Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 124) expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, my friend, the chairman, is a diligent and thoughtful colleague, and I believe his heart is in the right place.

Everyone in this House is in agreement that pay discrimination on the basis of sex is wrong, no matter how you look at it. The law is very clear about this. But this bill doesn't do anything to help working women. This is a bill for trial lawyers, plain and simple. That is what shows a fundamental difference in outlook and principle. Democrats want women to sue their bosses; Republicans want women to become the bosses.

Republicans have favored strong economic policies that will empower and enable women to keep driving the economy forward and build the lives they want for themselves. Instead of looking for ways to line the pockets of trial lawyers, we stand with working women.

I am proud, Madam Chair, to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), one of the hardest working women I know.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my distinguished colleague.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

Madam Chair, before I recognize the next speaker, I include in the Record a chart which shows that pay discrimination charges filed per year with the EEOC have remained statistically consistent during the George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.

EEOC Equal Pay Act Statistics

Equal Pay Act (EPA) Charges Filed with EEOC (Average Per Year)

George W. Bush Administration (FY 2001-2008): 1,036.

Obama Administration (FY 2009-2016): 999.

Trump Administration (FY 2017-2018): 1,031.

EEOC EPA Charges Resolved* (Average Per Year)

Bush Administration (FY 2001-2008): 959.

Obama Administration (FY 2009-2016): 1,078.

Trump Administration (FY 2017-2018): 1,220.

* EEOC resolves charges in a number of different ways:

negotiated settlement, withdrawal of charge upon receipt of

desired benefits, successful conciliation, unsuccessful

conciliation, a finding of no reasonable cause, or closure

for administrative reasons.

Lawsuits filed by EEOC with EPA Claims (Average Per Year) (NOTE:

Numbers do not include private litigation)

Bush Administration (FY 2001-2008): 9.

Obama Administration (FY 2009-2016): 3.

Trump Administration (FY 2017-2018): 8.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, we have made it clear that we do not believe H.R. 7 is good for working women, but no one has to take our word for it. There are more working women today than ever before.

Here is what many of the job creators who have helped make that a reality have to say about H.R. 7.

The H.R. Policy Association said:

As written, the bill would penalize legitimate,

nondiscriminatory pay decisions; impose an unworkable burden

of proof on employers that even The Washington Post has said

``potentially invites too much intrusion and interference

with core business decisions''; and add to the confusing

labyrinth of State and local pay history laws.

The National Federation of Independent Business said:

H.R. 7 requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

to issue regulations providing for collection of employers'

compensation data. Most small business owners do not have a

human resources department or a full-time staff member in

charge of reporting and compliance. NFIB members report

unreasonable government regulations as their second most

important small business problem.

Americans for Tax Reform and the Center for Worker Freedom says: ``Unfortunately, this bill would actually likely harm the women the Democrats are claiming to help. If signed into law, the legislation would likely lead to less flexible work schedules for women, fewer incentives for those who work hard, and lower pay for all.''

The National Taxpayers Union said:

Though well-intended, H.R. 7 would not resolve lingering

issues of pay discrimination, particularly when safeguards

are already available under the Equal Pay and Fair Labor

Standards Acts. Instead, under H.R. 7, women could be

perceived as a legal liability, ultimately reducing

employment opportunities. Rather than impose new regulations

that increase the cost of doing business and kill jobs,

Congress should remove barriers that limit prosperity for

both men and women.

This bill, as my colleagues have said, is a sham, and it simply doesn't do what my colleagues across the aisle say it will do.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, earlier, my colleagues presented some interesting numbers. The wage gap is a truly fascinating subject to study because there are statistics to show it is vast, and there are statistics to show, in many cases, it is virtually nonexistent.

We should note the numbers that really aren't up for debate. There are more working women today than ever before, 74.9 million. A record 2.8 million new jobs were created in the past year, and nearly 60 percent of those jobs are now filled by women. There are more women owning businesses and employing Americans than ever before. That was no accident. Women are the direct beneficiaries of strong economic policy.

They need strong economic policy. They don't want more ways to sue people. They want more freedom to work in the jobs they want.

We are here for women, Madam Chair, not their lawyers.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I have worked for most of my life. I entered the workforce as a young woman, not because I wanted to but because I had to. I knew the burden of poverty well. If I didn't work to support myself, if I didn't contribute to my family income, we would go hungry.

