Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017

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, 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

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).

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.