Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable woman who has dedicated the last 40 years of her life to serving the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia--my friend, closest adviser, and chief of staff, Joni Ivey. Joni was born and raised in Newport News, Virginia. She grew up in Newsome Park and was one of seven children of Willie and Carnetta Ivey. She graduated from Carver High School in 1971, the last graduating class of the segregated high school that was closed when local schools were racially integrated. Joni went on to attend Christopher Newport University and graduated from Norfolk State University. I first met Joni in 1976, when she was working on Reverend Henry Maxwell's unsuccessful campaign for the Newport News City Council. I was impressed with her work ethic, her dedication to her community, and her political acumen. I was so impressed that I asked her to serve on my first campaign for the House of Delegates in 1977. That started a 40-year friendship and working relationship that took us to the House of Delegates after that election to the Virginia Senate in 1983, and ultimately to the United States Congress in 1993. Joni has served alongside me every step of the way and has been a selfless, behind-the-scenes public servant for the citizens of Virginia. Serving the public and helping those most in need has always driven her. Her passion in this regard has helped ground me and our staff to focus on what we can do every day we are fortunate enough to be in a position to make better the lives of those we serve. Joni's commitment to this ideal is not just at work. Joni spends nearly every waking moment of her free time outside of the office helping others, either through her involvement in her church, Ivy Baptist Church in Newport News, or work with the local NAACP where she once served as branch president, by tutoring young people in Newport News, working with the local food bank, or through her service in The Links, Incorporated. Joni has always given back to her community. Even with all that she does in her community, she always has time for her family. She is a proud aunt to her nieces and nephews, a dedicated daughter to her mother, and a caring sister to her siblings. Over the last 40 years, she has also mentored hundreds of members of our staff and helped guide them in their careers. Thanks in part to her leadership with my office, a vast majority of our current and former permanent staff members got their start in our office as interns or fellows and grew into talented and instrumental staffers. Joni showed them how they could make a real difference working in government. Her dedication to our staff has helped make me a more effective legislator, and I am forever grateful for that. Mr. Speaker, Joni LaVerne Ivey retires from her service to the United States House of Representatives and to my office this week. This will be a hard-earned and well-deserved retirement, and I know that she will remain as active in Newport News and around Hampton Roads as she is now, but perhaps a little less restrained now that she no longer has to worry about me or our office. I know Joni has never sought public recognition for her hard work, but on behalf of our entire current and former staff and the citizens of the Third Congressional District of Virginia, I thank her for her dedicated and selfless service to our community, our Commonwealth, and our Nation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, under current law, if an employee wants to work overtime, put the money in the bank where it can earn interest, and use it to cover the cost of taking some time off later with the permission of the employer, he can do that today without this bill. But under H.R. 1180, instead of getting paid for overtime work in the next scheduled paycheck, the employee might not get paid until as much as a year later, when his employer decides to let him take that comp time. This legislation simply weakens the protections available in the Fair Labor Standards Act--the original family-friendly workplace law--at the very moment that we really ought to be strengthening the law. Under H.R. 1180, it would be legal to withhold workers' overtime pay for a long time. This would be otherwise a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The bill would allow you to undermine the 40-hour workweek by creating a mechanism that allows employees to earn time off to be with their families only if they spend extra time at work beyond a 40-hour workweek. It undermines a worker's ability to earn overtime pay, which many workers rely on to send their children to college, save for retirement, or make a down payment on a house. Because the legislation makes it cheaper for employers to assign overtime to employees who agree to accept comp time instead of actual cash wages, this legislation makes it extremely likely that the only employees who will be asked to work overtime are those who agree to get comp time instead of actual time and a half paid cash. Furthermore, the legislation creates significant uncertainty for workers. An employer could decide that an employee cannot take comp time on the dates requested because the employer said it would be an undue disruption to business operations. My Democratic colleagues and I are working on a Working Families Agenda with real solutions that would boost wages for working people and help them balance work and family life. An employee should be able to earn time off without sacrificing overtime pay. This is exactly what the Healthy Families Act would do. It would allow workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days. Finally, Mr. Speaker, 92 groups that actually represent working people sent a letter urging the Committee on Education and the Workforce to oppose the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter which is led by the National Partnership for Women & Families. It points out that we should be taking up real solutions, such as legislation, to raise the minimum wage, Schedules That Work Act, family and medical leave, and other responsible solutions. These solutions would truly help working families, yet the majority has refused to support any of these initiatives. May 1, 2017. Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to oppose the so-called Working Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 1180/S. 801), a smoke-and-mirrors bill that would offer working people a pay cut without any guaranteed flexibility or time off. As members of Congress on both sides of the aisle acknowledge, people today are struggling to manage the demands of job and family, and to make ends meet and plan for the future. We urgently need lawmakers to update our nation's workplace policies to meet 21st century realities, but the Working Families Flexibility Act would be a grievous step in the wrong direction. It is, at best, an empty promise that would cause considerably more harm than good. The Working Families Flexibility Act would offer a false choice between time and pay. Supporters claim the bill would give hourly workers more flexibility and time with their loved ones by allowing them to choose paid time off, rather than time-and-a-half wages, as compensation for working more than 40 hours in one week (``comp time''). But people would only get more time with their families after spending extra hours away from them at work, and the bill does not guarantee that workers could use the time they earn when they need it. Moreover, the bill would do nothing to address the need all working people--not just those who work overtime--have for guaranteed access to paid sick days and paid family and medical leave. Too few employers provide these protections now, especially to their hourly workers. The Fair Labor Standards Act currently allows employers to provide flexibility and time off without compromising workers' right to be paid fairly for the hours they work. The types of flexibility allowed under the FLSA include alternative start and end times, compressed or variable work hours within a week, split shifts, work at multiple locations, and paid or unpaid time off. Proponents of the Working Families Flexibility Act set up a false dichotomy that would force workers to choose between flexibility and overtime pay when, in reality, the FLSA does nothing currently to prevent employers from offering both. The ``worker flexibility'' offered by the Working Families Flexibility Act would magnify the power imbalance between employees and employers. The proposal would give the employer, not the employee, the ``flexibility'' to decide when, and even if, comp time could be used. The bill would allow employers to deny requests if an employee's use of comp time would ``unduly disrupt'' operations, or grant leave on a day other than the one requested. This means the Working Families Flexibility Act would provide no guarantee that workers could use their earned time to care for a sick child, attend a parent-teacher conference, or help an aging parent. Employers could veto an employee's request to use their time even in cases of urgent need. The bill would also allow employers to ``cash out'' an employee's comp time in excess of 80 hours, or discontinue the comp time program altogether, with just 30 days' notice. This means an employee's carefully crafted plan to bank time for a child's birth or surgery could be thwarted by an employer's decision to cash out the employee's time. The Working Families Flexibility Act would put workers' economic security at risk and provide an interest-free loan to employers. An employee who does not participate in an employer's comp time program could be penalized with fewer hours, bad shifts and lost overtime hours. The bill would permit employers to defer compensation for unused comp time for as long as 13 months, creating an interest-free loan for employers and hardship for workers. It also would not provide any protections for employees when firms collapse or go bankrupt, meaning workers could lose the value of their unused comp time altogether. The Working Families Flexibility Act would provide few protections for workers and no additional resources to the U.S. Department of Labor for education, investigation and enforcement. The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Wage and Hour Division already struggles to enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with too few investigators and a small budget--and DOL is facing a draconian reduction in funding that threatens its ability to maintain current operations, let alone engage in robust enforcement. This bill would add significant new provisions to the FLSA, but it would not provide additional funds for education and enforcement efforts the new provisions would require. Workers would have few remedies in cases of employer misconduct pursuant to the bill, and would not be able to rely on an under-resourced Wage and Hour Division for assistance. Wage theft (nonpayment or underpayment of wages for hours worked) would be exacerbated because it would be easier for employers to avoid overtime compensation obligations without consequences. Instead of wasting time on smoke and mirrors, Congress should focus on policies that would meaningfully improve people's economic security and provide the time they need. We urge Congress to adopt: The Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1516/S. 636), which would make earned paid sick days available to millions of workers and build on the success of paid sick days laws that have been, or will soon be, implemented in seven states and 32 localities; The Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act (H.R. 947/S. 337), which would create a national paid leave insurance