, family and medical leave, and other 
responsible solutions. These solutions would truly help working 
families, yet the majority has refused to support any of these 
initiatives.

                                                      May 1, 2017.
       Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, 
     urge you to oppose the so-called Working Families Flexibility 
     Act (H.R. 1180/S. 801), a smoke-and-mirrors bill that would 
     offer working people a pay cut without any guaranteed 
     flexibility or time off. As members of Congress on both sides 
     of the aisle acknowledge, people today are struggling to 
     manage the demands of job and family, and to make ends meet 
     and plan for the future. We urgently need lawmakers to update 
     our nation's workplace policies to meet 21st century 
     realities, but the Working Families Flexibility Act would be 
     a grievous step in the wrong direction. It is, at best, an 
     empty promise that would cause considerably more harm than 
     good.
       The Working Families Flexibility Act would offer a false 
     choice between time and pay. Supporters claim the bill would 
     give hourly workers more flexibility and time with their 
     loved ones by allowing them to choose paid time off, rather 
     than time-and-a-half wages, as compensation for working more 
     than 40 hours in one week (``comp time''). But people would 
     only get more time with their families after spending extra 
     hours away from them at work, and the bill does not guarantee 
     that workers could use the time they earn when they need it. 
     Moreover, the bill would do nothing to address the need all 
     working people--not just those who work overtime--have for 
     guaranteed access to paid sick days and paid family and 
     medical leave. Too few employers provide these protections 
     now, especially to their hourly workers.
       The Fair Labor Standards Act currently allows employers to 
     provide flexibility and

[[Page H3040]]

     time off without compromising workers' right to be paid 
     fairly for the hours they work. The types of flexibility 
     allowed under the FLSA include alternative start and end 
     times, compressed or variable work hours within a week, split 
     shifts, work at multiple locations, and paid or unpaid time 
     off. Proponents of the Working Families Flexibility Act set 
     up a false dichotomy that would force workers to choose 
     between flexibility and overtime pay when, in reality, the 
     FLSA does nothing currently to prevent employers from 
     offering both.
       The ``worker flexibility'' offered by the Working Families 
     Flexibility Act would magnify the power imbalance between 
     employees and employers. The proposal would give the 
     employer, not the employee, the ``flexibility'' to decide 
     when, and even if, comp time could be used. The bill would 
     allow employers to deny requests if an employee's use of comp 
     time would ``unduly disrupt'' operations, or grant leave on a 
     day other than the one requested. This means the Working 
     Families Flexibility Act would provide no guarantee that 
     workers could use their earned time to care for a sick child, 
     attend a parent-teacher conference, or help an aging parent. 
     Employers could veto an employee's request to use their time 
     even in cases of urgent need. The bill would also allow 
     employers to ``cash out'' an employee's comp time in excess 
     of 80 hours, or discontinue the comp time program altogether, 
     with just 30 days' notice. This means an employee's carefully 
     crafted plan to bank time for a child's birth or surgery 
     could be thwarted by an employer's decision to cash out the 
     employee's time.
       The Working Families Flexibility Act would put workers' 
     economic security at risk and provide an interest-free loan 
     to employers. An employee who does not participate in an 
     employer's comp time program could be penalized with fewer 
     hours, bad shifts and lost overtime hours. The bill would 
     permit employers to defer compensation for unused comp time 
     for as long as 13 months, creating an interest-free loan for 
     employers and hardship for workers. It also would not provide 
     any protections for employees when firms collapse or go 
     bankrupt, meaning workers could lose the value of their 
     unused comp time altogether.
       The Working Families Flexibility Act would provide few 
     protections for workers and no additional resources to the 
     U.S. Department of Labor for education, investigation and 
     enforcement. The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Wage and 
     Hour Division already struggles to enforce the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act (FLSA) with too few investigators and a small 
     budget--and DOL is facing a draconian reduction in funding 
     that threatens its ability to maintain current operations, 
     let alone engage in robust enforcement. This bill would add 
     significant new provisions to the FLSA, but it would not 
     provide additional funds for education and enforcement 
     efforts the new provisions would require. Workers would have 
     few remedies in cases of employer misconduct pursuant to the 
     bill, and would not be able to rely on an under-resourced 
     Wage and Hour Division for assistance. Wage theft (nonpayment 
     or underpayment of wages for hours worked) would be 
     exacerbated because it would be easier for employers to avoid 
     overtime compensation obligations without consequences.
       Instead of wasting time on smoke and mirrors, Congress 
     should focus on policies that would meaningfully improve 
     people's economic security and provide the time they need. We 
     urge Congress to adopt:
       The Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1516/S. 636), which would 
     make earned paid sick days available to millions of workers 
     and build on the success of paid sick days laws that have 
     been, or will soon be, implemented in seven states and 32 
     localities;
       The Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act (H.R. 
     947/S. 337), which would create a national paid leave 
     insurance program--modeled on successful state programs in 
     California, New. Jersey, Rhode Island and, soon, New York and 
     the District of Columbia--that would allow workers to take 
     paid time to care for a new child; care for a seriously ill 
     family member; address their own serious health condition; or 
     manage certain military caregiving responsibilities;
       The Schedules That Work Act, which would give workers more 
     control over their schedules and incentivize predictability 
     and stability in shifts and work hours; and
       An increase in the minimum wage, including the elimination 
     of the sub-minimum ``tipped'' wage, which would lift millions 
     of families out of poverty.
       People simply should not have to work more than 40 hours in 
     a week and forgo pay to earn time to care for themselves or 
     their loved ones. We urge Congress to reject the Working 
     Families Flexibility Act and instead adopt family friendly 
     workplace policies that provide true flexibility--not an 
     empty promise that would make life appreciably more difficult 
     for people who are already struggling
           Sincerely,
       1,000 Days, 9to5, National Association of Working Women, 
     9to5 California, 9to5 Colorado, 9to5 Georgia, 9to5 Wisconsin, 
     A Better Balance, American Federation of Labor and Congress 
     of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), American Association 
     of University Women (AAUW), American Federation of Government 
     Employees, American Federation of Teachers, (AFL-CIO), 
     California Work & Family Coalition, Center for Law and Social 
     Policy (CLASP), Center for Popular Democracy, Coalition for 
     Social Justice, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Coalition on 
     Human Needs, Communications Workers of America (CWA), 
     Connecticut Working Families Party, Connecticut Women's 
     Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF), Daily Kos, Demos, Economic 
     Policy Institute Policy Center, Economic Progress Institute, 
     Faith in Public Life, Family Forward Oregon, Family Values @ 
     Work, Feminist Majority.
       Indiana Institute for Working Families, Innovation Ohio, 
     Institute for Science and Human Values, Inc., Interfaith 
     Worker Justice, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
     International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
     Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Jewish Women 
     International (JWI), Jews United for Justice, Jobs With 
     Justice, Labor Project for Working Families, The Leadership 
     Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Legal Aid at Work, Los 
     Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Main Street 
     Alliance, Maine Women's Lobby, Make it Work, McKenna Pihlaja, 
     MomsRising.org, Mothering Justice.
       National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), 
     National Association of Social Workers (NASW), National 
     Center for Lesbian Rights, National Coalition 100 Black Women 
     Central Ohio Chapter, National Council of Jewish Women 
     (NCJW), National Education Association (NEA), National 
     Employment Law Project, National Employment Lawyers 
     Association, National Institute for Reproductive Health, 
     National Network to End Domestic Violence, National 
     Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law 
     Center, NC Justice Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social 
     Justice, New Jersey Citizen Action, New Jersey Time to Care 
     Coalition, New York Paid Leave Coalition, Ohio Domestic 
     Violence Network, Ohio Women's Public Policy Network, OUR 
     Walmart.
       PathWays PA, People For the American Way, People's Action, 
     PL+US Paid Leave for the U.S., Progress For All, Project 
     IRENE, Restaurant Opportunities Center of Pennsylvania (ROC-
     PA), Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC), Sargent 
     Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Service Employees 
     International Union (SEIU), Southwest PA National 
     Organization for Women, The Body Is Not An Apology (TBINAA, 
     Inc.), Texas Organizing Project, The Voter Participation 
     Center, UltraViolet, Unitarian Universalist Women's 
     Federation, Voices for Progress, Women Employed, Women's 
     Foundation of Florida, Women's Law Project, Women's Voices 
     Women Vote Action Fund, Working America, Working Partnerships 
     USA, Young Invincibles, YWCA USA.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Mrs. Roby), the author of the legislation.
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. 
Let me say how grateful I am for the leadership of Chairwoman Foxx in 
the Education and the Workforce Committee. She and her staff have been 
instrumental in advancing this bill.
  I also want to thank my friend, my colleague from Alabama, Bradley 
Byrne, who serves as the chair on the Workforce Protections 
Subcommittee. He has been a champion for commonsense policies in the 
workplace, and I appreciate his hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, today's workforce is more diverse than ever, especially 
as it concerns working parents. More than 70 percent of mothers today 
work outside of the home; and that is different from 50 years ago, when 
that number was less than 30 percent.
  But while the workforce has changed quite a bit, our policies and 
laws that govern the workplace have not. As a working mom myself, I 
understand all too well how challenging it can be to balance career and 
family. Ask any working parent, and they will tell you just how 
precious their time is. They will tell you that they just need one more 
hour in the day to be able to take care of their family and all of 
those responsibilities that come with it.
  I always say, Congress can't legislate another hour in the day, but 
we can update our laws to allow more choice and fairness in how 
employees use their time. That is why I am proud to bring to the floor 
H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does three important things: it removes 
outdated and unnecessary Federal restrictions on the use of comp time 
in the private sector; it provides flexibility for working moms and 
dads who need more time to spend taking care of their family 
responsibilities; and it demonstrates how commonsense conservative 
principles can help Americans in their everyday lives.
  Here is how it works: an hourly wage employee would be able to 
voluntarily enter into an agreement with their employer to put a 
portion of their accrued

