Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1180) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector; providing for proceedings during the period from May 5, 2017, through May 15, 2017; and for other purposes.

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

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. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

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. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman to show where in the bill the penalties are actually more than they are today?

I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

And how is that different from what the Federal law is now?

Mr. Speaker, in the meanwhile, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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. . . .''

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I am opposed.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Over the last several months, I have heard from thousands of my constituents over the phone, by email, and record numbers at townhalls. Frankly, the overwhelming message is frustration with the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress--no calls to pass this bill, which every group that advocates for workers' rights and unions opposes. The people in my district say that, to the contrary, Republicans continue to put the priorities of the few over the priorities of hardworking Americans.

People are frustrated that, instead of working with Democrats, Republicans are focused on gutting healthcare coverage, increasing premiums, and stripping away workers' rights. People in my district, across my State, and across the country are worried. The members of our immigrant community--our neighbors, family, and friends--will continue to be demonized by the President of the United States. So while I don't expect this kind of rhetoric or policies to change overnight, I feel it is important to share these concerns with this body.

Now, earlier this week, frankly, I was encouraged. There were some signs of positivity. Congressional Democrats and Republicans announced a bipartisan funding bill through the end of the year that shows a bright spot of what we can do together when we try. I hope we can all agree that a government shutdown would be catastrophic. In my district alone, I am reminded of the devastating impact of congressional inaction when I hosted a townhall in Estes Park just last week. The government shutdown in 2013, right during tourist season, cost our small and vibrant town nearly half a million dollars in tax revenue and millions of dollars in sales, threatening the existence of many Main Street businesses that rely on that tourism revenue and keeping Rocky Mountain National Park open. Estes Park sits at the entrance of Rocky Mountain National Park, and Rocky Mountain National Park was closed for most of the 16-day shutdown a few years ago.

But somehow, despite those obvious economic indicators in jobs, Donald Trump tweeted just this morning that our country ``needs a good shutdown.''

What does that even mean?

We need a good shutdown like we need a root canal. It would put people in my district out of work and cost the private sector millions of jobs.

But I am hopeful now that we will avoid a shutdown; that, thankfully, the spending bill, through 2017, prohibits funding on a new border wall. It minimizes cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, allowing them to continue their work to keep our air and our water clean; and Planned Parenthood will continue to receive Federal funding.

Now, that being said, of course, that budget isn't perfect, and we will have the chance to debate it on the floor. The Republicans insist on massive government deficit spending for increased military spending that digs our mountain of debt for the next generation even bigger. The tax-and-spend Republicans continue to spend hand over fist and increase the deficit at the cost of the next generation of Americans.

Now, the bill before us, the Working Families Flexibility Act, is another example of Republicans putting ideology and special interests over the needs of workers and American families. The trend isn't new. It comes out of the typical playbook we have seen for decades.

In fact, this very bill has been introduced multiple times over the past 22 years, never with any success. Nearly identical bills were introduced in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2015, and now 2017. That is 10 times over 22 years. Each time, the bill never becomes law, and it won't become law now either. But that is how the Republicans want to spend their time in this body when we actually have important things to discuss that could become law, like fixing our broken immigration system.

This bill somehow claims to provide employees with more flexibility, but the only flexibility are for the bosses. Instead of receiving overtime, workers would receive comp time; so their paychecks won't get anything out of extra time worked. It is important to note that this legislation applies to the private sector and only to employees subject to overtime provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act. The current overtime threshold is set at just under $24,000, so only employees that make less than $24,000 are affected by this bill. We have tried mightily to increase that threshold to keep up with inflation, but we have met resistance by the Republicans every step of the way.

In 2017, the Federal poverty level for a family of four is about $24,000. So we are talking about only giving overtime to families that are below the poverty level. These families rely on that overtime to pay their bills, to pay their rent, and to put food on the table. These are the families who would benefit most from receiving overtime pay. In fact, a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that 40 percent of people making less than $22,500 a year worked some overtime hours and needed that income to get by. This same 40 percent are the very people

who would lose out under the Republican bill today.

My Republican colleagues claim that no one is forcing workers to accept comp time instead of overtime pay, and comp time is technically optional. But this argument represents how out of touch Republicans are with the real-life workforce conditions and actual working families.

