Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my full support for H.R. 2353, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act.

For more than 30 years, Federal funding, known as Perkins funding, has helped support career and technical education programs at the State and local level. This legislation reauthorizes that funding and makes needed improvements to ensure Perkins dollars are spent efficiently and effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I am a big believer in career tech programs for three simple reasons: They help prepare students for rewarding careers; they ensure American workers have the tools necessary for skilled trades that are foundational to our society; and they boost our economy by providing a quality workforce.

When it comes to higher education, we all know that there has been a silent stigma attached to not completing an academic degree at a 4-year university. For years, we were afraid to say that college isn't for everybody, when the truth is, career tech programs can actually lead many Americans to better quality of life.

Thankfully, I believe those days are over. Efforts like Mike Rowe's ``Go Build Alabama'' campaign has been tremendously successful in raising awareness and dispelling myths about the jobs that exist in skilled trades. This rising generation is showing signs of being more entrepreneurial, with a

willingness to work outside the box. Our programs have greatly improved over the years to offer training for careers our students are actually interested in.

Mr. Speaker, my State of Alabama is blessed with a strong network of community colleges offering a wide array of career training. Alabama Community College System has more than 79,000 students enrolled in CTE programs, and over 70 public high schools in Alabama are now offering CTE courses. They are working hand in glove with industry to make sure that the training matches the jobs that will be waiting for students when they complete their courses.

I visited one such program recently in Tallassee, a small town in central Alabama. Tallassee High School administrators have worked tirelessly to build a program that serves the growing needs of local students. The city and county are working together to improve facilities and make sure students have access to transportation.

Up until now, students in Tallassee have had to take a bus 30 minutes away to Wetumpka, or even an hour away to Montgomery to Trenholm State, to access these career tech courses. Now, thanks to the hard work of Tallassee's leaders and educators, students are beginning to access these programs right in their own hometown.

I visited another thriving career-type program a few months ago in Geneva, a small town in Alabama's Wiregrass region. Geneva High School has partnered with the Alabama National Guard, whose local armory serves as a training site for high-demand skills, such as automotive technology, welding, aviation maintenance, and health science. Students from city and county schools can get ahead on their college coursework via dual enrollment with Lurleen B. Wallace Community College or Enterprise State.

Geneva and Tallassee are not alone in their commitment to our students. Dothan's Wallace Community College offers training in 16 high-demand career fields. Wallace takes their programs to the next level by combining traditional study with hands-on experience. Their criminal justice program, for example, utilizes a virtual law enforcement training simulator, the only of its kind on an Alabama college campus.

These programs serve as a model, not only for the State of Alabama but for the Nation as a whole. Their successes demonstrate the potential career-type programs hold.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is so much more than just funding. It makes important improvements to our career tech policy, including: simplifying the application process that community and State leaders have to navigate in order to receive Federal funds; providing more flexibility to administrators so they can adjust to the needs of the students and the industry; improving accountability and transparency to ensure that the programs that we are funding actually deliver results; and, lastly, ensuring a limited Federal role in education, just as we did in the new K-12 law.

Mr. Speaker, with the modern workplace changing at a rapid pace, it is imperative that educators and facilities keep up. With this bill, these programs can continue to successfully connect today's students with the careers of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to take the next step in career and technical education today. The Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act will help equip our students with skills, knowledge, and experience they need to start their careers.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation and support our future workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone would agree with me when I say that, in the midst of the tragedy and horror last week, there are also special moments that brought us together and reminded us of what is really important. One was right here in this Chamber, where we heard touching speeches from Paul Ryan and Leader Pelosi; another was at the baseball game when the entire Capitol Hill community gathered in an amazing show of support for our friend, Steve Scalise, our Capitol Police officers and their heroic acts; as well as Matt, Zack, David, and Crystal; and all of those who were involved.

That spirit of unity and togetherness is a big part of why we play this softball game. Our relationships as Members of Congress are stronger because of this game. I don't think we can have too many reminders about the importance of unity and friendship.

I encourage all Members and staff to come join us tonight and go to bat for this great cause. Unlike the baseball game, Republicans and Democrats don't compete against each other. We team up against one opponent we can all agree on: the press.

So, beat cancer, beat the press.

Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to send to the President's desk legislation bringing unprecedented accountability to the VA and badly needed protections for whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has worked with whistleblowers to shed light on negligence, abuse, and even criminal activity within the Central Alabama VA, I can tell you that this reform legislation is long overdue. When it comes to the VA scandal that erupted a few years ago, most Americans probably remember Phoenix, Arizona, and the horrendous activity that happened there. Phoenix became the epitome of a nationwide VA accountability problem, and rightly so.