[[Page H3041]]

overtime towards paid time off instead of extra cash. An employee could 
simply use the time-and-a-half overtime that they earned to take a paid 
hour and a half off of work instead of the extra money if that is what 
they wanted.
  Ask yourselves: Should a working dad be forced to use up all of his 
vacation time in order to get involved in his child's school?
  Should a military mom, with her husband deployed, have to dip into 
her sick leave to make sure her kids have the support they need?
  Should someone with aging parents who require extra care have no 
option allowing them to devote more time and attention to their loved 
ones when they need it most?
  Under the Working Families Flexibility Act, those working moms and 
dads could have the option of using their accrued overtime toward paid 
time off, allowing them to take care of these responsibilities without 
losing the paycheck that they count on.
  Mr. Speaker, for anyone who works in the public sector, this comp 
time system probably sounds familiar. That is because, since 1985, 
government employees have had access to comp time benefits.
  Why should the rules be different? If it is good enough for the 
government employees, why is it not good enough for the private sector?
  H.R. 1180 fixes this disparity by allowing for greater choice and 
fairness over how workers use their time. I have sponsored this bill 
for three straight Congresses now, so I am well aware of the criticism 
from the labor unions and their allies. They try to say this bill is 
somehow antiunion or antiworker. This is simply untrue. Of course, the 
truth is, many Big Labor groups will reflexively attack any proposal 
that would change a single word of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 
Ironically, labor unions themselves can, and often do, negotiate 
similar agreements for their members already.
  So I want to just go over a few of these criticisms quickly. Critics 
of this bill, as has already been stated in this debate, will tell you 
that it will somehow result in employees working longer hours for less 
pay. That is not true. The decision to receive comp time is completely 
voluntary. An employee who prefers to receive cash payment for overtime 
hours is always free to do so.
  Workers can withdraw from a comp time agreement whenever they choose. 
An employee who changes their mind or just can't work out with their 
employer when to use compensatory time can say, ``You know what? I 
would rather have the cash payments that I accrued in my overtime,'' 
and the employer must provide that within 30 days.
  All existing protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act are 
maintained, including the 40-hour workweek, and how overtime 
compensation is accrued.
  Critics of this bill also say that it will allow employers to control 
when workers take their comp time. That is also not true. It is up to 
the employee to decide when to use his or her comp time. It is their 
time.
  My time is running out. There are other myths, and I hope during this 
debate that we will be able to go through what is myth, and what is 
fact, and I am happy to address that at any time.
  I want to thank again the chairwoman for her support, for her 
willingness to move this bill through committee.
  We have got big issues in this country to deal with right now: health 
care, funding the government, tax reform. And as we continue to work on 
those issues--and we will--nothing should stop us from doing what we 
can right now to help make life a little easier for moms and dads. The 
Working Families Flexibility Act does that by helping Americans better 
balance the demands of family and work. After all, this is their time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the vice ranking member on the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, too many workers in Oregon 
and across the country are still facing a great deal of economic 
uncertainty. They worry about rent payments, healthcare costs, saving 
for retirement, balancing family responsibilities and work, and making 
ends meet.
  Congress should be considering policy changes that support workers, 
not a bill that threatens their economic security. This bill takes away 
overtime pay and, instead, a workers gets a vague IOU for compensatory 
time sometime in the future, and only if the comp time does not unduly 
disrupt the operations of the employer--whatever that means.
  I would like to share the story of Anjeanette. She said:

       I work as a waitress in a restaurant in Gresham, Oregon, 
     that is part of a large chain. I have three children. I have 
     never had a single paid sick day. A few years ago, when I was 
     working in construction, I sprained my ankle badly and 
     couldn't go to work for a week. I didn't have any paid sick 
     days, so I lost a whole week's pay, which meant I wasn't able 
     to pay all of my bills and I wasn't able to pay for gas.

  Anjeanette is a single mother of three sons who also struggles to 
care for them when they get sick. In fact, when her youngest got the 
flu, her older son had to stay home from school to care for him.
  In May and June, we celebrate Mother's Day and Father's Day. This is 
a perfect time for Congress to focus on legislation that allows parents 
like Anjeanette to be more present in their kid's lives and still pay 
their bills.
  Instead, this legislation would result in taking their overtime pay 
from their pockets. The so-called Working Families Flexibility Act is 
not a solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chair of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, as well as a member of the Education and the Workforce 
Committee.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act, and encourage all of my 
colleagues to do the same. This commonsense piece of legislation, 
sponsored by my friend and colleague from Alabama, Martha Roby, would 
empower private sector workers with the flexibility to choose comp time 
as compensation for working overtime hours instead of added wages.
  Specifically, the provisions of this legislation would be completely 
voluntary for workers, allow them to exchange their accrued time for 
full overtime pay at any time or for any reason, and would maintain the 
protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act, such as the standard 40-
hour workweek.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, I have heard our friends on the other side of the aisle 
express opposition to giving private sector employees this choice. I 
would point out that the public sector employees have enjoyed the 
ability to use comp time to maintain a work-life balance for 30 years. 
We are simply doing the same thing for private sector employees that 
public sector employees have the right to do today.
  H.R. 1180 would benefit workers who want more flexibility to decide 
where they spend the time, with their families or pursue 
entrepreneurial or education ambitions outside the workplace, and these 
individuals should be admired for their efforts.
  At its most basic level, this legislation is about choice and the 
belief that hardworking employees know their needs better than 
Washington bureaucrats. House Republicans believe it is time to adapt 
our labor laws to meet the needs of a rapidly changing 21st century 
workplace instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all, Washington-knows-
best model.
  It is time to empower employees to make choices on what will allow 
them to better balance work with their personal lives. This commonsense 
legislation will ultimately improve not only their benefits but their 
lives.
  I want to again encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1180.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill 
which would give workers less flexibility and less pay. The economic 
challenge of our time is that people are in jobs today that just don't 
pay them enough to live on. They are struggling to make