Well, I have been enormously blessed to have gone from working for survival to working for pleasure and, I hope, a greater purpose. I know there are millions of women of all ages in this country today who must work to survive, just as I did.

When I entered the workforce, equal pay for equal work--equal pay for

women--was a demand, but not yet the law. Today, it is the law. The Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act are clear that pay discrimination is wrong, it is unacceptable, and it is illegal.

Managers who discriminate on the basis of sex are breaking at least two Federal laws, and they have no excuses.

No one should operate under the assumption that women have reached their full potential in the workplace.

Over the years, I have experienced sexism and misogyny. I have seen unfairness. I have seen, also, remarkable advancement, and I have remained disappointed in many ways.

So, for the sake of all the working women I have known and know now, women who work because they choose to and women who work because they must, I looked for anything in this legislation worthy of their support. I found that this bill wasn't written for their sake at all.

This bill is a cynical political ploy that borders on paternalism. There is not a single new or strengthened legal protection against pay discrimination for working women in H.R. 7.

This bill is entirely designed for trial lawyers, and Democrats must think women are too dumb to understand what they have done.

It is an insult to women everywhere that Democrats are passing this bill off as something good for them. This bill is like every other cheap product in drugstores and supermarkets across America that has been covered in pink packaging, marketed as the solution women have been waiting for, and sold for twice what it is worth.

We know women are smarter than that. Democrats, who have assumed that women will always follow their agenda, realize they are running out of time, and that is why they have stooped to a stunt like H.R. 7.

Women in America are embracing their power and potential in ways they never have before. I am not talking about the record number of women in Congress. I am talking about the historic, groundbreaking number of women in the workforce.

More than half of the record number of new jobs created in the past year have gone to women. More women are stepping up to start and lead businesses, to be job creators themselves, than ever before.

Women need Representatives in Washington who will cheer for them, not their rich lawyers. If Democrats want to champion a bill to make life easier for trial lawyers, that is their choice, but they should be honest about it and, for once, bypass the opportunity to talk down to hardworking women everywhere.

For the women who work today because they must, I am glad they have the legal protections I didn't when I was in their shoes. It was women like them who paved the way for suffrage a century ago. It was women like them who made equal pay for equal work the law of the land, and it is women like them, today and tomorrow, who will continue to clarify, to sharpen, and to exemplify what ``a more perfect Union'' was always supposed to look like. This House should follow their lead.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In 2016, the Obama administration proposed adding employee pay data to the EEO-1 report, which is filed by certain employers specifying employee data by job category, ethnicity, race, and sex.

After strong concerns were raised about this misguided proposal by congressional Republicans, the Office of Management and Budget stopped it from going forward in August 2017. A Federal district court recently overturned OMB's stay on the data collection, which the administration will likely appeal.

The Obama administration scheme would have imposed an extremely costly and uniquely burdensome mandate on business owners, providing reams of proprietary data to the government for uses which were never adequately explained.

The Obama EEO-1 mandate would have increased the data fields provided by employers in each EEO report twentyfold, from 180 to 3,660. It was also estimated that adding employee pay data to the EEO-1 form would have brought the overall cost to employers of submitting the report to approximately $700 million annually.

It is appropriate to compare the pay data collection provisions in H.R. 7 to the 2016 Obama scheme because H.R. 7, as modified by the Scott amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, codifies much of the 2016 Obama administration mandate. In fact, H.R. 7 now includes 12 pay bands, the same number as in the Obama mandate, at the exact dollar amounts that were part of the Obama mandate.

Incredibly, H.R. 7's employee pay data mandate is even more extreme than the Obama proposal. In addition to collecting reams of employee pay data, the bill requires the EEOC to collect hiring, termination, and promotion data. How the EEOC would collect this kind of data and how business owners would comply is anyone's guess.

As with the previous scheme to expand the EEO-1, H.R. 7's provision raises many concerns. For one, H.R. 7 would pose significant threats to the confidentiality and privacy of employee pay data. For instance, the EEOC shares the EEO-1 data with the Department of Labor, which, in certain situations, might release data even if the EEOC would not.

Moreover, time and again we have seen massive and harmful data breaches of Federal agencies. Requiring the EEOC to collect pay data would create yet another valuable target, and H.R. 7 fails to adequately address the need for protection of employee data.

