[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.
____________________