However, in many ways, the Central Alabama VA could also be considered a poster child for the need of reform of the Department of Veterans Affairs from top to bottom. It might not have garnered as many headlines as Phoenix, but the nature and extent of the abuse inside the Central Alabama VA was every bit as bad, if not worse.

My staff and I worked with courageous whistleblowers and dedicated journalists to pull back the curtain there. Here are just a handful of examples of what we found:

More than 900 X-ray cancer screenings, some showing malignancies, were lost and unread for years. When alerted to the problem, top administrators tried to cover it up.

A VA pulmonologist manipulated more than 1,200 patient records, but even after being caught twice, was still give an satisfactory review.

Perhaps the most disturbing is a Central Alabama VA employee took a recovering veteran to a crack house and bought him drugs and provided him prostitutes in order to extort his VA payments. And even when caught, this employee was not fired, not until 1\1/2\ years later, when we exposed it in the newspaper.

The crack incident stands out in my mind for many reasons. First, it still haunts me to my core just how callous

and uncaring a person could be to do such a thing to a veteran patient. Second, it illustrates just how complacent the bureaucracy had become to let that behavior slide. And third, it is chilling to think that we would never have even known about it if not for a brave VA employee who walked into my Montgomery office and handed us a copy of the police report.

Thankfully, under the 2014 reform law, the director of the Central Alabama VA was fired in the wake of these exposures. That law took an important step toward speeding up the termination process for top officials. But did you know that he remains the only senior official fired as a result of the VA scandal?

Mr. Speaker, we all know that law did not go far enough. For one thing, it did not extend the strict accountability standards to rank- and-file employees. Senior managers aren't the only ones responsible for the failures at the VA. There has been a culture of complacency up and down the chain of command for a very long time, and the complicated process for disciplining or removing problem employees only makes it worse.

That law also didn't go far enough to protect whistleblowers. There is no question in my mind that without the courage of those who came forward to tell the truth, very little would have changed at the Central Alabama VA, if anything at all, yet those whistleblowers were the very targets of retaliation from supervisors and other officials.

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to take that next step on behalf of our veterans and those who are working to serve them. S. 1094, the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, grants the VA Secretary the power to fire, demote, or suspend any VA employee no matter their rank. The bill also increases protections for whistleblowers who put themselves at risk to improve the lives and care for veterans.

Let me say that most VA employees care a great deal about veterans and work very hard to provide the best service. It is not fair for the hardworking employees of the VA that a few bad actors get to evade punishment. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Dr. David Shulkin, has said he wants greater authority to remove bad employees as he sees fit. It is time for Congress to give him that authority and to let him know what we expect and that we expect him to use it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing by our veterans, to pass this legislation today and send it to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, since the enactment of Dodd-Frank in 2010, a total of 357 financial institutions have been forced out of business. Four community banks in Alabama are on that list. That amounts to nearly $7.5 billion less in Alabama's economy that could be lent to small businesses and farmers. In all, nearly 20 percent of Alabama's community banks have either closed or been forced to merge under Dodd- Frank.

Why is this happening? Because homegrown banks can't keep up with the crazy compliance costs that Dodd-Frank mandates. Here is an example:

One credit union in Alabama's Wiregrass region, their compliance department size has tripled. They estimate that these new costs have limited their growth by as much as $60 million. That is not right. Hometown lenders in Alabama didn't cause the financial crisis of 2009, but now they and their customers are paying the price.

There is no question we need strong laws to govern our financial markets, but Dodd-Frank is not the answer. We now have a chance to fix this broken law, untangle this regulatory web, and unleash the capital investment that is so crucial to economic growth.

I urge my colleagues to support the CHOICE Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for making our efforts to combat child exploitation and human trafficking a priority on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I was eager to join the Judiciary Committee was to play a role in combating crimes against children. I am proud to serve on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, where, under the leadership of Chairman Trey Gowdy, we are working to protect innocent children, and make sure that those that would do them harm are brought to justice.

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to talk about crimes against children, particularly those that are sexual in nature. Just speaking the term ``global sex tourism'' is enough to send chills up almost anyone's spine. Because this subject is so ugly and uncomfortable, most Americans probably have no idea the extent to which children around the globe are at risk of exploitation. That is what makes it so important that we do talk about it and address the problem head-on.

Earlier this year, I met with experts from the Department of Justice to discuss how loopholes in current law are allowing child predators to evade punishment for their abuse of children in the United States overseas. Certain types of sexual contact with children are not explicitly covered under the criminal definition of ``illicit sexual conduct.'' This allows child predators engaged in global sex tourism to evade punishment for acts that are clearly abusive.