In practice, the power differential between employers and employees means that many employees would feel obligated to accept comp time instead of overtime pay, even if that is not what works best for them. Especially in nonunion workplaces, employees could feel pressure to go along with their employers' demand or risk not even being offered overtime or comp time in the future.

Now, Republicans have also made the argument that public sector workers receive comp time. They are right. But that is not apples to apples. Public sector union membership is around 34 percent, and public sector employees have vast protections that private sector employees lack. As an example, public sector workers can't be fired except for good cause, and they have administrative appeal rights. They can't be discriminated against based on their desire to take overtime pay instead of comp time. Nonunionized private sector workers can be legally discriminated against in assigning their hours based on their decisions to take comp time versus overtime pay.

If the Republicans want to enlarge this discussion to include providing additional workplace protections to workers in the private sector, we are happy to have that discussion both on the committee where I serve with my colleague, Mr. Byrne, as well as on the floor of the House.

Republicans somehow argue that this bill provides flexibility for workers to get time off, but I will remind my colleagues that nothing in the current Fair Labor Standards Act prevents employers from offering time off right now. In fact, the Fair Labor Standards Act allows the ultimate flexibility. Employers can already provide paid or unpaid leave on sick days, maternity, and paternity under the FLSA. They don't need this legislation to provide them flexibility. They just need to do the right thing.

This bill also ignores the fact that not all businesses are successful. Before coming to Congress, I started several businesses. I know this firsthand. A statistic is that 59 percent of restaurant businesses go out of business within 3 years. I am zero for two. I tried starting two restaurants. They both failed. Maybe that means if I try again someday, I will be finally due for a success.

But what is important is that when something goes out of business, we don't leave the employees in the lurch. What you are effectively doing here by deferring the overtime pay into potential future time off, if the company goes out of business, that employee would have to get in line with other creditors and risk never being paid. That is not a theoretical risk. The majority of new businesses don't last 10 years. They go out of business. Depriving people of the payment for the work they have done already is not the right way to treat workers in those businesses, and it is not their fault when the bad decision is made by their bosses.

In our committee markup of the bill, my Democratic colleagues offered a number of amendments to improve the legislation. Representative Bonamici offered an amendment that would allow comp time to earn interest before workers' use. Under the current way this bill is written, low-wage workers are being asked to give an interest-free loan to the company. That doesn't make sense. The amendment didn't pass. If employees receive overtime pay, they should receive interest on it as well.

Representative Wilson offered an amendment that would exempt workers who are earning less than 2\1/2\ times the minimum wage, so the employees earning the very least wouldn't be subject to the law and could actually rely on their overtime pay. Again, that amendment was rejected by Republicans.

Representative Blunt Rochester on the committee offered an amendment that would limit the bill so only workers eligible for at least 7 days of paid sick leave receive comp time. Yet, again, Republicans rejected this amendment.

In total, committee Democrats offered eight amendments to try to improve this bill. Every single one was rejected.

Instead of bringing forward the same, tired, 22-year-old policies that I certainly don't hear my constituents requesting, Democrats have offered real solutions that benefit working families. Working families would benefit from an increase in the overtime salary threshold. Last year, the Department of Labor proposed an increase to that threshold, and 248,000 workers in Colorado alone would have benefited under that rule.

Democrats continue to write bills that provide commonsense solutions. We have offered legislation that would provide up to 12 weeks of partial-paid parental leave. Only 14 percent of the workforce has paid family leave through their employers. As a parent of a 5- and a 2-year- old, I know how important that is to be able to spend time with your newborn kids.

Democrats have also introduced a bill that would allow employees to earn up to 7 sick days per year. That would be a tremendous help to the 4 in 10 private sector employees who don't have access to any paid sick leave at all under current law.

Democrats have also offered legislation to combat pay discrimination. In 2017, women working full time are still paid 80 cents on the dollar compared to what men make. Democrats have offered legislation that I am proud to cosponsor that would address that kind of pay disparity. Those are the kinds of bills that the American people need, that workers need, and that we need to help lift people out of poverty and into the middle class.

Today, House Democrats introduced the Equality Act. I was proud to join so many of my colleagues in a bipartisan bill to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Sadly, in many States, it is still legal to fire someone just because they are gay. The Equality Act would finally extend Federal workplace discrimination protections to LGBT Americans in all 50 States and the territories.