As with the Obama EEO-1 scheme, I also have concern regarding the data's lack of usefulness and whether the EEOC would be able to appropriately manage and interpret the massive amounts of employee pay data it would collect. I have already mentioned the burden of such a collection on employers.

For all these reasons, this amendment strikes the invasive, risky, and burdensome provision requiring the EEOC to collect employee compensation data from employers broken down by race, sex, and ethnicity. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, my colleague just said that Latina women are being paid 53 cents for every dollar a White man earns for the same work. That is currently illegal and should be reported.

My colleague may want to amend her statement on that, but I want to say again, paying a woman less than a man when they are both doing the same work is abhorrent and illegal.

Women deserve equal pay for equal work. That is why two Federal laws prohibit pay discrimination based on sex.

What Congress should be looking at are ways to expand opportunities for women in the workplace. H.R. 7, however, does nothing to help women. Instead, it is written to help trial lawyers.

Rather than treating sex discrimination charges with the seriousness they deserve, H.R. 7 is designed to make it easier for trial lawyers to bring more suits of questionable validity, which will siphon off money from settlements and jury awards to line the pockets of trial lawyers.

As we have said before, H.R. 7 offers no new or meaningful protections against pay discrimination.

The findings section in H.R. 7 to which this amendment is added already discusses women in the workplace and implies that the gender pay gap is largely caused by discriminatory acts. However, economic studies conducted by government and private entities alike consistently show that women make more holistic and discerning choices than men about managing work-life demands, placing an equal and sometimes higher value on life factors besides their paycheck as they make decisions about hours worked, overtime pursued, and promotions sought.

Those values and choices should be honored, Madam Chair. As such, the gender pay gap significantly shrinks when these choices and factors are taken into account.

Pay discrimination is a serious issue, but I do not believe this amendment will improve the bill or help to address pay discrimination in the workplace.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again I say, Republicans abhor any type of discrimination, particularly pay discrimination against women.

Madam Chair, if H.R. 7 would help with the situation that my colleague described, we would be in favor of it. No woman should be discriminated against because she reports the fact that she is receiving unequal pay for work, but, again, H.R. 7 does nothing to help those situations. That is why we oppose it.

Madam Chair, H.R. 7 is not helping women; it is helping trial lawyers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, women deserve equal pay for equal work. In America, it is law codified in the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act.

Unfortunately, H.R. 7 is a false promise that creates opportunities and advantages for trial lawyers, not for working women, and the bill already requires new government studies.

H.R. 7 allows for undocumented compensatory and punitive damages, expands class actions, and makes it impossible to defend against a claim, when the pay difference at issue is legitimate. But the bill does not offer new protections for workers against pay discrimination.

Both government and nongovernment studies have shown that the gender pay gap significantly shrinks when certain choices and factors are included, such as choices made in managing work-life demands.

For example, a recent Harvard University study found that the gap in pay between female and male bus and train operators working for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority was explained by the workplace choices that women and men make, rather than other factors such as discrimination. The Harvard study is noteworthy because the workplace characteristics of the female operators are entirely comparable to their male operators. All of the operators are represented by the same union, and all are covered by the same collective bargaining agreement.

We want to ensure the laws prohibiting pay discrimination are effective. However, this amendment, and the underlying provision in H.R. 7, are not going to be helpful in this regard.

We should strive to provide women and all workers more freedom, flexibility, and opportunities. I do not believe this amendment will help us achieve that goal.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I want to say, again: no one in the workplace should be discriminated against. No woman of color, no woman, should be discriminated against. Republicans are opposed to any discrimination, in pay or otherwise, but H.R. 7 is not going to fix that. If it were, we would be on board.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, once again, it is wrong to discriminate, including with respect to pay, based on sex. It is also illegal to do so under both the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, supports equal pay for equal work because, when workers thrive, America thrives, but H.R. 7 does not further this goal.

Democrats claim H.R. 7 will improve upon these existing and bipartisan laws to create new avenues for women to fight pay discrimination. What H.R. 7 actually does is create new avenues for trial lawyers to earn higher paychecks--while dragging countless women into unwanted lawsuits.

Of the 2.8 million jobs created in the past year, more than 58 percent have gone to women.

Today, there are 74.9 million working women in the United States, more than ever before; and one in five employer businesses, nationwide, is owned by women.