Also, current sentencing code does not treat contact offenses against child victims under the age of 12 the same as it does against those victims between the ages of 12 and 18.

Mr. Speaker, these loopholes were, of course, never intended. Nonetheless, these technical flaws in the law are making it harder for authorities to put serial child abusers away where they belong.

H.R. 1862, the Global Child Protection Act, aims to close these loopholes and better equip law enforcement to protect people and punish abusers. Specifically, this bill would expand the definition of ``illicit sexual conduct'' to include ``sexual contact,'' thus allowing authorities to crack down on global sex tourism and punish these criminals.

This bill also seeks to protect the youngest child victims by broadening the sentencing code to ensure that all types of contact offenses against children of all ages are treated with the same level of seriousness.

To be clear, the current statute criminalizes the act of traveling abroad to do terrible things to children, but it does not criminalize the people who force children to perform sexual acts on them. This bill very simply closes the loophole when it comes to sex tourism and soliciting sexual acts from a minor, to include not just what someone would do to a child, but what they would force a child to do to them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our strong partners in the White House and the Department of Justice for their commitment to combating exploitation and abuse here in our country and abroad.

Last week I went with the chairman and others to the White House to participate in a bipartisan listening session on human trafficking and exploitation hosted by Ivanka Trump. I appreciate Ivanka for inviting me and my fellow lawmakers to be a part of this very important exchange. I believe that her involvement and leadership on this issue can be instrumental to achieving results.

Also, it certainly wasn't lost on me that in his first official act after being sworn in, Attorney General Jeff Sessions presented the President with an executive order strengthening the enforcement of Federal law on international trafficking, including human trafficking. We have dedicated law enforcement professionals working hard every day to protect children and punish abusers, and we need to make sure that they have every tool at their disposal to do their job.

Mr. Speaker, it is our enduring responsibility to protect those among us who cannot protect themselves. We have an opportunity to do that today by passing the Global Child Protection Act and getting one step closer to closing these loopholes.

Of course, my bill is just part of a slate of Judiciary Committee bills aimed to combat child exploitation and human trafficking. I urge my colleagues to approve all of these bills and to take action toward stopping this growing problem in this country and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a report on my recent travels to Afghanistan, where our Armed Forces remain engaged at a critical front of the global war on terrorism.

I have been a part of several congressional delegations to Afghanistan to survey conditions there, particularly as it concerns the progress being made by Afghan women and girls to attain equal rights. I was honored once again to lead a delegation of my colleagues to the region to conduct oversight of American operations and better inform our efforts here in Congress to fulfill

our constitutional responsibility to fund and support our military.

Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 15 years since American and allied forces invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime and stamp out the terrorist breeding ground it harbored. Many brave Americans have given their lives in the struggle to defeat the al-Qaida terrorist threat and protect our homeland. It is incumbent on us as a nation to honor their sacrifice by never allowing it to be in vain.

So much has been given and, because of that, so much has been gained. There is no question in my mind that our country is safer and the world is freer because of the work our military has done and continues to do in Afghanistan. That is an important truth I am reminded of in a powerful way each time I visit Afghanistan, and I am compelled to share it with my colleagues here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I have said for years that the test for our success in Afghanistan going forward is the preservation of the gains made by women and girls. Having observed the treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan over many years now, I can tell you that the progress today is as fragile as ever.

There is good news. New laws criminalize violence toward women and offer them unprecedented legal protections. Girls are attending school and going to college. Women are working in government, serving in the military, in the police force, and even running for office. There is an Afghan Women's Chamber of Commerce that specifically works to see that women are incorporated into the nation's economic future.

For American women like me who grew up with parents telling me I could achieve anything I wanted to, those kinds of things are commonplace. For Afghan women who grew up in a culture that has subjugated them to second-class citizenship or worse, these activities are nothing short of extraordinary. Centuries of repression are being reversed, and a new generation of women that expects and demands basic rights is taking hold.

During our visit, our delegation was honored to meet with the Afghan First Lady, Mrs. Ghani, and many other women leaders. We discussed the opportunities now available to Afghan women that weren't conceivable 50 years ago under the Taliban, and most importantly they explained just how critical these gains are to the overall stability of Afghanistan.

While it is certainly encouraging to listen to these remarkable stories of hope and progress, there exists a deep concern among Afghan women about seeing these important gains backslide and their rights erode. In fact, in some areas of the country, this is already happening. The Taliban's resurgence amid the drawdown of coalition forces presents a major threat that we must acknowledge.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this to happen. We cannot allow the gains we have made in Afghanistan to fall by the wayside.