Finally, House Democrats will soon be introducing the bill that would raise the minimum wage. In my home State of Colorado, voters chose to raise the wage last November, and many other States have minimum wages higher than the Federal minimum wage. But it shouldn't come down to what State you live in to determine if you even earn enough to put food on the table and pay your rent. It is long past time we update the Federal minimum wage, and the Raise the Wage Act would do just that.

Yet, again, we are offering many solutions that we would love to discuss and love to vote on, and, instead, the Republicans are offering a bill to strip existing rights away from workers.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us represents the same old policies the Republicans have offered for decades. They have never succeeded, and they won't succeed now. This time around, they are offering a bill that might be great for some of the bosses, but it undermines the lives of hardworking Americans that keep our country going.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Working Families Flexibility Act and the rule before us, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have a document from 1997 from then-President Bill Clinton who opposed a bill that is basically identical to this one in its current form. The President said he would veto this bill, if passed, because he said this bill purports to give working families greater flexibility, but, in reality, it grants employers more rights at the expense of working people.

I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle stop using President Clinton's good name in vain in passage of a bill that is nearly identical to the one that he threatened to veto.

Of course, Democrats want to talk about flexibility. President Clinton, myself, and Democrats of the Education and the Workforce Committee are happy to do that, if there is a way to provide workers with real choices to protect workers against employee abuse in making their decisions, but the current bill, and the same bill that President Clinton opposed, fails in that regard and fails to give employees the rights that they deserve to exercise their comp time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy from President William Jefferson Clinton from 1997, in which President Clinton lays out the criteria, by and large, which is still the criteria under which Democrats would support a comp time flexibility bill, had the Republicans been at all serious about actually passing one into law rather than just passing a symbolic bill that they have passed for 22 years.

[From the American Presidency Project, John T. Woolley & Gerhard

Peters, Santa Barbara, CA]

William J. Clinton: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1--Working

Families Flexibility Act of 1997, March 19, 1997

(House) (Ballenger (R) NC and 99 others)

The President will veto H.R. 1 if it is passed in its

current form. The President will not sign H.R. 1, or any

other comp time legislation, unless it adheres to three

fundamental principles: (1) real choice for workers; (2) real

protection against employer abuse; and (3) preservation of

workers' rights.

H.R. 1 purports to give working families greater

flexibility. In reality, it grants employers more rights at

the expense of working people:

H.R. 1 fails to offer workers real choice. In particular,

H.R. 1 would allow an employer to decide when a worker could

use his or her compensatory time-off by disapproving such

time-off if the employer claims it would ``unduly disrupt''

its operations. In addition, H.R. 1 would permit an employer

to ``cash out'' a worker's earned compensatory time over 80

hours.

H.R. 1 fails to protect workers against employer abuse. For

example, H.R. 1 offers inadequate protections for vulnerable

workers and part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees,

including garment and construction workers, and those who are

employed in industries with histories of Fair Labor Standards

Act violations. H.R. 1 also fails to prohibit employers from

substituting compensatory time-off for paid vacation or sick

leave benefits. Furthermore, H.R. 1 lacks meaningful remedies

for workers when employers penalize them for electing to

receive overtime pay in lieu of compensatory time-off. In

addition, H.R. 1 contains inadequate worker safeguards in

cases where an employer goes bankrupt or out-of-business.

H.R. 1 fails to preserve workers' rights. Workers who take

compensatory time-off

can be forced to work additional overtime in the same week--

even on the weekend--without being paid overtime premium pay.

The Administration supports the substitute amendment to be

offered by Representative George Miller, although procedural

obstacles in the House have prevented the amendment from

addressing all of the important issues that need to be

treated, including expansion of Family and Medical Leave Act

(FMLA). The Administration strongly believes that any

legislation to authorize compensatory time under the Fair

Labor Standards Act should be linked to expansion of the

FMLA. Expanding the FMLA to give working families greater

flexibility to foster the education of their children or

provide routine health care for their children or elderly

relatives will go a long way toward achieving the stated

goals of H.R. 1.

The Miller amendment, however, would ensure real employee

choice, by adding crucial provisions not found in H.R. 1. For

example, employers that adopt comp time programs would have

to make comp time available to similarly-situated employees

on a fair and non-discriminatory basis. Working families are

guaranteed real protection against possible comp time abuse

through the Miller amendment.