We celebrate workers who choose to give priority to professional success and promotion, but it is equally important to show that we value freedom and diversity of choice in the workplace.

It is not the job of Federal lawmakers to tell American workers of either sex what their priorities should be. A number of economic studies conducted by government and private entities alike consistently show that women make more holistic and discerning choices than men about managing work-life demands.

The new government studies mandated by H.R. 7 will likely tell us what we already know and that our colleagues will not acknowledge: that

work patterns and life decisions are key to explaining the wage gap, and that the wage gap shrinks considerably when factors such as hours worked per week, industry, occupation, work experience, job tenure, and preferences for nonwage benefits are considered.

In addition to opening countless avenues for trial lawyer payouts while limiting employer defenses, H.R. 7 mandates intrusive and elaborate data collection from employers, breaking down compensation, hiring, termination, and promotion data by sex, race, and national origin of employees--that will cost about $700 million a year.

Rather than expending taxpayer dollars on expanding studies, Federal lawmakers should promote a continued focus on strong economic policy, education, and innovation that will create opportunities and expand options for all American workers.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we believe women should not be discriminated against. We don't want women discriminated against, women of any category in this country, and this amendment is not necessary and neither is H.R. 7.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment and ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the right to change my mind based on what I hear from my colleague from Virginia.

Mr. Chair, I do have great respect for my colleague from Virginia, and I appreciate the fact that this amendment recognizes the very serious problem with H.R. 7 by applying the expansive government data collection mandate only to business owners with 100 or more employees. However, the forced data collection scheme in the underlying bill, even with this amendment, is still extremely misguided.

H.R. 7 requires business owners to, for the first time ever, submit reams of pay data to the EEOC, broken down by job category, race, sex, and ethnicity. Moreover, the collection must also include hiring, termination, and promotion data, which even the Obama administration's 2016 pay data collection scheme did not include.

This data collection mandate raises several concerns.

First, it puts at risk volumes of highly confidential pay data involving millions of individual workers. We all know the widespread data breaches the Federal Government has suffered.

Second, the EEOC will not be able to manage or properly use this data. It has never been explained what exactly the EEOC will do with this data.

Third, this mandate is overly burdensome. The data cells required from business owners when they file an employer information report, EEO-1, with the EEOC will expand from 180 cells to 3,660. It has been estimated that the new reams of pay data added to the EEO-1 will cost business owners $700 million annually.

Although this amendment would spare some business owners from the mandate, the serious flaws in this data collection mandate make the provision in the underlying bill not worth saving.

If the pay data collection mandate is not worth applying to smaller firms, then perhaps it should be reconsidered entirely. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

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

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time I have remaining, and how much time the gentleman from Virginia has remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I have said it I don't know how many times today. I will say it one more time. Republicans are opposed to pay discrimination. We have always been opposed to pay discrimination. We have always been for the rights of others.

The first Republican President in this country was the leader that ended slavery in this country. Republicans have been for civil rights. We have been for equal pay. We support the rights of all citizens to be treated equally. We have all said that, every Republican who has spoken here.

This bill does not do that. I believe that the gentleman from Virginia's amendment proves that this is a damaging bill, because he wants to spare smaller companies from the very damaging impacts of the pay data collection mandate.

That, in a way, is discriminatory in itself because there is a feeling that it is okay for big businesses to pay the cost of this, but it is not okay for small businesses to pay the cost of this. In a way, this amendment itself damns the bill.

As our colleague from Maryland says, I hope that every business owner in America will note that every Democrat is a cosponsor of this bill. I hope that word gets out loud and clear across the country, particularly among business owners.

I will say that this amendment to spare smaller companies makes the teeniest, tiniest improvement to this bill, and, therefore, I will support it, although I don't believe the bill will go anywhere in the Senate.

It is my hope that, again, that points out the discriminatory nature and the terrible aspects of this bill to all business and industry in the country. It doesn't help the underlying bill in terms of the other businesses and industries.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in America, discriminating in pay based on sex is illegal as codified in the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act.

Democrats claim H.R. 7 will improve upon these bipartisan laws to create new opportunities for women to fight pay discrimination. What H.R. 7 actually does is create new opportunities for trial lawyers to earn higher paychecks. Similarly, while this amendment appears to be marketed as assisting young women, this paternalistic approach undermines young women's abilities and pigeonholes them into stereotypical roles.