We know all too well what can happen when radical oppressive ideologies are allowed to fester in hostile nations. Make no mistake: because freedom and fairness for Afghan women is essential to the security of our Nation, it is also crucial to our own.

That is why I am pleased that President Trump is reviewing our strategy in Afghanistan, including a reevaluation of troop levels and our rules of engagement.

Simply put, if we are going to be in Afghanistan, we need to be willing to do what it takes to succeed. Of course, the Afghan people must take the reins of their country's future, but the United States will play a key role in ensuring a lasting peace.

Right now I fear we have tied the hands of our military through reduced force strength and limited rules of engagement. We should never send our military men and women into harm's way without the tools and resources they need to get the job done. Reevaluating our force strength and rules of engagement is the right decision, and I look forward to hearing from President Trump and Secretary Mattis as the NATO summit approaches.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that Congress was able to deliver a comprehensive appropriations bill that properly funds our military. Funding the government by short-term extensions takes away the Pentagon's ability to plan for the future. With everything going on in the world right now, including the situation in Afghanistan, we cannot hinder our commanders with financial uncertainties.

One of the reasons I was so eager to serve on defense appropriations was having the opportunity to reverse military cuts that made no sense. For the last several years, we have been in constant tension with the Obama administration, whose sequestration policy threatened to hollow out our military. But not anymore.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who joined me on the delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the House, this week, is taking action to support our law enforcement officers and their families as we mark National Police Week.

We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to law enforcement officers at all levels: State and local police officers, sheriffs, firefighters, first responders, and our Federal agents. They all put their lives on the line to keep this country and our communities safe.

Congress must always ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the proper tools and resources to get the job done, and I am honored to play a role in this important work through my service on the Judiciary Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, and Science.

But, Mr. Speaker, law enforcement officers need more than equipment and funding. They need our support. They need our support because they are under attack. The last few years have seen a disturbing uptick in the instances of police being targeted by violent criminals just because they are wearing a badge.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, at least 64 police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty last year, 21 of which were ambush-style killings. Attacks in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Chicago, and other places were chilling reminders of the dangers these brave individuals face when they go to work.

It is time to send a clear, strong message: If you kill a law enforcement officer, you will be brought to justice and punished to the full extent of the law. That is why I am proud to support H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act.

Under current law, killing a Federal law enforcement officer is an aggravating factor when considering a death sentence for the offender, just as it should be. However, the same deterrent and prosecution is not extended to State and local police officers, firefighters, or first responders. The Thin Blue Line Act would change this by making the murder of local law enforcement an aggravating factor when considering a death sentence.

Mr. Speaker, had this provision been in place just 4 years ago, it would have applied to the Boston bombing case when the bombers killed a local campus officer. It would also apply when State and local officers serve on joint law enforcement task forces.

States all over the country are taking action to support law enforcement through stronger protection for officers and stricter penalties for criminals, and I believe Congress should do the same.

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act.

I would love to take credit for this idea. It is not my own. It is a bill that has been carried by other Members on several occasions. I have had the privilege to carry this bill the last few Congresses, and I am excited that we are going to debate this bill tomorrow and, God willing, have a vote on it.

The Working Families Flexibility Act is a simple amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act has been the law of the land since 1938.

In 1985, the Fair Labor Standards Act was amended to allow compensatory time. That is paid time off in lieu of cash wages for overtime for public sector employees. But, oddly enough, private sector employees were left out of the equation.

This bill, H.R. 1180, simply provides that the private sector can have access to compensatory time in lieu of cash wages for overtime. This doesn't eliminate overtime, but, rather, gives flexibility in the workplace for hardworking Americans to make a decision about how to use their time.

Every time an hourly wage employee works an hour of overtime, they would be eligible for an hour and a half of paid leave only if the employer first offers this as a benefit, but, most importantly, that the employee elects voluntarily to choose compensatory time over cash payments for overtime.

Congress cannot legislate another hour in the day, but what we can do is provide flexibility for hardworking moms and dads all over this country that may want to use their accrued overtime to coach a soccer game, help with an aging parent, take their child to the pediatrician, or, quite frankly, accrue the time to go on a mission trip somewhere. But this is an opportunity for us to provide this benefit for employees all over this country, like I said, hardworking men and women that just want flexibility.

It is voluntary. It must be done through a written agreement between the employer and the employee. But, most importantly, outside of being voluntary, the employee can opt out at any time. The employee can cash out, so to speak. There are cash-out provisions in this bill.