Furthermore, the Miller amendment would preclude employers

from using comp time to modify or reduce existing paid leave

plans. It would entitle employees choosing comp time to get

regular statements of their accrual and use of comp time; put

a reasonable limit on the number of hours of comp time that

can be accrued; and allow employees to seek damages when they

incur costs because an employer wrongfully denies them use of

the comp time they earned. The Secretary of Labor would have

the authority to bar employers with a pattern and practice of

comp time abuse from continuing to offer comp time. H.R. 1

has none of these protections. These are all improvements to

H.R. 1 that guarantee the legislation enhances rather than

decreases flexibility for America's working families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, while we are debating a rule for a bill that would strip workers of their overtime pay, since President Trump took office, dangerous bills like this are more likely to become law.

Just a few weeks ago, President Trump signed a bill into law that strips the American people of our online privacy, allowing internet service providers to sell yours and my sensitive information to the highest bidder without our permission.

This information includes location, financial and health data, information about our children--even pictures of our children--Social Security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history, content of communication: emails, video chats. It is simply wrong.

For this reason, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Jacky Rosen's bill, H.R. 1868, which would reinstate the Federal Communication Commission's internet privacy rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes you need a redo or a retake. When this body narrowly passed the bill that President Trump signed that took all of our private data and allowed internet service providers to sell it without our permission, it was a mistake. Hopefully enough Members of this body have since realized it is a mistake and they will now change their vote and support defeating the previous question

allowing for immediate consideration of Representative Rosen's bill to protect our privacy.

As we know, broadband access through internet access providers is a critical way to have access to a world of information and commerce, but the price of that access should not be all of your private information, including your kids' photographs and birthdays and your Social Security number.

Under the bill that became law, everything you enter on the internet on any site, regardless of their privacy policy, would be owned by your broadband provider and be able to be sold by your broadband provider without your consent.

That is simply wrong for America; it is wrong for consumers; it is wrong for innovation. It casts a shadow over the entire internet ecosytem, which not only has brought so much enjoyment to so many but has created millions of jobs in my district and across our country.

If we can defeat the previous question, we can do a redo on this bill. We can pass H.R. 1868, which would reinstate a rule that has broad, popular support. I haven't heard a single constituent of mine say that they don't want their broadband privacy protected, and I have had hundreds of them say that they do want their broadband privacy protected.

I am hoping that, since my Republican friends have now had the chance to have townhalls and to listen to their constituents, they will agree that we should reinstate the Federal Communications' internet privacy rule to protect our privacy subject to the terms of use; information can be sold if you consent for it to be sold, but without your consent, all the information you enter on the internet should not be the property of the broadband provider for their use and for sale. It is common sense. The vast majority of the American public agrees. I think it is time to call the question on Congress to see if we can get Congress to agree.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I am surprised that people in Alabama weren't clamoring to protect their online privacy at the gentleman's townhall meetings. I will certainly take him at his word. Perhaps it is because they were so concerned with Republican attempts to increase their healthcare insurance rates by 15 to 20 percent, Republican attempts to raise their taxes, and Republican spending that will increase the deficit by $12 billion in this continuing resolution that were brought before us. Maybe they were so overwhelmed by the Republican efforts to get rid of their health care, increase the deficit, spend more money, and take away their rights that they didn't get down their list of concerns to broadband privacy.

Certainly in my district, Mr. Speaker, dozens of constituents in my townhalls--both Republican and Democratic constituents--brought this issue up as a way of arguing how out of touch House and Senate Republicans are to say that, at this time in our Nation's history, what we need is less privacy, not more. I think that there are a lot of things that people are concerned about, and that is certainly one of them.

This debate is about that, frankly, Mr. Speaker, because, if we defeat the previous question, I will be bringing forth Ms. Rosen's bill. Members of this House will have an opportunity to vote on bringing up Ms. Rosen's bill to protect our broadband privacy.

Mr. Speaker, the more work, less pay bill before us is yet another example by Republicans to roll back workers' rights under the guise of doing the opposite. Again, if the Republicans have a sincere desire to actually enhance and improve workers' rights, then we are all for that. The labor movement is for that. Let's talk about that. But don't pretend like you have the voices and concerns of workers in mind when workers' advocacy groups say you are stripping away their rights. We are happy to have that discussion.

