Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Court Reporter Fair Labor Amendments of 1995. I originally introduced this bill last November, during the special GATT session. As I said then, the American people sent a strong, clear signal on November 8: they want less Government and they want it now. My bill would keep the Federal Government from intruding into an area it has no business being in, and where its protections are unwanted by everyone concerned. Specifically, my bill would exempt State and local courts reporters from the compensatory time requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] when they perform private transcription work outside of normal working hours or regular working days. A recent interpretation of the U.S. Labor Department threatens to radically change the way court reporters have been paid for many years. This bill would keep undisturbed current pay arrangements between State and local reporters and their court employers. I am pleased my friend from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, the new chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, is cosponsoring this legislation. She has always been a strong proponent of limited government. We both realize the public demand for less government has never been greater. Mr. President, let me explain the situation which brought about the need for this legislation. For years, official State and local court reporters have enjoyed a unique status among government workers. In most States, they are treated as both government employees and independent contractors, depending on the nature of the work. While performing their primary duties of recording and reading back court proceedings, reporters are considered employees of the court. As such, they are typically compensated with an annual salary and benefits. However, in addition to these in-court duties, most jurisdictions also require official court reporters to prepare and certify transcripts of their stenographic records for private attorneys, litigants, and others. The reporter and his or her assistants prepare and deliver transcripts using their own equipment, without any supervision by the court. The reporter then bills the attorney or other client directly and collects a per page fee set by law or court rule. The transcription fees earned are usually twice the amount, or more, than those earned during an hour of salaried work for the court. Indeed, it is possible for a court reporter to earn more from private transcription work than from his or her annual court salary. When preparing transcripts for a private fee, the court reporter is clearly acting as an independent operator, as has been specifically determined by the Internal Revenue Service. For taxation purposes, transcription fee income is treated as separate and apart from reporters' annual court salaries. In fact, in my home State of South Dakota, court reporters are required to collect and pay sales tax on this income. They also file self-employment income forms with the Internal Revenue Service. The transcription services provided by court reporters are invaluable to private parties. Attorneys are able to obtain a highly accurate recording of court proceedings quickly and reliably. Court reporters are small businessmen and businesswomen performing a cost effective and timely service. There may be many flaws in our system of justice, but our system of court reporting is not among them. As I stated earlier, everyone is happy with the current situation. It has developed over many years. All interested parties--court reporters, judges, and private attorneys--are very satisfied with the present arrangement. Everyone was happy, that is, until the U.S. Department of Labor inserted itself into this situation. Last fall, the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Division took the position that official court reporters in Oregon are still acting as employees of the court, for purposes of FLSA, when they prepare transcripts for attorneys, litigants, and other parties. Similar letters have been received regarding official court reporters in Indiana and North Carolina. Official court reporters in the vast majority of States operate in circumstances similar to these three States. The DOL's interpretation would require State and local courts to pay court reporters one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all transcription work performed during overtime hours in a given week. The Labor Department's position also exposes State and local courts to potentially enormous liability costs from court reporters suing for overtime back-pay. If a suit is successful, the court would owe the reporter at least 2 years worth of overtime back-pay. The amount would be doubled if the court could not demonstrate that it was acting in good faith and could go back 3 years if the violation were deemed willful. If allowed to stand, the impact of the Labor Department's position of the court reporting system would be dramatic. State and local courts would face increased salary budgets and liability exposure. Court reporters facing budgetary cutbacks could lose a significant part of their income and, in some cases, their jobs. Private parties would lose the productivity and efficiency of the current method of transcription. The decision would have adversely affected all interested parties. As you might imagine, no one involved in the court reporting system is happy with DOL`s position. Faced with exposure to millions of dollars of liability nationwide, some courts have already implemented changes. Beginning this month, the South Dakota Court System imposed a new system of pay for transcription on their court reporters. Court salary budgets have also been tightened. State court judges must avoid using their reporters too much, to keep overtime down. Court administrators have been burdened with additional administrative duties and headaches. Private attorneys are concerned they can no longer rely on speedy transcriptions at a reasonable price. No one is happy with the changes. So why are these changes being considered? Because the U.S. Department of Labor says so. After all these years, the Department has suddenly decided that the Fair Labor Standards Act applies in a situation never contemplated by Congress. What fantastic