So if the arrangement between the employer and the employee is not working out, meaning the employee can't find the appropriate time to utilize the compensatory time, the employee can say: Do you know what? I would rather have my cash payments for overtime.

And within 30 days the employer must provide those cash payments that that employee has rightfully earned.

I just think this is a great opportunity for us to provide this benefit to so many folks out there who are just trying to balance their life and work, their children, their parents, and all of the things that come with that. As a working mom, I certainly can relate to all of the pushes and pulls that parents have on them in wanting to just provide for their family. Again, at the end of the day, this time belongs to that individual, therefore, he or she ought to be able to make a decision about how to use their time.

I have several Members who are here tonight that are going to speak on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner). I thank her so much for her willingness to speak on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for taking the time to speak on this bill. I appreciate her willingness to speak on behalf of the Working Families Flexibility Act. In doing so, she is speaking on behalf of so many hardworking American families.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our majority leader. During my time in Congress, I don't know anyone who has been a stronger champion for finding ways to help families using conservative, commonsense ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for bringing this bill to the floor and giving it the recognition and the time that it deserves. I appreciate the leader taking his time to be here and speak on behalf of the Working Families Flexibility Act.

I would like to turn now to my friend and my colleague, also from Missouri (Vicky Hartzler). I just want to point out, though, as I move to her comments, we have to recognize that the workforce has changed. More than 70 percent of mothers today work outside of the home, and the gentlewoman here is certainly one of those who understands that as she has worked so hard and now Tiffany is about to graduate from high school. It seems like yesterday that we were bringing our babies to the floor together.

But 70 percent of mothers today work outside of the home. Fifty years ago, that number was less than 30 percent. So the workforce has changed tremendously, but our policies have not kept up with that change.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman and all of her comments and her support as a working mom who understands all of the pushes and pulls that so many American families face.

I want to spend a little bit of time, while I have the opportunity, to talk about some of the myths about the Working Families Flexibility Act. There is so much misinformation, false information that is out there about this bill.

Trust me, we are on social media responding to the information that is being put out there that is incorrect because we want to make sure people understand. This bill is not intended to hurt people. It is intended to help people and offer a much-needed benefit to provide people flexibility in the workforce.

The first myth I want to address is that this will result in employees working longer hours for less pay. The fact is that the Working Families Flexibility Act safeguards workers' time and wages. Receiving paid time off or compensatory time for working overtime hours under this bill is completely voluntary. An employee who prefers to receive cash payments for overtime hours worked is always free to do so.

Employers and employees are required to complete a written comp time agreement, a voluntary written agreement, and an employee can withdraw from this agreement at any time and receive cash wages for accrued comp time.

Comp time is accrued at the same rate as overtime cash wages, so employees who work more than the 40-hour week will accrue paid time off at a rate time and a half for the overtime hours worked. Workers can cash out--meaning, say ``I want the money instead of the time''-- whenever they choose, and employers are required to provide those cash wages that that employee has accrued within 30 days of receiving that employee's request.

Another myth is that the Working Families Flexibility Act will allow employers to control when workers use their comp time. The fact is that the Working Families Flexibility Act protects employees' use of the compensatory time that they have earned. The Working Families Flexibility Act allows workers to use their comp time whenever they choose as long as they provide reasonable notice and the leave is not overly disruptive.

The unduly disrupt provision included in H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act, is the same standard used today for public employees who are using this benefit to receive comp time, and this has worked for over 30 years. As my colleagues have already stated, this is a matter of fairness. If it is good enough for government employees, it should be good enough for private sector employees as well.

All existing labor enforcement remedies, including action by the Department of Labor, are available if a worker believes he or she has been unfairly treated. I can't put enough emphasis on this, that the anticoercion, the anti-intimidation provisions that are currently a part of the law, of course, apply to the Working Families Flexibility Act. And it even promotes greater workplace flexibility while protecting the needs of the employer, but the employee is very protected from that type of behavior and coercion by the employer.

I have some other myths and facts that I am going to go over, but I see that the chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee has joined us. I really appreciate the gentlewoman, the chairwoman, and all the work that she has done to support the working Families Flexibility Act.

I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman, and again, I appreciate her leadership for moving this bill through committee and for getting it ready through the Rules Committee so that we can be here on the floor tomorrow. Again, I appreciate her leadership on this and many, many other issues that she does on a daily basis to fight for Americans, in this case, Americans that are subject to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act that would benefit from this amendment in the private sector.

I want to go back. I have two more myths that I would like to address.