In many ways, the veto statement from President Clinton in 1997 still lays out as relevant, today, some of the very criteria the Democrats would want to see in a bill that we could support that would empower workers to choose additional comp time, a concept that many Democrats support.

I wish we were working to protect American families today. But instead of collaborating with Democrats to produce a bill that actually accomplishes the stated goal of increasing worker flexibility, instead, the Republicans have chosen to move forward with their 22-year-old bill that weakens the 40-hour workweek, that President Clinton threatened to veto, that hasn't become law and won't become law, just perhaps as a check-off box rather than to do anything to actually empower workers to choose comp time instead of overtime. They are just checking the box for the big bosses and moving on to the next item without seeing this through into law.

There are a lot of bipartisan bills this body could be taking up this week. Frankly, one of them is Representative Rosen's bill that I will be bringing up when we defeat the previous question, but, sadly, this bill is not one of them. I am very disappointed that even in the majority, even in the governing capacity, even controlling the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, Republicans are wasting time on what we around here call messaging bills rather than real bills to address issues that Americans want us to work on, like bringing down the cost of college, fixing our broken immigration system, rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, or reforming our complicated tax system to make it more friendly for growth in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I support legislation that puts the needs of workers first, but this bill before us does the opposite. This legislation lifts up the big bosses with the hope that a worker may or may not see a benefit down the line without interest if the company stays in business. It is the wrong way to go about it. I oppose the rule. I oppose the underlying bill. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 299 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 299 provides for the consideration of H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act. This resolution provides for a closed rule since no amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the workforce of the 21st century is a lot different from the workforce of the thirties and forties when many of our Nation's labor laws were first written. As such, many of these laws are outdated and out of touch with the realities facing today's workers.

For example, in nearly half of two-parent households, both Mom and Dad work full time. That is up from roughly 30 percent in 1970. Meanwhile, millennials now represent the majority of the workforce.

Given the changes in the workforce, there are new challenges related to the work-family balance. From children's field trips, to taking care of an elderly family member, to a single parent juggling different tasks while their spouse is on a military deployment, the demands are greater than ever. That is where the Working Families Flexibility Act comes in.

This commonsense bill would improve the quality of life for many hardworking men and women by removing outdated Federal restrictions imposed solely on the private sector.

Already, workers in the public sector at the Federal, State, and local level have the ability to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay if they prefer. This bill would give that same option to workers in the private sector.

Here is how it would work. An employee and their employer would come together and mutually agree to enter an arrangement where the employee would receive time and a half in time off or comp time instead of time- and-a-half overtime pay. In other words, employees would have the choice between paid time off and cash wages for working overtime.

As I mentioned, this provision is already available for workers in the public sector. That is because, in 1985, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to give public sector employees greater flexibility. In fact, in a report filed by the House Education and the Workforce Committee more than 30 years ago, our Democratic colleagues wrote that this change in law recognized the ``mutual benefits'' of comp time for State and local governments and outlined the ``freedom and flexibility'' comp time would offer public sector workers.

Shouldn't workers in the private sector be entitled to the same freedom and flexibility given to government workers?

Now, I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say this bill is somehow bad for workers. That could not be further from the truth. Let me clear up some of the false information put out by union bosses and special interest groups.

First, this proposal is completely voluntary. Both an employee and an employer would have to agree to a comp time agreement, and their agreement would have to be put in writing.

Second, no employer can coerce or intimidate their employees into taking comp time. An employee who feels they have been mistreated can file a charge with the Department of Labor, at no cost, or they can bring their own legal action. Employers who take advantage of their employees would face the same penalties as they would for other wage violations.

Now, as a labor and employment attorney, I have been a part of these kind of legal matters in the past, and I can honestly say that no sensible employer would take advantage of an employee and risk double damages, exorbitant attorney fees, and a legal battle with the Federal Government.

Third, employees have control over when to use their comp time, as long as reasonable notice is given and the request doesn't unduly disrupt the workplace. This is the same standard used in the public sector, and it is the same standard used under the Family and Medical Leave Act. I imagine it is also

the same standard used in each of our congressional offices.

Fourth, this bill includes a 5-year sunset that would require Congress to come back and reaffirm this law after reviewing the impact of comp time. This would give us the ability to change the law based on the real-world impact.