program--modeled on successful state programs in California, New. Jersey, Rhode Island and, soon, New York and the District of Columbia--that would allow workers to take paid time to care for a new child; care for a seriously ill family member; address their own serious health condition; or manage certain military caregiving responsibilities; The Schedules That Work Act, which would give workers more control over their schedules and incentivize predictability and stability in shifts and work hours; and An increase in the minimum wage, including the elimination of the sub-minimum ``tipped'' wage, which would lift millions of families out of poverty. People simply should not have to work more than 40 hours in a week and forgo pay to earn time to care for themselves or their loved ones. We urge Congress to reject the Working Families Flexibility Act and instead adopt family friendly workplace policies that provide true flexibility--not an empty promise that would make life appreciably more difficult for people who are already struggling Sincerely, 1,000 Days, 9to5, National Association of Working Women, 9to5 California, 9to5 Colorado, 9to5 Georgia, 9to5 Wisconsin, A Better Balance, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), American Association of University Women (AAUW), American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of Teachers, (AFL-CIO), California Work & Family Coalition, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Center for Popular Democracy, Coalition for Social Justice, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Coalition on Human Needs, Communications Workers of America (CWA), Connecticut Working Families Party, Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF), Daily Kos, Demos, Economic Policy Institute Policy Center, Economic Progress Institute, Faith in Public Life, Family Forward Oregon, Family Values @ Work, Feminist Majority. Indiana Institute for Working Families, Innovation Ohio, Institute for Science and Human Values, Inc., Interfaith Worker Justice, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Jewish Women International (JWI), Jews United for Justice, Jobs With Justice, Labor Project for Working Families, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Legal Aid at Work, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Main Street Alliance, Maine Women's Lobby, Make it Work, McKenna Pihlaja, MomsRising.org, Mothering Justice. National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), National Association of Social Workers (NASW), National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Coalition 100 Black Women Central Ohio Chapter, National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), National Education Association (NEA), National Employment Law Project, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Institute for Reproductive Health, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law Center, NC Justice Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, New Jersey Citizen Action, New Jersey Time to Care Coalition, New York Paid Leave Coalition, Ohio Domestic Violence Network, Ohio Women's Public Policy Network, OUR Walmart. PathWays PA, People For the American Way, People's Action, PL+US Paid Leave for the U.S., Progress For All, Project IRENE, Restaurant Opportunities Center of Pennsylvania (ROC- PA), Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC), Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Southwest PA National Organization for Women, The Body Is Not An Apology (TBINAA, Inc.), Texas Organizing Project, The Voter Participation Center, UltraViolet, Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation, Voices for Progress, Women Employed, Women's Foundation of Florida, Women's Law Project, Women's Voices Women Vote Action Fund, Working America, Working Partnerships USA, Young Invincibles, YWCA USA.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the vice ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, there was mention about the legislative history back in the 1980s. The fact is there was no mention in legislative history that Congress passed the comp time legislation to be family friendly or to provide flexibility. The legislation was passed purely to respond to States' and localities' concerns about fiscal pressures created by the Supreme Court case Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transportation Authority. So I think it ought to be clear that these are entirely different issues. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to include in the Record section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which says essentially the same penalties are available in the present law as in the bill. Sec. 216. Penalties (a) Fines and imprisonment Any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of section 215 of this title shall upon conviction thereof be subject to a fine of not more than $10,000, or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. No person shall be imprisoned under this subsection except for an offense committed after the conviction of such person for a prior offense under this subsection. (b) Damages; right of action; attorney's fees and costs; termination of right of action Any employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Any employer who violates the provisions of section 215(a)(3) of this title shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of section 215(a)(3) of this title, including without limitation employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. An action to recover the liability prescribed in either of the preceding sentences may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought. The court in such action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action. The right provided by this subsection to bring an action by or on behalf of any employee, and the right of any employee to become a party plaintiff to any such action, shall terminate upon the filing of a complaint by the Secretary of Labor in an action under section 217 of this title in which (1) restraint is sought of any further delay in the payment of unpaid minimum wages, or the amount of unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, owing to such employee under section 206 or section 207 of this title by an employer liable therefor under the provisions of this subsection or (2) legal or equitable relief is sought as a result of alleged violations of section 215(a)(3) of this title.