[[Page H3042]]

ends meet. This bill would make that worse.
  It forces workers to decide between time-and-a-half overtime pay and 
paid time off when they work more than 40 hours a week. It enables 
employers to exert more control over employees' wages and hours that 
hinders a worker's ability to plan family time, to have flexible and 
stable schedules, and, yes, to make ends meet.
  Rather than helping American workers earn better wages and more time 
off, this bill creates more power for employers to delay paying 
overtime wages for as long as 13 months. For people who need to work 
extra hours to pay those bills, this legislation forces them into an 
impossible choice between time and money with no guarantee of time off.
  This bill is nothing more than a false promise of time off and a pay 
cut. Working Americans deserve better. We have an obligation to pursue 
public policy that puts workers before corporations. Instead of forcing 
bad choices for workers about their time off, we ought to bring the 
Healthy Families Act to the floor which would enable workers to earn 
paid sick days, because no one should have to choose between getting 
healthy and putting food on the table.
  Instead of considering this legislation which will hurt workers and 
their ability to earn fair wages, we should be considering the FAMILY 
Act, which would create a national paid leave insurance program to 
allow workers to take time off while they are caring for a new child, a 
seriously ill family member, or their own serious health conditions.
  Instead of undermining workers' schedules, we should be considering 
the Schedules That Work Act, which gives workers more control over 
their schedules, offers them real predictability and stability in their 
shifts and in their work hours.
  These are the policies that workers need, policies that reflect the 
realities of working in America today, the challenges that workers 
face. This bill goes in the opposite direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak as well on the 
Working Families Flexibility Act.
  Over a period of time, a lot of the rules and regulations that this 
body has passed, it becomes apparent they are one-size-fits-all and 
lack common sense. I am glad to be a cosponsor of this bill which gives 
people the flexibility, if they work more than 40 hours in a week, they 
can take the cash if they need the cash. But for some people, either 
because of life circumstances or because they are just less 
materialistic, they don't want that cash. They would rather spend time 
with their family.
  I think particularly in today's world where so many people live in 
two-parent families in which both people work, a lot of people would 
love to spend a day with their children instead of having their 
children in daycare. I think it is right that people should have the 
freedom to do that. We recognize for government employees we frequently 
have comp time in which if they work more than 40 hours a week, they 
can come back, spend more time with their family, or maybe just spend 
more time on recreation.
  It is high time we give that freedom to people in the private sector, 
high time to put family first, and we all have to remember that even 
though some people always want more money, some people say there are 
other things in life that are more important.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, freedom to make less. What could be wrong 
with that? Freedom to make less.
  Now, I am an employer, and I tell my employees, you have the freedom 
to either work for time and a half or just take comp time. One employee 
says: Well, I will work for comp time. The other employee says: Mr. 
Boss, you know, I need that money. Well, the person I will choose to 
work will be the person who will do it for comp time.

  I don't know whether there is a provision to pay FICA on comp time or 
not in this bill, but I presume there is not. I presume there is an 
extraordinary saving to the employer, an incentive to the employer to 
choose the employee who doesn't need the extra money. Maybe their 
spouse makes a lot of money. Maybe not.
  This is the freedom to make less bill, and I rise in opposition to it 
as I did when it last came to this floor. Instead of requiring 
employers to provide their workers with overtime, as currently amended, 
this bill would allow them to replace overtime with comp time.
  Now, I have run a business. Most businessmen would not say it was a 
business because it was a law office. But I had employees, and I had to 
pay them. I wanted to pay them. I needed to pay them. When they worked 
overtime, I needed to pay them overtime. In other words, this bill 
provides if you work more than 40 hours a week, instead of getting time 
and a half for overtime, your boss can tell you no. Instead, you get 
paid time off, but you don't get to choose when you get to take it.
  Now, if you only have one employee, that is not a problem because 
they have a choice. But if you have two employees and one employee 
makes the choice, as I pointed out, of getting comp time, such a deal 
for the boss.
  And, yes, probably a pretty good deal for the person who can afford 
to just take comp time and doesn't need that time and a half.
  The problem is, of course, as the previous speaker on our side said, 
we are having trouble getting people to a wage on which they can live 
and support themselves and their families. They need that time and a 
half.
  And while we say it is voluntary and their choice, as a practical 
matter, as I have just pointed out, it is not.
  Ms. FOXX. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. I would like to ask the gentleman if he could point out in 
the bill where you cede the power to the employer because that is not 
in this legislation. I would love it if you would just point that out 
to us in the legislation.
  Mr. HOYER. Where it is is not articulated in the bill, but you don't 
say if there are two employees in the example I have given, Madam 
Chair, whether or not the employer can say: Employee A, you are going 
to take some comp time, so would you work an hour and a half or 2 hours 
overtime? But Employee B, I know you can't afford to do that, you have 
got to be home with your child, and if you are going to work, you need 
the overtime to pay, perhaps, for the extra childcare.
  There is nothing in your bill that precludes the employer from doing 
that; is there?
  I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. It is totally voluntary on the part of the employee.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand that. My example was totally a voluntary 
commitment by someone who will work for comp time. This is a bill, as I 
said at the beginning, you can work more and get less.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to defeat this bill because employees and every 
employee organization that I know of has been articulating opposition 
to this bill because they know it will hurt employees.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill strengthens protections for workers and 
increases penalties for abuses. It contains strong anticoercion 
provisions that would prohibit an employer from directly or indirectly 
trying to intimidate or coerce workers.
  Employers found to have coerced employees would be liable to the 
employees for double damages. And all existing remedies, including 
action by the U.S. Department of Labor, are available to workers if an 
employer fails to pay cash wages for overtime hours.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot), the chairman of the Small Business Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Working 
Families Flexibility Act. I want to commend my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), for introducing this legislation 
which will help