Here is the myth: the Working Families Flexibility Act will allow employers to force workers to take comp time instead of cash payments for overtime.

The fact is that the Working Families Flexibility Act prohibits worker coercion. The decision to use compensatory time is completely voluntary. An employee who prefers to receive cash payments for overtime hours worked is always free to do that. It explicitly prohibits an employer from directly or indirectly intimidating, threatening, or coercing; or attempting to intimidate, threaten, or coerce an employee into taking or not taking compensatory time.

An employer who violates these anticoercion provisions will be liable to the affected employee for double damages which includes both the amount of the comp time and an equal amount in cash wages.

In addition to new provisions prohibiting coercion, H.R. 1180 ensures all existing enforcement remedies, including action by the Department of Labor, and are available to workers if an employer fails to pay cash wages for the overtime hours worked.

Myth: this bill is unnecessary because current law already allows for workplace flexibility. The fact is that the Working Families Flexibility Act empowers workers with more options. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, private sector employees may only use paid time off during the same paid period in which it is accrued. Paid time off cannot be saved by the employee for future use outside of that pay period.

The law currently allows public sector employees to accrue comp time to be used at their discretion so long as reasonable notice is given and the leave does not unduly disrupt the workplace.

My amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Working Families Flexibility Act, H.R. 1180, provides private sector employees with comp time benefits similar to what is already available in the public sector.

Here is how it works: an hourly wage employee would be able to voluntarily enter into an agreement with their employer to put all of some of their accrued overtime towards paid time off instead of cash wages. A working dad could use the time-and-a-half overtime he has earned to take a paid hour and a half off of work. No employee, again, could ever be forced to take the paid

time off, just like no business would be forced to offer this benefit.

Upon introducing this bill 4 years ago, I heard from a very special lady named Karen DeLoach. She worked as a bookkeeper in an accounting firm of my hometown, Montgomery, Alabama. Like most in her line of work, Karen would put in many hours during the busy season and build up a lot of overtime. Karen once approached her boss and said: Well, can I accrue my overtime to use as paid leave rather than taking the cash payments? Because, see, Karen gave her time to serve on a mission trip in Nicaragua every summer, and she wanted to do so and go on her church's mission trip without interrupting her regular paycheck.

Montgomery, Alabama, is the State capital, and Karen had heard her State employee friends talk about how they swapped their overtime pay for comp time in their jobs. She never imagined that a similar arrangement at the private business at which she worked would be against the law, but that is what her boss informed her. He wanted to give it to her, but he couldn't under the law. To his credit, he wanted to offer it to her, but he wasn't about to break the law.

Karen's story isn't unique. As I have already referenced, just think of all the parents in this country with young kids or caring for elderly parents or a military family with one or both of the parents deployed or about to deploy. They need time to get ready to take care of their responsibilities.

So the Working Families Flexibility Act is not going to end or solve the debt crisis or fix ObamaCare or simplify the Tax Code. I am proud of our ongoing efforts here in Congress to repeal and replace ObamaCare, to put forth a tax policy that is fair, flatter, and simpler, and to continue to cut out wasteful spending. This bill doesn't solve those problems.

But the fact that we can't solve those problems overnight shouldn't stop us here in the House of Representatives from doing what we can do right now to help make life a little easier for working moms and dads. That is what the Working Families Flexibility Act does, helping Americans better balance the demands of family and work.

I want to thank all those Members who have come here to the floor tonight to speak on this bill. As a working mom myself, I certainly understand all too well how challenging it can be to balance our responsibilities.

Again, I have sponsored this bill this Congress, of course, and the past two before that. I have heard criticism from labor unions and their allies saying that this bill is somehow antiunion or antiworker. This is just simply untrue.

Of course, many in Big Labor will reflexively attack any proposal that would change a single word of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ironically here, labor unions, see, they oppose this, but they themselves can and often do negotiate similar agreements for their members already.

That seems a bit unfair. So it is okay for those who are members of unions to negotiate similar compensatory time arrangements, it is okay for those who work in the public sector under the law to utilize compensatory time, but it is just not good enough for the hourly wage employee in the private sector. That is more than unfair.

The legislation is completely voluntary for both the employer and the employee. It does not affect the 40-hour workweek or change the way overtime is calculated. It strengthens provisions for workers and increases penalties for abuse. It contains strong anticoercion provisions that would prohibit an employer from directly or indirectly trying to intimidate or coerce workers into taking comp time.

Workers have the option under the Working Families Flexibility Act to cash out at any time. If for some reason this agreement, this voluntary agreement, just isn't working out, an employee can always take the cash, no questions asked.