This amendment directs the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study on the gender pay gap in the teenage labor force and then to report recommendations to Congress, including recommendations to expand awareness, specifically for teenage girls, on pay grades and employment rights. I am tempted to call this the babysitting amendment because it additionally asks the Department of Labor to spend taxpayer dollars to compare amounts earned by men and women in informal jobs such as babysitting.

This amendment could also be called the in loco parentis amendment, because it is parents who should be teaching their children about the benefits of hard work and education and the importance of a first job, which is often a minimum wage job. We don't need the government coming in and telling children and parents what their children should be doing. These initial jobs help to teach teenagers important skills that will stay with them their entire lives.

American women of all ages are skilled, they are smart, and today they are driving the American economy. Of the 2.8 million jobs created in the last year, more than 58 percent have gone to women. One in five employer businesses is owned by women; and we are seeing more young women than men earning college degrees.

I support equal pay for equal work, which is rightfully required under two Federal statutes. Congress should focus on policies that will continue to increase economic opportunity and expand options for all workers. This amendment and the underlying bill fails in this regard.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I know that my colleague was not on the floor earlier when I spoke and told of my need to work even before I was a teenager, and I worked for survival. So I know that she did not know that and did not know that I do not take lightly the fact that many young people in this country are like I was and working to help support their families so that they have food and they are able to survive.

I do not take lightly anyone's work in this country, not anyone. I worked hard all my life, and I have always wanted to be paid equally with men, and I know there were times I was not. So I understand that. I never want to see anyone discriminated against in this country. I particularly never want to see a woman discriminated against for equal pay when she is doing the job that a man is doing.

I wish with all my heart that we were improving on the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act and helping to make things better for women with H.R. 7. We are not. We are lining the pockets of trial lawyers and in many cases will be harming women. This amendment stereotypes young women because it mentions babysitting. That is where the stereotypes come in, in this amendment, and that is unfortunate.

We do have a younger generation, and we have women who can do any job that any man can do, and she should be paid equally for it. But neither this study nor this bill is going to guarantee that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Pay discrimination on the basis of sex is wrong, and it also, importantly, violates two Federal statutes.

Retaliation by an employer against an employee for pursuing reasonable discussion or inquiry regarding potentially discriminating compensation is wrong, and it, too, is illegal.

However, like the rest of this bill, the expanded nonretaliation provision in H.R. 7 goes too far, and this amendment takes it even further.

Under current law, those who inquire about, discuss, or disclose compensation information in a reasonable manner and with a good faith belief that an unlawful pay disparity may exist are protected from retaliation. However, the underlying provision in H.R. 7 regarding pay disclosures and discussion has no limits at all.

The inquiry, discussion, and disclosure allowed under this bill is not required to be reasonable nor related to any perceived pay disparity and raises serious privacy concerns for all employees, especially in the age of social media.

H.R. 7 takes away an employee's ability to control disclosure of information about their own pay. It also limits an employer's ability to protect what should be confidential information about employees.

Congress should focus on policies that promote opportunity and options for all workers. This amendment does not further this purpose.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to protect workers' privacy rights by opposing this amendment and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I reiterate my opposition to the underlying bill and to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, in its present form, I am.

Madam Speaker, I am here to offer a motion to recommit that is about honesty.

It is about making sure this bill does what my Democrat colleagues say it will do, and that is help victims of wage discrimination on the basis of sex.

It is about making sure that any woman who experiences unfair and illegal wage discrimination just because she is a woman doesn't go through all the hardship of a legal battle only to see her lawyer walk away with even more of her money.

With this motion to recommit, if a plaintiff has entered into a contingency fee arrangement in Equal Pay Act litigation, the attorney's contingency fee, including costs, will not exceed 49 percent of the judgment awarded to the plaintiff.

If adopted, it will ensure that the individual who has brought the claim actually receives a majority of the judgment and that the attorney doesn't collect the lion's share.

The authors of H.R. 7 failed to include in the text any new legal protections for workers against discrimination. Instead, the bill alters the Equal Pay Act to allow unlimited compensatory damages even when there is no intentional discrimination, and unlimited punitive damages. It also expands class action lawsuits.