[[Page H3043]]

private sector employees increase workplace flexibility.
  This week is National Small Business Week, a time to celebrate 
America's 29 million small businesses which employ nearly half of the 
private sector workforce, and, as was mentioned, I happen to be the 
chairman of the House Small Business Committee.
  Small businesses are run by our neighbors and families and friends, 
and they offer working families the chance to get ahead. Small 
businesses are also known for treating their employees well and 
providing workplace flexibility.
  This bill will allow small businesses to give their hourly employees 
another option that public sector employees have enjoyed for many 
years, the choice of being paid off instead of cash wages for overtime 
hours worked.
  While some employees may prefer wages for the overtime hours they put 
in, others might want to use that time to attend their child's piano 
recital or go to a sports event or caring for an elderly parent. This 
bill gives them that choice. It is the employee's choice, not the 
employer.
  The flexibility is crucial for families where there is a single 
parent or both parents work full time. Importantly, this bill does not 
force any employee to take comp time, and it provides protections such 
as requiring the employer and employee to enter into a written comp 
time agreement.
  The Working Families Flexibility Act will allow small businesses to 
offer their employees a new benefit. As we celebrate National Small 
Business Week, let's give small businesses another way to make the 
lives of working families a little easier.
  It seems like a lot of the folks on the other side of aisle 
oftentimes think that small businesses are going to try to get away 
with anything that they can possibly get away with, that they want to 
exploit their workers, they are going to take advantage of them, we 
just can't trust them. Almost every small business in this country 
cares not only about their business, but they care about their 
employees.
  Mr. Speaker, let's give them credit for something.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the 
Workforce Protections Subcommittee of the Education and the Workforce 
Committee.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
1180 for a simple reason: the Working Families Flexibility Act does not 
give working families more flexibility. In fact, it gives them nothing.
  The bill contains no meaningful rights for workers that they don't 
already have. Instead, it is employers who get the flexibility and the 
power to withhold overtime pay in exchange for a false promise of comp 
time in the future.

                              {time}  1615

  This bill takes the simple idea that workers should be paid when they 
work overtime and creates a more complicated system in which employers 
can pressure their workers to accept comp time instead of cash and then 
refuse to give them that comp time until it is convenient.
  Even the American Sustainable Business Council opposes the bill, and 
I include their letter in the Record.

                                              American Sustainable


                                             Business Council,

                                                   April 24, 2017.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bradley Byrne,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert ``Bobby'' Scott,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mark Takano,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairpersons Foxx and Byrne, and Ranking Members Scott 
     and Takano: On behalf of our members and supporter 
     organizations, the American Sustainable Business Council 
     (ASBC) is writing to express our opposition to the Working 
     Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 1180/S. 801) of 2017.
       The misleadingly named bill, as introduced by 
     Representative Martha Roby, is the wrong way to encourage 
     employers to offer work-life benefits to their employees.
       This bill would create a major liability on the balance 
     sheet of small businesses whose employees have ``banked'' 
     away their overtime comp hours. This liability then becomes a 
     scheduling and accounting challenge when employees decide to 
     trade in banked hours, requiring business owners to make 
     unexpected shifts in personnel assignments and paychecks. 
     Obviously, small businesses with fewer resources and 
     employees would be even harder hit by these onerous 
     logistical challenges than larger corporations.
       It is important that more supporting measures are taken to 
     ensure the success of small business. In the spirit of 
     pursuing pro-business legislation, the Working Families 
     Flexibility Act proves itself to be anything but flexible for 
     employees and even more burdensome for employers. The sheer 
     volume of tracking requirements has the potential to result 
     in improper penalties being assessed by various government 
     agencies. The bill will stymie, not foster, economic activity 
     in the private sector.
       In addition, this bill would create headaches for any 
     employer who must track banked hours across multiple 
     employees and make the required organizational 
     rearrangements. These factors could put business owners in 
     the position of making uncomfortable decisions regarding 
     their employees which could, in turn, lower the morale of 
     their workforce.
       Current law does not deny employers and employees the 
     ability to develop mutually beneficial flexible scheduling if 
     they so choose, which makes this an unnecessary new law. If 
     Representatives Roby is truly concerned about creating 
     flexibility for working families, there are other, less 
     onerous options.
       The Healthy Families Act, for instance, would provide 
     workers the right to earn up to seven earned paid sick days 
     each year to recover from illness, to care for a family 
     member, to seek routine medical care, or to manage other 
     unpredictable necessities of day-to-day life. Employers who 
     provide this type of leave already would not have to provide 
     additional sick time. This method is a more predictable and 
     easier approach to implement for employers.
       ASBC is a growing national coalition of businesses and 
     business organizations committed to advancing policies that 
     support a vibrant and sustainable economy. ASBC represents 
     over 250,000 businesses and more than 300,000 business 
     professionals, including industry trade associations, local 
     and state chambers of commerce, microenterprise, social 
     enterprise, green and sustainable business, local and 
     community-rooted business, women and minority business 
     leaders, and investors.
       The Working Families Flexibility Act is a poorly designed 
     bill for both employers and employees. In the interest of 
     working families who need true flexibility, and the 
     businesses who rely on those family members, we urge you to 
     vote against it.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Richard Eidlin,
                     Co-Founder & Vice President of Public Policy.

  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible deal for working 
families. This bill should be called the betrayal of working families 
act.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe my colleagues in the majority are 
intentionally eroding the rights of working families. I do not believe 
they lack respect or compassion for the millions of hardworking 
Americans who feel stuck and powerless in this economy.
  But I do believe that, when faced with a choice between protecting 
workers and rewarding corporations, they routinely fall on the side of 
corporate interests. The evidence is in this bill. The evidence is in 
their vote to roll back workplace safety reporting standards. The 
evidence is in their vote to block the fiduciary rule, and the evidence 
is in the majority's continued resistance to restoring overtime 
protections for millions of middle class workers.
  President Trump promised to give power back to the people. This 
legislation betrays that promise, and it betrays the people who 
desperately need a voice in Washington.
  I call on my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1180.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act.
  Hardworking Americans who are paid hourly wages and work overtime 
should have the choice to receive the money or annual leave to spend 
how they choose. Under our outdated law, they don't have this choice 
today. This commonsense legislation will fix that and directly benefit 
workers and their families.
  As a single working mom myself, I know firsthand the difficulties 
parents encounter when trying to balance work and family 
responsibilities. For hourly

[[Page H3044]]

workers having the voluntary option to take either money or more time 
with their families opens up a world of possibilities for folks to 
spend more time with their kids, run errands, or make appointments.
  This is an option provided to workers in the public sector. Why 
wouldn't we want to give this option to all American workers?
  I support this family friendly legislation. I encourage my colleagues 
to support it as well.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote on 
this misleading name, Working Families Flexibility Act.
  Quite simply, this is a bait-and-switch proposal. It awards employers 
flexibility, not the families who need it. It fails ordinary working 
men and women, like the mom who has no overtime stored up and must go 
into credit card debt after having a baby or the dad who has worked 
long, crushing overtime hours but can't afford to give up his pay in 
order to stay home with his ill son.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats have better solutions: 12 weeks of paid family 
leave, guaranteed paid sick days. These are proposals that will 
modernize our workplace. It will lead to better workers and stronger 
families.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Foxx and Chairman Roby 
for the outstanding job that they have done on this.
  Listening to my colleagues, you would think that there is a lack of 
understanding, if you will, to that old saying that women want more 
time.
  As one of my constituents asked me today: If you pass this bill, is 
it going to mean that I can bank my time during tax season, take time 
and a half and use it to take a field trip or a school trip with my 
child?
  I said: Absolutely. Because this is a bill that puts you in charge of 
how you want to be compensated for overtime work. Do you want the 
money? Do you want the added time so that you have control of your 
schedule?
  Yes, this is about empowering the employee.
  It is so interesting, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 put in 
place something for the public sector. They forgot about the private 
sector. You could look at this and say, well, it is a correction within 
the law so that not only public sector employees, but also private 
sector employees have the ability to say: I choose to have more time at 
this point in my career. I want the flexibility.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, 
H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act.
  There is nothing in this bill that provides any flexibility to 
working families. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we all seem to have names for 
this bill, but mine is that it should be called the employer 
flexibility act because that is what it really does. It gives employers 
flexibility to not pay for time worked. It is a smoke-and-mirrors 
promise that ultimately helps employers but hurts workers.
  The choice between overtime pay and comp time is a false choice for 
workers, Mr. Speaker. We know what happens in the reality of the 
workplace. The vague promise of time off in the future is often never 
realized, and many hourly workers may feel compelled by employers to 
forfeit their overtime pay to accept comp time.
  Workers do need more flexibility, more money, and more control over 
their lives, but this bill is a cruel joke on workers. At a time when 
America's working families are strapped for both time and money, this 
bill takes time away from families and offers them less money in every 
paycheck. In the end, there is no guarantee that employers will let 
their employees take the time off when they need it.
  Here is the story of Camilla, from my home State of Washington. This 
is what she wrote:

       It was my first job out of college. I was given comp time 
     in lieu of overtime pay. I worked so much overtime that, in 
     just over 6 months' time, I had accrued 2 weeks of comp 
     time. When I scheduled my time off, I was told I could not 
     take the time off, as I had not worked there for a full 
     year. I had already purchased airfare. I ended up quitting 
     my job.

  zMr. Speaker, I urge our Republican majority to go back to the table 
and return with legislation that provides real flexibility to American 
families: raise the minimum wage; ensure that hourly workers have paid 
sick leave; make sure that families don't suffer from pay 
discrimination. That is what the American people expect us to be 
working on. Not false choices in the name of flexibility.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1108, the 
Working Families Flexibility Act.
  Many Americans can relate to the difficulties of balancing work 
duties with family obligations. It is not always easy to attend a 
parent-teacher conference, care for an aging parent, or stay home with 
a newborn when outdated Federal laws create constant barriers to 
workplace flexibility.
  H.R. 1180 will amend the outdated Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
and bring much-needed reform to the workplace. It will give employers 
the freedom to offer employees a choice between cash wages and comp 
time for overtime hours worked.
  I emphasize this is a voluntary option, which means that employees 
who want to receive cash wages can continue to do so; and if they 
choose to accept comp time and change their mind, it allows workers to 
withdraw and receive cash wages whenever they choose.
  By passing this bill, American workers will gain more flexibility in 
the workplace, allowing them to have more time to spend with the people 
they love.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation that 
supports our American workers.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, there was mention about the legislative history back in 
the 1980s. The fact is there was no mention in legislative history that 
Congress passed the comp time legislation to be family friendly or to 
provide flexibility. The legislation was passed purely to respond to 
States' and localities' concerns about fiscal pressures created by the 
Supreme Court case Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transportation 
Authority. So I think it ought to be clear that these are entirely 
different issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Espaillat).
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
1180, the so-called Working Families Flexibility Act.
  The name of this bill is pretty deceiving. In reality, this 
legislation only worsens the significant problem of wage theft. 
Violators of our wage and hour laws do not need another way to cheat 
workers out of their pay, but that is exactly what H.R. 1180 gives 
them.
  The problem of wage theft has reached epidemic proportions, and 
overtime violations are too common. All H.R. 1180 does is give 
dishonest employers who want to steal workers' paychecks any number of 
smoke screens--like denying requested and hard-earned time off because 
it would be an undue burden to business operations--to hide behind.
  Further, we know from experience that significant litigation over 
payment of wages owed under comp time programs in the public sector 
exist. Yet this legislation includes no additional funding for the 
Department of Labor to enforce or implement these provisions.
  Even worse, this legislation is being considered while President 
Trump has proposed a severe 21 percent budget cut to DOL. It simply 
makes no sense to give unscrupulous employers another mechanism for 
stealing workers' hard-earned paychecks while providing no additional 
resources for employees who need help recovering their stolen pay.
  I would like to share a story from a New Yorker who has felt the 
direct and negative consequences of wage theft and comp time. During 
her 40-plus years as a secretary, word processor, and paralegal, she 
worked hundreds of extra hours and was frequently promised comp time. 
She never received it.

[[Page H3045]]

Not once. Further, any overtime pay was usually conveniently forgotten, 
and she feared she would lose her job if she asked for her rightful pay 
or promised time off.
  Rather than protect employees like this woman, H.R. 1180 will do the 
opposite and produce more of these unjust horrendous stories.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to 
the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment during the markup 
of this bill which would have stopped this legislation from enabling 
bad actors to cheat workers out of their pay. It would have exempted 
willful and repeated violators of the minimum wage and overtime 
protections from this act, but my Republican colleagues unanimously 
voted against this amendment, a clear indication of where they stand on 
protecting hardworking Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Mrs. Roby), the author of the bill.
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman's comments that 
he just made, it is well worth repeating: this bill actually 
strengthens protections for workers and increases penalties for abuse. 
It contains in it strong anticoercion provisions.
  We have to be factual about what is actually in the bill. This bill 
prohibits an employer from directly or indirectly, as suggested by the 
gentleman, trying to intimidate or coerce workers. Employers found to 
have coerced employees would be liable to those employees for double 
damages.
  Of course, in response to the previous statements, all existing 
enforcement remedies, including action by the U.S. Department of Labor, 
are available to workers if an employer failed to pay cash wages for 
overtime hours or unreasonably refuses to allow workers to use their 
accrued comp time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the 
gentlewoman to show where in the bill the penalties are actually more 
than they are today?
  Ms. FOXX. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take the gentleman's time to 
explain where in the bill. It is section 4, and we will give you the 
text of it. Give us a second.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. And how is that different from what the 
Federal law is now?
  Ms. FOXX. How much time, Mr. Speaker, do I have?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in the meanwhile, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Actually, the idea of the 40-hour day began over--yesterday makes 130 
years at Haymarket Square in the city of Chicago, my hometown. And the 
idea is very simple: that after 40 hours of work, which is a reasonable 
time in most industrialized countries in the world, that people then 
get overtime pay. It is something that helps strengthen families and is 
good for workers to have money in their pockets.
  But the idea here, under the guise of flexibility--which is a really 
nice word--is it allows employers to deny extra hours to workers who 
want overtime. Instead, they can pick those who are willing to work 
long hours without pay for promises in the future that they would be 
able to have comp time, that they would be able to make it up at a time 
of their boss' choosing. Oh, they say over a negotiation, but go ahead 
and try and negotiate with your employer about that.
  While the majority argues that providing comp time to private sector 
workers creates parity between the public and private sector, workers 
in the public sector have many more protections than workers in the 
private sector right now.
  Union density in the public sector is five to six times the union 
density of the private sector. Workers represented by unions have far 
more bargaining power than unrepresented workers, greatly increasing 
the potential for employer abuse of comp time and decreasing the 
employees' ability to defend themselves from such abuses.
  Workers in the public sector have more job security, higher wages 
than their private sector counterparts. This means public sector 
workers are less likely to be putting their jobs at risk. So this is 
just a bad idea, hurts workers, hurts families, hurts the longstanding 
idea of the 40-hour workweek.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman had asked a question, and we are 
prepared to answer on his time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point the gentleman to page 4 
of the bill, in section 4, beginning on line 21: ``An employer that 
provides compensatory time under Paragraph 1 to employees shall not 
directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to 
intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for the purpose of . . . 
'' And then it goes through ``requiring any employee to use such 
compensatory time.''
  If you turn to page 7 of the bill, under section 3, remedies, 
subsection F, it directly addresses the damages.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to 
include in the Record section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
which says essentially the same penalties are available in the present 
law as in the bill.