And, finally, for workers represented by a labor union, any comp time arrangement would have to be negotiated under this bill as part of the collective bargaining agreement, just as they already do.

Mr. Speaker, as I finish tonight, I just want to say again, as a mom, a working mom, a family where both parents work outside of the home, I certainly understand for some of us the time, our time, the time that has been accrued by an hourly wage employee, is more important than the cash wages. That may not be true for everybody. That remains in that the employee can determine what he or she wants to do with their time.

Again, I am grateful for the many people who have worked so hard on this bill over the years. I am grateful for the opportunity to represent Alabama's Second District and to represent so many hardworking American families here tonight in this hour.

I look forward to the debate tomorrow here on the floor on this bill. I would urge all of my colleagues to please vote in favor of H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and thank nineteen constituents from my district who work for Central Alabama Electric Cooperative, located in Prattville, Alabama; Covington Electric Cooperative, located in Andalusia, Alabama; and Alabama Rural Electric Association of Cooperatives, located in Montgomery, Alabama. Volunteering as power linemen and staff liaisons for NRECA International, these Journeyman Linemen have dedicated themselves to building and upgrading power lines to help communities receive affordable, safe and reliable electricity.

They have worked side by side with NRECA International in the town of Guastatoya, Guatemala, and in the city of Puerto Barrios, Guatemala, and most recently on the USAID-funded Pilot Project for Sustainable Electricity Distribution in Caracol, Haiti.

In Guatemala, they constructed a power line to electrify three villages, Mirador, Tamarindal, and Castanal, bringing a better way of life to more than 300 families. In the latest project, more than 9,000 consumers in Caracol and 10,000 more consumers in surrounding communities will eventually be connected with electricity.

The service and sacrifice of these linemen and electric cooperative staff will ultimately impact the lives of thousands of Guatemalans and Haitians, resulting in improvements in healthcare, education, and economic opportunity.

For all of you who have given your time, Bruce Adamson, Kevin Anderson, Lamar Daugherty, Reed Daugherty, Jimmy Gray, Aaron Ismail, Keith Hay, Michael Kelley, Michael Longcrier, Darren Maddox, Ross Parker, Kevin Powell, Heath Smith, Ted Stettler, Alan Thrash, Josh Till, Clay Walker, Josh Winburn, and Julie Young, I thank them for their service.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 3, 2017, I was absent because of travel delays due to weather related activities.

Had I been present, I would have voted the following on April 3, 2017:

Roll Call 209 on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, H. Res. 92, Condemning North Korea's development of multiple intercontinental ballistic missiles, and for other purposes, I would have voted Aye.

Roll Call 210 on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, H.R. 479, North Korea State Sponsor of Terrorism Designation Act of 2017, I would have voted Aye.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor First Baptist Church (FBC) of Headland in Headland, Alabama upon its 150th Anniversary.

In 1867, eight people in a small village formerly known as ``Heads Land'' gathered to establish what was then known as The Baptist Church of Christ at Bethlehem, led by Reverend Thomas Scott. The church officially took the name of ``The First Baptist Church, Headland, Alabama'' in December of 1969. It has been housed at three separate locations, with its current home residing on East Church Street. The church campus has expanded with the additions of a Sunday School Annex, a Children's Building, a pastorium which now serves as church offices, and a Ministry Center. From its humble beginnings, the church has now grown to a current membership of 1,068, making it the largest church in Henry County.

Over the years, FBC Headland has expanded its reach with its TV Ministry, Food Pantry, Child Development Center, Church Counseling Ministry, and multiple Worship Services and Sunday School Classes. FBC Headland's mission statement is ``Glorifying God by Knowing Christ and Making Him Known,'' and I commend them for their dedication to ministries that do just that.

The City of Headland is fortunate to have had the touch of FBC Headland upon its community for 150 years. FBC Headland has been an example of the faithfulness and providence of the Lord and I am excited to see what He will do through their ministry in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize First Baptist Church of Headland's 150 years of fellowship, worship, and service.

Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago this week, in this Chamber, the House gave final passage to the Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare.

I wasn't in Congress then. Many of us weren't. But for my fellow conservatives here today, that vote 7 years ago marked a decision point, or a moment of affirmation, to answer the call to public service and to help chart a better way for this country.

And for 7 years, we have made the case against ObamaCare. As the law has been implemented, that case has been largely made for us. Millions have been forced away from the healthcare plan and doctor they liked, despite being told otherwise.

This year alone, in Alabama, health insurance premiums are rising by 58 percent. That is on top of the already steep increases the past 2 years. Our average deductible for the supposedly affordable bronze plan is now $6,000.