H.R. 7 makes it impossible in many cases for employers to defend against Equal Pay Act claims even when there is a legitimate business reason for a pay differential.

H.R. 7 creates special incentives and awards for trial lawyers.

For working women who have been taken advantage of by their bosses, it sets them up to lose out again.

H.R. 7 encourages trial lawyers to file more lawsuits of questionable validity and to drive workers into the suits without their knowledge for the purpose of siphoning off the new pool of unlimited compensatory and punitive damages created by H.R. 7, lining their own pockets at the expense of plaintiffs.

A similar amendment capping lawyers' contingency fees at 15 percent was offered by Mr. Byrne when H.R. 7 was considered in committee. Every Democrat on the Education and Labor Committee opposed this modest change.

If this amendment is adopted, trial lawyers will have to somehow make due with 49 percent of the overall judgment, and we all know that trial lawyers siphon off more than this amount in many of their class action cases.

Victims of true pay discrimination should be the true beneficiaries of any judgment in their favor. This amendment will help ensure this outcome in Equal Pay Act cases.

Madam Speaker, supporters of H.R. 7 say the bill is about helping victims of pay discrimination. If that is true, then all Members should support this reasonable proposal.

All we are asking is that if our colleagues are so intent on giving trial lawyers a bigger piece of the pie, then consider giving working women more than a few crumbs.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation seeks to prevent wage discrimination on the basis of sex, but this is already prohibited under current law.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a false promise made by the majority that would not provide the outcomes that we all seek as Americans. This legislation will empower trial lawyers and offers no new protections against pay discrimination.

According to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Federal law currently prohibits all discrimination in pay or other employment practices based upon sex or any other nonjob-performance-related issue.

In 1964, Congress enacted comprehensive antidiscrimination civil rights protection based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex under title 7 of the Civil Rights Act.

Together, these laws protect against sex discrimination and provide a range of remedies for victims. As a result, sex-based wage disparity is in direct violation of not one, but two current Federal laws.

It is important to acknowledge that there are bad actors. A small number of managers may practice pay discrimination, but their actions are illegal, and this opens their businesses to lawsuits and to heavy fines.

I could not agree more that such discrimination has no place in those businesses or in society in general. However, those who perpetuate these illegal acts are the exception and not the rule.

Congress must not ignore the positive trends our Nation has seen in the last 26 months:

Since 2017, the Trump administration has made significant strides in reining in Federal overreach, improving opportunities and results for Americans in the past 2 years;

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act has given all Americans greater opportunity, regardless of sex, leading to an improved economy;

Unemployment is at its lowest level in nearly half a century;

Median wages across all demographic groups are rising faster now than at any time in recent history.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the United States economy added jobs for 100 consecutive months. The current labor market is not only benefiting the low-skilled services, but also high-skilled workers and those with advanced degrees.

In both low-skill and high-skill sectors, there remains a short supply of willing or qualified workers, driving up wages for both. Across the spectrum, all workers are benefiting from the current economy.

Our former colleague Jack Kemp used to describe a situation where ``a rising tide lifts all boats.'' We may very well be in that ``rising tide'' period.

But despite the good news, the majority has crafted legislation that would place a greater burden on employers and reduce the privacy of employees and increase Federal spending.

H.R. 7 does little to protect the wages of American workers. In fact, it makes it harder for employers to defend legitimate differentials in pay.

Currently, employers may pay different wages due to factors other than sex, such as education, training, or experience.

Let's say that again. Under current law, you must pay equal wages for equal work. That means all other things being equal, a woman cannot be paid differently than a man.

When an employee brings different qualifications to the job, such as an advanced degree or more years of experience, the factors used to evaluate employee pay are no longer equal. This preserves the flexibility for employers to make the best decision for their business, including hiring the most qualified employees, regardless of their gender.

H.R. 7 would now require that non-sex reasons for any wage disparity would have what is termed a ``business necessity.'' Now, ``business necessity,'' this is a term that goes undefined in the legislation. Proving a gender-based business necessity that accounts for the entire differential in pay is sometimes a nearly impossible standard to defend.

Employers would no longer be able to hire or pay employees based on qualifications, unless that qualification is being one sex or the other, a standard that is defined in very few jobs. In addition, employers would not be able to consider market or economic factors of their particular business sector that might account for a wage disparity.