     Sec.  216. Penalties

       (a) Fines and imprisonment
       Any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of 
     section 215 of this title shall upon conviction thereof be 
     subject to a fine of not more than $10,000, or to 
     imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. No person 
     shall be imprisoned under this subsection except for an 
     offense committed after the conviction of such person for a 
     prior offense under this subsection.
       (b) Damages; right of action; attorney's fees and costs; 
     termination of right of action
       Any employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or 
     section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or 
     employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum 
     wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may 
     be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. 
     Any employer who violates the provisions of section 215(a)(3) 
     of this title shall be liable for such legal or equitable 
     relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of 
     section 215(a)(3) of this title, including without limitation 
     employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of 
     wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated 
     damages. An action to recover the liability prescribed in 
     either of the preceding sentences may be maintained against 
     any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or 
     State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more 
     employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and 
     other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a 
     party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his 
     consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is 
     filed in the court in which such action is brought. The court 
     in such action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to 
     the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's 
     fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action. The 
     right provided by this subsection to bring an action by or on 
     behalf of any employee, and the right of any employee to 
     become a party plaintiff to any such action, shall terminate 
     upon the filing of a complaint by the Secretary of Labor in 
     an action under section 217 of this title in which (1) 
     restraint is sought of any further delay in the payment of 
     unpaid minimum wages, or the amount of unpaid overtime 
     compensation, as the case may be, owing to such employee 
     under section 206 or section 207 of this title by an employer 
     liable therefor under the provisions of this subsection or 
     (2) legal or equitable relief is sought as a result of 
     alleged violations of section 215(a)(3) of this title.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in addition: You are 
saying that it is the same remedies under the current law. But you have 
to remember, the cash-out provisions are also a strengthening of 
employees' rights under this bill; that at any time that the employee 
wishes to cash out, within 30 days, the employer must honor that and 
provide the accrued overtime and cash wages.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to point out a couple of things in response to some of 
what our

[[Page H3046]]

colleagues have said. This bill is giving workers the freedom to 
choose. I want to reiterate that.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are always big on 
giving women, in particular, the right to choose when it comes to 
abortions. This gives women and men both a right to choose when it 
comes to their time; and, to me, there is no more commodity more 
precious to us than our time.
  I also want to say that our colleagues have said there are no 
meaningful rights that they don't already have. Well, Mr. Speaker, if 
the workers in the private sector already had these rights, we wouldn't 
be putting this law up for a vote.
  Our colleague from Illinois, a few minutes ago, outlined all these 
wonderful benefits that the public sector employees have, and she is 
right. The private sector people would love to have the same rights 
that the public sector people have that are paid for by hardworking 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I include in the Record letters from AFSCME and the National 
Education Association in opposition to the legislation.

                                                       AFSCME,

                                                    April 4, 2017.
     Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on 
       Education and the Workforce,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to oppose H.R. 1180, the 
     Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017. H.R. 1180 claims to 
     help American workers better balance the needs of family and 
     the workplace by allowing employers to offer private-sector 
     employees the choice of paid time off in lieu of cash wages 
     for overtime hours worked. But contrary to its stated 
     purposes, the proposed law will result in more overtime hours 
     for employees for less money and without any guarantee of 
     compensatory time when needed.
       For over 80 years and counting, the Federal Labor Standards 
     Act (FLSA) establishes the basic requirements for wage and 
     hour protections including overtime compensation. Under FLSA, 
     overtime compensation must be provided for covered employees 
     working more than the maximum period of 40 hours per week. 
     However, H.R. 1180 provides no guaranteed right for an 
     employee to use banked compensatory time when needed, even in 
     the case of a personal or family emergency. Instead, this 
     legislation gives discretion to the employer to permit use of 
     compensatory time only ``within a reasonable period after 
     making the request if the use of the compensatory time does 
     not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.''
       This legislation calls for an irresponsible change to the 
     FLSA that will negatively impact worker's actual take home 
     pay, and the valued time spent with their family when both 
     are needed for workers' financial stability and to address 
     family obligations. Also, if an employee's request to use 
     comp time is denied because the employer unilaterally decides 
     it is ``unduly disruptive'', the law provides no recourse. 
     And then, even when provided the compensatory time, the use 
     of that time is controlled solely by the employer. In short, 
     employees can be denied overtime pay, and effectively be 
     prevented from meeting their family needs.
       Our experience in the public sector has revealed that 
     employers' control over the use of compensatory time inflicts 
     very real hardships on the public employees entitled to 
     compensatory time for their overtime work. Employees request 
     specific dates for valid reasons. Employees need the earned 
     time off for milestones such as children's birthdays, family 
     and friends' weddings, funerals, scheduled vacations and 
     other date-specific activities.
       Giving the employer veto power has been burdensome and 
     abused by employers in the public sector and it has been 
     cause for litigation. In theory, employees may take 
     compensatory time within a reasonable period after making the 
     request. In practice, it creates problems for employees 
     denied the time when they need it and the language of the law 
     becomes a false promise.
       Balancing the demands of family and the workplace are 
     already a challenge for far too many workers. At a time in 
     our country when our priority should be investing in stable 
     jobs with good wages and benefits, our attention should not 
     be on legislation that would further hurt workers who are 
     already subjected to very little formality with respect to an 
     agreement to take compensatory time off in lieu of overtime 
     pay.
       Nothing in the current compensatory time-off application of 
     the FLSA prevents employers from giving leave to employees 
     who work long hours. Neither does the new proposal offer the 
     critical protections workers need in the 21st century. 
     Workers need solutions that actually help them manage work 
     and family responsibilities; not a law that will provide less 
     flexibility to a workforce under the guise of providing more.
       H.R. 1180 attacks workers' paychecks, time off and 
     flexibility; and AFSCME strongly opposes this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Scott Frey,
     Director of Federal Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                               National Education Association,