Fifth, the bill would set the maximum comp time accrual amount at 160 hours, which is less than what is allowed in the public sector. This provision was actually included after Democrats expressed concerns that workers would accrue too much comp time.

Sixth, an employee has the right to cash out their comp time at any time and for any reason. This is a decision that the employee alone can make. Additionally, at the end of the year, employees would receive a cash payment for any unused hours.

Finally, this is not a far-fetched or radical idea. In fact, President Bill Clinton had his own comp time proposal during his Presidency.

So this bill is great for workers and actually gives them greater choice and flexibility in the workplace. In fact, our committee, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, heard a real-life example of how comp time would make life easier for families during a recent hearing on the bill. We heard about a clerical worker for a mental health company who recently found out she was pregnant and was putting in a lot of overtime during a transition to a new computer system. This mom-to-be simply wanted to waive the overtime pay and, instead, be credited the time for maternity leave.

As her human resources professional testified: ``I had to explain to her that we were unable to do so because it was against the law. It was difficult conveying this message to this single mom-to-be who felt she should be allowed the option to choose for herself whether to take the overtime pay or paid leave when her child was born.''

That is why this bill is necessary, for people like this working mom. That is how this bill will make a real difference.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know comp time won't work for every worker or family, so if an employee wants to continue receiving time-and-a-half overtime pay, then they can continue to do so and this bill will have no impact on them. But this bill would create a new option for employees to better meet the needs of the 21st century workforce. Workers today want and need the type of freedom and flexibility that this bill provides. This bill would allow a working mom or dad to put in a little extra time at work in order to have that time off to attend a child's baseball game, dance recital, or field trip. This is all about freedom, flexibility, fairness, and choice.

Certainly, more work and changes will be needed as we adapt to the workforce of the 21st century, and I look forward to learning more about proposals from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But the simple fact that there are other proposals out there should not stop us from passing this commonsense bill to give working families the flexibility they need and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 299 and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman referred to an old playbook being used here. He is right. It is an old playbook. It is a playbook that was used by House Democrats in 1985, by President Bill Clinton during the 1990s. This is not a partisan playbook. This is actually--or used to be, actually--a bipartisan idea to give workers flexibility in the use of their time. That doesn't sound radical to me. It is not radical at all.

What has changed is Democrats used to be for this, and now, for whatever reason, they are not. They would rather lock workers into these restrictive arrangements where you have working mothers, like the one I used in my initial remarks, who can't get their flexible time off that they want because we do not allow them to do that under the Federal Labor Standards Act.

Comp time is just not technically optional, as my friend said, under this

law. It is optional by law. It is a voluntary thing by law. There is no question about that. Employers cannot coerce or intimidate an employee to do that under this law. It is strictly prohibited, and there are serious legal repercussions for an employer who attempts to do that.

There are no differences in the protections for someone under this bill and the protections that public employees have when they seek to have this sort of flextime under the laws that pertain to them. It is the same protection. So it doesn't matter whether you are in the private sector or the public sector; under this bill, you are going to be protected.

Let me tell you something, as someone who has practiced in this area. It is not an idle threat to an employer to face a regulatory proceeding from the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor or to face a private lawsuit. Those are a big deal. If you lose, you have to not only pay double damages, you have got to pay the employees' attorneys fees, which can be significant. No sensible employer is going to go out there and intimidate and coerce and think they can get away with it. They can't.

Wages, under our bankruptcy laws, are the first priority of what is paid out during the winding up of a bankruptcy proceeding. Before any other creditor is paid, wages get paid. In my experience, I don't remember wages ever not being paid in a bankruptcy. That is always assumed. They get taken care of quickly. Most employers do the right thing.

My friend talked about employers needing to do the right thing. Most employers do the right thing. Just like I know my colleague, when he had a business in the private sector, did the right thing by his employees. Most employers do. Yet too often in this body, we act as if the assumption is that employers are going to do the wrong thing, and then we come down with this heavy-handed overregulation, punitive approach that restricts the freedom of both employers and--let's get back to it--the workers themselves to work these things out.

This is a commonsense solution to a real problem in the new workplace of the 21st century, where most moms and dads are working and where we have this new millennial generation that wants flexibility. They expect it. When you go to them and tell them: Oh, you can't have it because it is a Federal law, they don't understand.