This change to what is called a ``bona fide factor defense'' does not take into account the reality of the labor market. Employees are often willing to accept lower pay for greater control over their work location, their schedule, or how they aggregate their leave. Studies have shown this is particularly true for women, but it is also true for men.

With the threat of a lawsuit hanging over the heads of employers, they are less likely to allow for flexibility in the workplace. Instead of allowing employees to negotiate their own pay and their work arrangements, employers will be incentivized to transform jobs that were once negotiable and flexible into jobs where one size must fit all.

H.R. 7 also limits an employer's ability to pay its employees based on performance. If a woman were to earn a performance-based bonus or salary that her male coworker did not receive, that man could file a suit against the employer on the basis that the bonus is not a business necessity, due to the vagueness of the term in H.R. 7.

With this threat in mind, employers may be less likely to use performance-based pay and bonuses, despite studies showing such pay models actually increase employee pay. As approximately 40 percent of employers now use performance-based compensation, this bill and the vague definitions in this bill could potentially lead to a stagnation or a decrease in wages.

Under current law, employers are prohibited from pay discrimination whether it is intentional or not. If such pay discrimination is intentional, employees can sue the employer in a class action suit for up to $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would remove the threshold to this liability and would require that workers be included in class action lawsuits. It would require that they be included in class action lawsuits unless they opt out, but many people may not be aware of that requirement that they must opt out. Otherwise, they are automatically included.

In addition, there are no limits on the fees charged by trial lawyers. There were amendments offered at the Rules Committee hearing to do just that, but they were not accepted as part of this rule.

One of those amendments, in fact, limited the compensation for litigation attorneys to $2,000 per hour. That was the cap placed on attorneys' fees, $2,000 an hour. That is a phenomenal sum of money. It was rejected by the Rules Committee. Apparently, they felt that their litigation attorneys were worth more than $2,000 an hour or are required to earn more than $2,000 an hour in order to put food on the table for their families. It just doesn't make sense. There should be reasonable limitations on those fees.

While legitimate claims do exist, and I hope that all employees who have experienced discrimination seek a legal remedy, the changes in H.R. 7 would significantly increase the size and the profitability of lawsuits, making unnecessary lawsuits even more likely for trial lawyers looking for new cash flows.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would also have a substantial impact on the rights of both employers and employees. The bill would prohibit employers from requesting information regarding an employee's pay history, which is likely an unconstitutional limit on the employer's freedom of speech.

Furthermore, the bill reduces the right to privacy for employers and employees as it removes any recourse should an employee make public the wages of other employees, even without the consent of those employees or their employer.

H.R. 7 also requires employers to provide disaggregated employee information to the Department of Labor without delineating mechanisms to keep that information safe.

We saw just that last week with the Federal Emergency Management Agency data breach. The government is not always the best steward of a citizen's private information, and we should limit the data received by agencies until those capabilities are improved and verified.

Let me be clear: Wage discrimination certainly has no place and is illegal in the United States of America. But I believe this bill places undue and unnecessary restrictions on otherwise lawful business practices and is based upon unsubstantiated findings. Therefore, I cannot support H.R. 7.

The path that Congress must take is not to increase opportunities for trial lawyers but to continue focusing on strong economic policy that expands opportunities for all Americans.

Last year, 2.8 million jobs were added to the United States' economy. Fifty-eight percent of those jobs were taken by women. Nearly 75 million women are participating in the workforce today, more than at any time in our Nation's history. A robust and resilient economy will provide the jobs and wage gains Americans expect and deserve.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

In almost every election cycle in which I have participated since 2002, people on the Democratic side of the aisle have talked about wanting to rebuild the middle class. I will submit to you, over the last 26 months, this administration, this President, has rebuilt the middle class.

Let me just quote to you from an article in The Wall Street Journal from March 1 of this year, a very recent article. ``All sorts of people who have previously had trouble landing a job are now finding work. Racial minorities, those with less education, and people working in the lowest-paying jobs are getting bigger pay raises and, in many cases, experiencing the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for their groups.''

Continuing to quote here: ``They are joining manufacturing workers, women in their prime working years, Americans with disabilities, and those with criminal records, among others, in finding improved job prospects after years of disappointment.''