                                                      May 1, 2017.
     U.S. Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members 
     of the National Education Association and the 50 million 
     students they serve, in advance of this week's vote we urge 
     you to vote NO on the Working Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 
     1180). Votes on this issue may be included in NEA's Report 
     Card for the 115th Congress.
       This deceptively named bill would hurt, not help, working 
     families. Instead of extra pay for overtime, low-wage workers 
     could receive ``comp'' time--paid time off. But the employer, 
     not the employee, would decide when time off is granted. 
     There is no guarantee workers could take time off when they 
     need it most--for example, to care for a sick child, attend a 
     parent-teacher conference, help an aging parent, or other 
     attend to other pressing responsibilities. Employers could 
     defer compensation for unused comp time for up to 13 months, 
     a real hardship for low-wage workers who struggle to make 
     ends meet. Employers could also unilaterally decide to ``cash 
     out'' comp time in excess of 80 hours or discontinue their 
     entire comp time program with just 30 days' notice, leaving 
     employees in the lurch.
       In short, in exchange for longer hours at lower pay, 
     workers get the possibility--but no guarantee--of extra time 
     to care for their families or time off when they really need 
     it.
       All working people--not just those who spend more than 40 
     hours a week on the job--need guaranteed access to paid sick 
     days and paid family and medical leave. Too few employers 
     provide these protections now, especially for employees paid 
     by the hour. Again, we urge you to vote NO on the Working 
     Families Flexibility Act and focus instead on truly family-
     friendly policies that reflect the realities of the 21st 
     century workplace.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Marc Egan,
                                 Director of Government Relations.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that AFSCME, 
the NEA, ATU, and other public service unions have written letters in 
opposition.
  One from AFSCME: ``Our experience in the public sector has revealed 
that employers' control over the use of compensatory time inflicts very 
real hardships on public employees entitled to compensatory time for 
their overtime work. Employees request specific dates for valid 
reasons. Employees need the earned time off for milestones such as 
children's birthdays, family and friends' weddings. . . .''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 
seconds.
  ``Giving the employer veto power has been burdensome and abused by 
employers in the public sector and it has been cause for litigation. In 
theory, employees may take compensatory time within a reasonable period 
after making the request. In practice, it creates problems for 
employees denied the time when they need it and the language of the law 
becomes a false promise.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate on the 
floor, and I want to join my fellow colleagues--women and men of the 
Democratic Caucus--on opposing the Working Families Flexibility Act of 
2017.
  I just have one anecdotal story that reflects the constituents that I 
represent. Take that woman who I saw--when going to my elementary 
schools, visiting them, I saw a mother who got up at 4 in the morning 
to take three buses to drop her young child off at an elementary 
school, and then get two buses back to work, an hourly wage maker. She 
does it because, one, she is supporting her child and, two, she has got 
to work.
  This bill is a complete undermining of all of the hardworking men and 
women who need their money to pay a light bill, to pay rent, maybe even 
a mortgage, to pay the normal expenses that many take for granted. And 
this bill wants to substitute compensatory time for overtime pay.

[[Page H3047]]

  So I cannot imagine that anyone with a heart would have this 
legislation as a substitute for this hardworking mother to be paid 
overtime. I just can't imagine that compensatory time off cannot pay 
the light bill, cannot pay rent, cannot pay healthcare costs, which we 
see are immediately being taken away from 24 million Americans.
  So I oppose this legislation because I want to stand on the side of 
the hardworking mother who needs her resources for a school uniform, a 
school trip, a rent payment, a light bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill should be opposed. It does not serve the 
American people.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I include in the Record a letter from the Amalgamated Transit Union 
against the bill.

                                    Amalgamated Transit Union,

                                   Silver Spring, MD, May 1, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Amalgamated Transit 
     Union (ATU), the largest labor organization representing 
     public transit workers in the United States, I am urging you 
     to oppose the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017 (H.R. 
     1180). The title of the legislation is extremely misleading, 
     as the bill actually provides flexibility only to employers--
     not workers--and hurts working families who are already 
     struggling to make ends meet.
       In response to an epidemic of workers plagued by mandatory 
     excessive hours, Congress in 1938 made the wise decision to 
     pass the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), establishing the 
     40-hour workweek that we all take for granted today. This 
     landmark legislation, requiring that employers pay a time-
     and-a-half cash premium for overtime work, serves as the only 
     deterrent from employers demanding excessive hours by making 
     overtime work more expensive for them. H.R. 1180 would remove 
     this barrier.
       Forced overtime is already a serious problem in the transit 
     industry, and many of ATU's bargaining units are increasingly 
     in the private sector and thus subject to FLSA rules. If 
     privatized transit operations were provided with the 
     ``flexibility'' to offer workers comp time instead of being 
     paid time-and-a-half for overtime, we would see prolific 
     abuse of overtime. Intercity bus operators are already exempt 
     from FLSA overtime provisions, and as a result, there has 
     recently been one horrific crash after another on U.S. 
     Highways caused by driver fatigue. In fact, according to the 
     National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), driver fatigue 
     is responsible for a staggering 36% of fatalities due to 
     intercity bus crashes. If H.R. 1180 is passed, it would lead 
     to widespread fatigue throughout the transit industry as 
     well. Quite simply, more buses will be involved in crashes 
     due to fatigued drivers, and innocent people will die.
       Moreover, the so-called flexibility under this bill is one-
     sided, putting management in total control. Private transit 
     companies, which generally cast safety concerns to the wind 
     and have no regard for anything other than the bottom line, 
     would be able to decide if a requested absence on a 
     particular day would ``unduly disrupt'' business operations 
     and specify an alternative date which is not at all 
     convenient for an employee.
       The need to discourage working people to the brink of 
     exhaustion is as necessary today as it was nearly 80 years 
     ago. America needs to maintain the disincentive for employers 
     to force workers to spend more time away from their families. 
     If additional hiring is needed, then workforces should be 
     expanded. In the transportation industry, this is a matter of 
     life and death.
       H.R. 1180 is bad for workers, dangerous for transit 
     passengers, and another example of a solution in search of a 
     problem. Please oppose and work to defeat this ill-advised 
     legislation.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
                                               Lawrence J. Hanley,
                                          International President.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, under this bill, there are no 
advantages to the employee. Without this bill, an employee can work 
overtime, make the money, and then have enough money to afford to be 
able to take subsequent time off without pay. That is about what this 
bill does.
  But with the bill, it allows the employers to work people overtime 
and avoid paying the overtime wages. The employer just lets the people 
take their comp time when work is slow, so the employer never has to 
pay the overtime.
  This bill allows the employer to decide when the comp time can be 
taken. The employee can request, but the employer has the final word 
because the bill says that the comp time can be denied if the time off 
unduly disrupts operations.
  And guess who gets to decide that measure?
  Those employees who want to work extra time to make extra pay will 
lose that opportunity to fellow employees who agree to ingratiate 
themselves to the employer by saving their employer money by accepting 
comp time instead of overtime pay. There is no coercion. Preference is 
just given to those who will accept the comp time and not the real 
wages.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill offers nothing to the employees. It offers the 
employer the opportunity to avoid paying overtime. That is why all of 
the representatives of workers oppose the legislation, and I think we 
should, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have heard from our colleagues that we are just not doing enough 
for working people, and we have also heard from our colleagues that all 
employers are evil people.
  I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is astonishing to me that we have as many 
people working in this country as we do under all these evil employers. 
They must have run into just the worst people in the world. I don't 
ever run into people like that. Everybody I know that has employees is 
cherishing them because they need them, and they treat them right.
  They have often said there are other things that we can do. But, Mr. 
Speaker, we have this bill in front of us, and it gives workers 
something that our colleagues cannot give them: the freedom to choose 
and to have more time.
  Edward Everett Hale said: ``I am only one; but still I am one. I 
cannot do everything; but still I can do something; and because I 
cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can 
do.''
  That is what this bill does. Congresswoman Roby has introduced a 
bill--and many people have signed on--that will do one thing for people 
in the private sector. It will give them the same rights that people in 
the public sector have, to turn overtime into comp time.
  It is a pro-worker, pro-family proposal that will make a positive 
difference in the lives of many Americans. The Federal Government 
shouldn't stand in the way of more flexibility in the workplace.
  Today we have a chance to empower single parents, moms and dads with 
a newborn, students trying to earn a college diploma, and so many other 
individuals who simply need more time to meet their needs.