I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand. Yes, I understand that this law was put together in the 1930s. Maybe it made sense for the workplace in the thirties, but it doesn't make sense for the workplace of the 21st century.

I am disappointed in my colleagues who used to be in favor of these sorts of flexible arrangements and no longer favor it, but I get that. I hope that the rest of us will use our common sense and use what we all know is really happening in the workplace today and support this very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague from North Carolina and I worked together on many things, and I have great respect for her, but I think her argument ignores a very important fact about this bill, and that is that you can't be coerced into doing this. You have to do it voluntarily.

If you would rather get your time and a half in pay, that is your decision. You are going to get it. The law requires that. There is nothing that forces anybody to get that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think my friends on the other side of the aisle don't understand how this works. An employee comes to their supervisor or the person who runs the HR office in the company and says: I would like to get some comp time in return for the overtime I am getting ready to work because I have got a specific reason to want to use it. The employer says: Okay, when do you want to get the overtime and when do you want to take the comp time? They work that out.

The employer has the responsibility for having the system and the paperwork for showing that they have complied with the law. From an employer's point of view, that is an extra burden. It is really not in the interest of an employer to do this. An employer would really prefer to say: Look, I don't want to have to do this, because if I make a mistake, I am going to get in trouble with either a private lawsuit or the Department of Labor. So it is really better for the employer not to have this option because it is not going to be an option in which they can make a mistake.

This is for that employee to get the comp time so they can have some flexibility in their schedule. That is who it is for. If they don't want to use it, they don't have to use it. They can still be paid the time and a half that they are paid today. No one can coerce them. The law says you can't do that, and there are real penalties for it.

To the contrary, when we are hearing that somehow this is something for the employers, no, it is not. This is for the workers--the new workers of the 21st century, who sometimes I think we have forgotten about when we have these debates in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would say to my colleague and to the House, I did indeed have 11 townhalls 2 weeks ago after the bill he references passed. It didn't come up one time because the American people understand what that was all about, that there were two different Federal agencies battling over something, and it didn't even solve the problem. The agency that put that regulation out didn't have the authority to do it, and it didn't solve the problem. The American people are sick and tired of agencies that don't have the authority to go out there and they do something, and it doesn't solve the problem.

If we want to get to the issue that my friend wants to get to, which I think is important, we ought to get to, let's work together in a bipartisan fashion and come up with a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that addresses that. I would really like to be a part of that.

But that is not what we are here today about. We are here today about this bill to provide flexibility to working people in the 21st century, particularly millennials.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank Congresswoman Roby for being the sponsor of this bill and bringing it forward. As a young woman herself, she understands what's going on in the workplace with people her age and how they try to juggle all the demands of their time. She has come up with a very commonsense approach to how we can deal with this in a way that makes sense for everybody.

We just heard a lot about the labor movement and big bosses. I got transported back in my mind. You would have thought we were in the 1930s and 1940s. I don't know if my colleague from Colorado has been paying attention, but union membership is at its lowest level since the 1940s right now because, even after 8 years of the most pro-union administration in decades, union membership continues to fall, and it continues to fall because workers in America aren't buying what they are selling because a lot of what they are selling is exactly what we hear is the opposition to this bill, which is: Let's limit people; let's restrict people; let's come up with all these things to tell them what they can't do instead of telling them what they can.

What the American people want, what I heard in my townhall meetings, they want the government off their back so that they can make their own choices and live their lives the way they want to live them. This is really true with the millennial generation.

I have four children who are adults right now. They are millennials. They really want to have flexibility in their lives, and this bill, Congresswoman Roby's bill, gets a little way toward that. I don't see why we would be against trying to give not just young workers, but all workers, that flexibility.

I have heard the arguments, and I have heard them several times now. I have just got to tell you, they make no sense to me. Perhaps they are something that made sense 50, 60, 70 years ago, but they don't make any sense in 2017. It is a different time. It is a different day. Let's give the workers of America some freedom and flexibility because that is what they really want.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 299 and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), the author of the legislation.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

It is totally voluntary on the part of the employee.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), the author of the bill.

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.

How much time, Mr. Speaker, do I have?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman had asked a question, and we are prepared to answer on his time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

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

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. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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

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.

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

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. 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.

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. 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.