I have heard from countless constituents about the negative impact of ObamaCare. I have listened to their stories about how higher costs and fewer choices have made it that much harder to keep their families healthy and make ends meet.

And in response, I made a promise--the same promise President Trump and every conservative in Congress has made over and over: Give us the majority in the House and the Senate, give us a Republican in the White House, and we will repeal ObamaCare and replace it with reforms that work.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are finally in a position to deliver on that promise. The voters gave us what we asked of them, and it is only right that we keep our end of the bargain.

With the American Health Care Act, we begin the process of repealing ObamaCare once and for all. This bill dismantles the taxes, mandates, and entitlement spending that make up the core of ObamaCare. It cuts taxes on prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, insurance premiums, and medical devices. It eliminates the individual and employer mandate penalties that have forced millions into expensive, inadequate plans. It replaces the ObamaCare entitlement with refundable tax credits so that people who don't receive insurance through work can put their own tax dollars toward a health plan of their choice.

Mr. Speaker, many people have asked why our plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare is a process. Why is this bill only one step and not the full package? It is an understandable question. For the last several years, Americans have been sold the false hope that government has a magic wand with which they can solve all of their problems. The truth is, of course, that it can't. It never can. And the only proof you need is ObamaCare itself.

That is why congressional Republicans and the Trump administration are taking a completely different approach than President Obama and the Democrats used 7 years ago. Instead of claiming we need to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, we have worked in a transparent way. The bill text has been posted online for 3 weeks. It has gone through three separate committee markups, and will come to the House floor in regular order.

Instead of one giant bill like ObamaCare, we are using a more responsible, three-step process. First, we will repeal ObamaCare with all its taxes, mandates, and spending through budget reconciliation. Next, the Trump administration will use executive authority to weed out the more intricate ObamaCare policies one by one to stabilize the market and lower costs. And finally, Congress will move forward with legislation addressing more specific policies, such as allowing individuals to purchase insurance across State lines.

I believe this will ultimately lead to better, more stable healthcare policy that empowers patients, increases choices, and lowers costs.

Mr. Speaker, no bill is perfect. I am sure if every Member of this body came up with their ideal health reform bill, they would each be pretty different. It is supposed to be that way, because we all represent different districts in different parts of the country with different needs.

There may well be some changes made here in the House or in the Senate that can make the bill better. That is part of the process, so I certainly remain open to those.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am confident this bill puts us on a path toward lower cost and better care, and away from government-controlled health insurance. It represents our opportunity to undo the damage of ObamaCare and help American families like we said we would.

For 7 years, we have been promising, and this is our chance to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the American Health Care Act and send it to the Senate, and get us one step closer to delivering on our promise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Alabama State University upon its 100 year anniversary of planting war gardens to aid the United States efforts in World War I.

One hundred years ago, students, staff, and faculty of the then State Normal School at Montgomery, subsequently Alabama State University, assisted and advised residents near campus and in the City of Montgomery, Alabama on how to plant war gardens. Thanks to these efforts, it was reported that in March 1918 over 1,400 black homes in Montgomery had war gardens.

These gardens were important acts of sacrifice and rationing as commercially grown produce was shipped overseas to feed our troops and food-insecure Allies during The Great War or World War I.

Next month, the ASU Department of History and Political Science and university community will plant a Memorial WWI War Garden in commemoration and in honor of what was done on our campus a century ago.

The garden will represent the pride and commitment of ASU's campus to community and to country.

It was originally on March 21, 1918 that Alabama Governor Charles Anderson declared ``Garden Days'' urging Alabamians to grow war gardens, and this day on March 21, 2017 I declare ``Garden Days'' in tribute to what was done in the Montgomery community.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to honor Alabama State University for its legacy of civil duty and service to both community and country.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House this week is taking action to bring much-needed accountability and improvement to the VA.

Two and a half years ago, in the wake of the veterans waitlist scandal, Congress rightfully passed legislation giving the VA Secretary greater authority to fire senior managers responsible for those failures. I was glad to support the bill. In fact, the director of our own scandal-ridden central Alabama VA became the first fired under the new law.

But, Mr. Speaker, we all know that law did not go far enough. Responsibility for failures at the VA doesn't just lie with senior managers. We need to provide the VA Secretary increased authority to swiftly remove, demote, or suspend any VA employee for poor performance or misconduct. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the VA Accountability First Act.

The problems at the VA may have left the front page for now, but the problems are still very present. The work of improving veterans' access to care is far from over, and I will not stop until it is done.