benefits will result from this governmental meddling? None. I have a solution, however: Don't fix what is not broken. Keep the Federal Government out of the situation. The bill I am introducing today would allow official court reporters an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act while they are performing transcription duties for a private party, provided there is an understanding between the court reporters and their State or local court employer. The bill also would bar lawsuits by court reporters for overtime back pay. Note that only State and local court reporters would be affected. That is because Federal court reporters already enjoy a complete exemption from FLSA. State and local court reporters deserve similar treatment. Passage of my bill would allow all official court reporters--Federal State, and local court reporters--to perform their work in the same way. The Fair Labor Standard Act is designed to protect workers from abusive employers. In this situation, however, the very workers who would receive the so-called protections of the Federal Government, don't want them. Official court reporters would be greatly harmed if the helping hand of the Federal Government takes them under its wing. They don't want, or need, to be taken care of, especially by Washington. That is why the National Court Reporter Association strongly supports this bill. Mr. President, here is a rare instance where labor and management are in agreement on the best solution regarding a labor issue. Everyone agrees that the current system serves everyone's best interests. When performing transcription services for a private party, court reporters are acting as independent contractors. That is what the IRS considers them. Federal court reporters are treated that way. I can't think of a reason in the world why State and local reporters should be treated any differently. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I think one of the major duties of the new Congress will be to pass a major telecommunications reform bill--a new procompetitive, deregulatory bill. I know there are many views in this body on national telecommunications policy. The Republican controlled 104th Congress has a truly historic opportunity to pass comprehensive telecommunications reform legislation. Last year, the Congress almost passed a bill. The House of Representatives passed a bill by an overwhelming vote. The Senate Commerce Committee passed out a bill 18 to 2 that became entangled here on the Senate floor. Why should we pass a telecommunications bill in 1995? The reason is that the country needs a roadmap for the next century in telecommunications as we continue to move forward in the Information Age. We need to have more competition and more deregulation. Past efforts to craft telecommunications legislation have been bogged down by overly regulatory approaches. A fresh look at the issues, grounded in procompetitive, deregulatory principles, is the best way to meet our common policy objectives. We need to have all telecommunications markets open to competition. We need to have the cable companies competing in the telephone business and telephone companies providing cable television service. We need to have the long-distance companies competing in local telephone markets, and vice versa. We no longer should have this regulatory apartheid scheme of having little patches or enclaves of competition for only one group of people or companies. Telecommunications policy in America, under the 1934 Communications Act, has long been based on the now faulty premise that information transmitted over wires could easily be distinguished from information transmitted over the air. Different regulatory regimes were erected around different information media. That is what I refer to as the regulatory apartheid scheme. This is an extremely complex and difficult area. It is easier said than done. The telecommunications field is a unique area of regulation in that one frequently has to use someone else's coaxial cable to get to a home or someone else's fiber optic cable or someone else's copper cable or copper wire to get one's product delivered. Nonetheless, I am quite confident we can work out many of those problems through the development of opening requirements in terms of unbundling, in terms of interconnection, in terms of number portability, in terms of resale and so forth. It is my strongest personal conviction that one of the great accomplishments, on a bipartisan basis, of this 104th Congress will be the passage of a new major telecommunications reform bill. I have been meeting and speaking with numerous CEO's from around the country in the telecommunications and information technology industries. I am meeting with consumers. I am talking with my fellow Republican and Democratic colleagues, both in the House and the Senate. I have spoken on a number of occasions with Vice President Gore about this most important topic. We must work together on a bipartisan basis to achieve this laudable goal. Much of the recent discussion around the country has been about the Contract With America and some of the partisanship that might surround that debate. I think the contract is a very healthy thing and I will vote for it. But we will also have a substantial piece of substantive legislation in the Commerce Committee this year--a new procompetitive, deregulatory telecommunications bill--the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995. As the incoming chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee this year I have announced that this will be the Commerce Committee's top priority. I ask my colleagues to look at some of the materials we will send to your offices on this bill. It is very important that we reach consensus on this critically important issue and pass a new telecommunications bill. My new telecommunications bill will rapidly accelerate private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by open- markedly improve international competitiveness, spur economic growth, job creation and productivity gains, delivery better quality of life through more efficient delivery of educational, health care and other social services, and enhance individual empowerment. All without spending taxpayer money. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.