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I include in the Record letters from AFSCME and the National Education Association in opposition to the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I include in the Record a letter from the Amalgamated Transit Union against the bill. Amalgamated Transit Union, Silver Spring, MD, May 1, 2017. Dear Representative: On behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), the largest labor organization representing public transit workers in the United States, I am urging you to oppose the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017 (H.R. 1180). The title of the legislation is extremely misleading, as the bill actually provides flexibility only to employers-- not workers--and hurts working families who are already struggling to make ends meet. In response to an epidemic of workers plagued by mandatory excessive hours, Congress in 1938 made the wise decision to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), establishing the 40-hour workweek that we all take for granted today. This landmark legislation, requiring that employers pay a time- and-a-half cash premium for overtime work, serves as the only deterrent from employers demanding excessive hours by making overtime work more expensive for them. H.R. 1180 would remove this barrier. Forced overtime is already a serious problem in the transit industry, and many of ATU's bargaining units are increasingly in the private sector and thus subject to FLSA rules. If privatized transit operations were provided with the ``flexibility'' to offer workers comp time instead of being paid time-and-a-half for overtime, we would see prolific abuse of overtime. Intercity bus operators are already exempt from FLSA overtime provisions, and as a result, there has recently been one horrific crash after another on U.S. Highways caused by driver fatigue. In fact, according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), driver fatigue is responsible for a staggering 36% of fatalities due to intercity bus crashes. If H.R. 1180 is passed, it would lead to widespread fatigue throughout the transit industry as well. Quite simply, more buses will be involved in crashes due to fatigued drivers, and innocent people will die. Moreover, the so-called flexibility under this bill is one- sided, putting management in total control. Private transit companies, which generally cast safety concerns to the wind and have no regard for anything other than the bottom line, would be able to decide if a requested absence on a particular day would ``unduly disrupt'' business operations and specify an alternative date which is not at all convenient for an employee. The need to discourage working people to the brink of exhaustion is as necessary today as it was nearly 80 years ago. America needs to maintain the disincentive for employers to force workers to spend more time away from their families. If additional hiring is needed, then workforces should be expanded. In the transportation industry, this is a matter of life and death. H.R. 1180 is bad for workers, dangerous for transit passengers, and another example of a solution in search of a problem. Please oppose and work to defeat this ill-advised legislation. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Lawrence J. Hanley, International President.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. ``Giving the employer veto power has been burdensome and abused by employers in the public sector and it has been cause for litigation. In theory, employees may take compensatory time within a reasonable period after making the request. In practice, it creates problems for employees denied the time when they need it and the language of the law becomes a false promise.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, under this bill, there are no advantages to the employee. Without this bill, an employee can work overtime, make the money, and then have enough money to afford to be able to take subsequent time off without pay. That is about what this bill does. But with the bill, it allows the employers to work people overtime and avoid paying the overtime wages. The employer just lets the people take their comp time when work is slow, so the employer never has to pay the overtime. This bill allows the employer to decide when the comp time can be taken. The employee can request, but the employer has the final word because the bill says that the comp time can be denied if the time off unduly disrupts operations. And guess who gets to decide that measure? Those employees who want to work extra time to make extra pay will lose that opportunity to fellow employees who agree to ingratiate themselves to the employer by saving their employer money by accepting comp time instead of overtime pay. There is no coercion. Preference is just given to those who will accept the comp time and not the real wages. Mr. Speaker, this bill offers nothing to the employees. It offers the employer the opportunity to avoid paying overtime. That is why all of the representatives of workers oppose the legislation, and I think we should, too. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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