                              {time}  1645

  We have heard a lot of excuses from Democrats today. It is the same 
story we have heard for years in an effort to deny workers the freedom 
to do what is best for them based on their own values. However, the 
concerns we heard have been addressed. This bill provides very strong 
worker protections to ensure the decision to choose comp time is 
voluntary. It gives workers a choice and puts them in control of their 
time.
  Let's vote in favor of freedom and flexibility for American workers 
today. Let's give private sector employees the same choice that 
government workers have. Let's establish fairness in our Nation's 
workforce policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to help more Americans balance the 
demands of work and family by supporting the Working Families 
Flexibility Act.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition H.R. 1180, a 
bill that would rob workers of pay they've earned.
  This proposal guts overtime protections and forces working men and 
women to make the false choice between time with their loved ones and a 
fair wage. Instead of offering ``flexibility'' to working families, 
employers should be following the letter of the law and pay workers 
fairly for the hours they work. Employers shouldn't be able to put 
their workers' well-being at risk under the guise of giving workers a 
choice.
  If Republicans truly wanted to help working families, they would 
guarantee paid sick days and paid family leave instead of offering the 
``flexibility'' for employers to choose how workers live their lives. 
This bill is a bait and switch that amounts to nothing more than 
another attack on worker's rights. I strongly oppose this bill and urge 
my colleagues to vote no.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, nearly ten years 
ago Senator

[[Page H3048]]

Ted Kennedy and I introduced a bill called the Working Families 
Flexibility Act.
  The bill before us today has the same name and its supporters may try 
to claim it fixes the same problems we were trying to fix, but, Mr. 
Speaker this is not Senator Kennedy's bill and in fact it bears little 
resemblance to the bill he and I worked on and that Sen. Bob Casey and 
I have reintroduced this week.
  Let me be clear, the bill before us today creates zero new rights for 
workers. Zero.
  In fact, under this bill working families would have even less 
flexibility than they do now to care for a child or sick family member.
  This GOP bill allows employers to withhold desperately needed 
overtime pay for months at a time.
  It lets bosses hold back overtime earnings, and only pay them out 
when employees request the money they have earned.
  And even if employees do ask, which is ridiculous since it is money 
that they earned and should not have to ask their bosses if they can 
get paid for work they already did--bosses are given a month to write 
that overtime check.
  And if it wasn't clear enough that this bill is not about helping 
working families, this bill puts all decisions about when employees can 
use flex time in the hands of their bosses.
  Want to take an extra week off in the summer when kids are out of 
school? Too bad, that doesn't fit with your boss' plans.
  Even if you work hard for six months to build up that extra comp 
time, your employer can still deny that request.
  We should be ashamed that the U.S. stands out in the world as a 
country that requires the least family-friendly benefits for workers. 
How can we call ourselves a country dedicated to family values when we 
don't support working families?
  The real value of the minimum wage has severely eroded, and the new 
administration has blocked a badly needed update to our overtime 
protections.
  We have no mandated paid parental leave. No paid sick days. No fair, 
predictable scheduling. No flexible work arrangements.
  And American families are paying dearly for our inaction.
  So let's not call this bill the Working Families Flexibility Act.
  That's an insult to millions of working families across the country 
and it's an insult to the late-Senator Ted Kennedy who did so much for 
the working families of this Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 299, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Yes, I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Scott of Virginia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1180 
     to the Committee on Education and the Workforce with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith, 
     with the following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 7. MINIMUM SICK DAYS.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not 
     apply to any employee who does not receive from his or her 
     employer fewer than seven paid sick days, which days may be 
     used to seek medical care for a pre-existing health 
     condition.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to 
the bill, which will not kill the bill nor send it back to committee. 
If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill would undermine workers' access to 
overtime pay and provide them with no real benefit in return, and that 
is why all of the groups representing workers oppose it. So, instead of 
undermining employment protections that boost wages for working 
Americans such as overtime pay, we should work towards ensuring that 
American workers can remain healthy while on the job.
  Critical to that goal is guaranteeing true workplace flexibility by 
ensuring that workers do not have to choose between their health and 
their paycheck. So, if the majority is truly concerned about American 
workers, then the majority should work with us to provide workers the 
paid time off they need to care for themselves and their families. They 
could easily do that by supporting the Healthy Families Act, which 
would give workers the right to earn up to 7 paid sick days.
  This motion to recommit would protect workers by ensuring that only 
employees who are subjected to this comp time arrangement would be 
those who have at least 7 paid sick days. Providing paid sick days is 
not only good for working families, it is also good for business, 
public health, and our overall economy. Providing paid sick days 
decreases employee turnover and prevents illness from being spread 
throughout the workplace.
  If we are truly concerned about workers, we should not ask them to 
spend more time away from their families and forfeit their overtime pay 
in order to take the time off when they are sick or when they need to 
care for a sick child.
  Mr. Speaker, while we are considering this bill, we are also 
considering healthcare legislation that Republicans are trying to pass 
which would rob American families of protection under the Affordable 
Care Act that requires coverage for preexisting conditions.
  We know that President Trump has promised to repeal the ACA on day 
one, and Republicans have spent 7 years complaining about the law and 
voting time after time to repeal all or parts of the law, but they have 
never developed a comprehensive proposal to actually deliver on their 
promises of better care at lower costs.
  If we are going to make changes to the Affordable Care Act, we should 
improve health care for working families, not make it worse. 
Incredibly, every proposal the Republicans have come up with actually 
makes things worse.
  Under the recent Republican plan, 24 million fewer people would be 
covered, and everybody else will pay more and get less. While their 
plan inflicts pain on those most in need, the wealthiest 2 percent of 
Americans get massive tax cuts.
  Under that plan, the typical working family would suffer an increase 
in healthcare coverage costs of about $2,000 a year, for the average 
family with a head of household age 55 to 64, the bill would increase 
costs by over $7,000.
  Recent changes in the Republican health plan would unravel many of 
the protections that American families currently enjoy in their 
healthcare coverage, including ending current protections for people 
with preexisting conditions. The Republican health plan would return us 
to the days when health insurance coverage was unaffordable for many 
individuals with preexisting conditions. That bill directly violates 
the commitment made by President Trump and House Republicans to protect 
individuals with preexisting conditions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to drop their attempts to take away 
quality health insurance coverage for those with preexisting 
conditions. Instead, we should adopt this motion which takes a small 
step in ensuring that workers can access paid sick leave that allows 
them to remain healthy, including accessing medical treatment needed to 
treat or address preexisting conditions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the motion, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit.
  For years, so-called Progressives have clung to outdated Federal 
workforce policies from the 1930s. Why? They think government knows 
what is best for hardworking men and women in this country. This is a 
theme they abide by day after day.
  This motion is just another attempt to deny workers the freedom to 
decide what is best for them and their families. Once again, Democrats 
are defending a double standard--yes, a double standard. They voted to 
give government workers a choice on comp time. Why shouldn't those in 
the private sector, those whose taxpayer dollars pay

[[Page H3049]]

the salaries of government employees, receive the same choice?
  It is time to eliminate this double standard. It is time to modernize 
our Nation's labor rules to meet the needs of the 21st century 
workforce. It is time for greater freedom, flexibility, and fairness 
for American workers.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and 
``yes'' on the Working Families Flexibility Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; and agreeing to the 
Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 192, 
nays 234, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 243]

                               YEAS--192

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chaffetz
     Meng
     Reed
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1717

  Messrs. WEBSTER of Florida, EMMER, MEEHAN, AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, 
WESTERMAN, OLSON, RUSSELL, SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. BROOKS of 
Indiana, Mr. PALAZZO, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Messrs. DENHAM, FORTENBERRY, and 
KATKO changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. DOGGETT, NEAL, and RUPPERSBERGER changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia). The question 
is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229, 
noes 197, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 244]

                               AYES--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem

[[Page H3050]]


     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--197

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chaffetz
     Meng
     Reed
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1725

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York changed her vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. TURNER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________