It is incongruous to me that we would want to roll-back those gains that this administration has made in the last 26 months.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind the Speaker and colleagues in the House that when the President came and delivered his State of the Union message, he was significantly proud of the fact that right now more women are working in the workforce than any time in our country's history.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on my side?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate Congresswoman Maloney, the previous speaker's, comments. She and I served on the Joint Economic Committee together back in 2010. The country just lost a very wise economist, Alan Krueger. I remember Alan Krueger coming in and testifying to our Joint Economic Committee; he testified about--of course, at the time in 2010, the description was that we were in a low-pressure labor market. He contrasted that with the high-pressure labor market of the 1960s. I don't recall if there were specific suggestions how to move from that low-pressure labor market back to a high-pressure labor market, but I don't think there can be any misunderstanding that we are back in a high-pressure labor market. That is a good thing.

I quoted a few minutes ago from an article in The Wall Street Journal. Let me just read a little deeper from that article:

One face of the red-hot job market is Cassandra Eaton, 23,

a high school graduate who was making $8.25 an hour at a

daycare center near Biloxi, Mississippi, just a few months

ago. Now she earns $19.80--that is almost $20 an hour--as an

apprentice at a shipyard in nearby Pascagoula.

The article continues:

``It's amazing that I am getting paid almost $20 an hour to learn how to weld, says Ms. Eaton, the single mother of a young daughter. When she finishes the 2-year apprenticeship, her wage will rise to more than $27 per hour.''

Madam Speaker, such is the strength of a high-pressure labor market, and I include this article from The Wall Street Journal in the Record.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 1, 2019]

Inside the Hottest Job Market in Half a Century

A look at who's getting ahead, who could be left behind and how long

the boom can last

(By Erie Morath and Lauren Weber)

The job market doesn't get much better than this. The U.S.

economy has added jobs for 100 consecutive months.

Unemployment recently touched its lowest level in 49 years.

Workers are so scarce that, in many parts of the country,

low-skill jobs are being handed out to pretty much anyone

willing to take them--and high-skilled workers are in even

shorter supply.

All sorts of people who have previously had trouble landing

a job are now finding work. Racial minorities, those with

less education and people working in the lowest-paying jobs

are getting bigger pay raises and, in many cases,

experiencing the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for

their groups. They are joining manufacturing workers, women

in their prime working years, Americans with disabilities and

those with criminal records, among others, in finding

improved job prospects after years of disappointment.

There are still fault lines. Jobs are still scarce for

people living in rural areas of the country. Regions that

rely on industries like coal mining or textiles are still

struggling. And the tight labor market of the moment may be

masking some fundamental shifts in the way we work that will

hurt the job prospects of many people later on, especially

those who lack advanced degrees and skills.

But for now, at least, many U.S. workers are catching up

after years of slow growth and underwhelming wage gains.

One face of the red-hot job market is Cassandra Eaton, 23,

a high-school graduate who was making $8.25 an hour at a

daycare center near Biloxi, Miss., just a few months ago. Now

she earns $19.80 an hour as an apprentice at a Huntington

Ingalls Industries Inc. shipyard in nearby Pascagoula, where

she is learning to weld warships.

The unemployment rate in Mississippi, where Huntington

employs 11,500 people, has been below 5 percent since

September 2017. Prior to that month, the rate had never been

below 5 percent on records dating back to the mid-1970s. In

other parts of the country, the rate is even lower. In Iowa

and New Hampshire, the December jobless rate was 2.4 percent,

tied for the lowest in the country. That's helped shift power

toward job seekers and caused employers to expand their job

searches and become more willing to train applicants that

don't meet all qualifications.

``It's amazing that I'm getting paid almost $20 an hour to

learn how to weld,'' says Ms. Eaton, the single mother of a

young daughter. When she finishes the two-year

apprenticeship, her wage will rise to more than $27 per hour.

It's no surprise to economists that many people who were

previously left behind are now able to catch up. It's

something policymakers have been working toward for years.

Obama administration economists debated how to sustain an

unemployment below 5 percent. Now Trump administration

officials are considering how to pull those not looking for

jobs back into the labor force.

``If you can hold unemployment at a low level for a long

time there are substantial benefits,'' Janet Yellen, the

former chairwoman of the Federal Reserve, said in an

interview. ``Real wage growth will be faster in a tight labor

market. So disadvantaged workers gain on the employment and

the wage side, and to my mind, that's clearly a good thing.''

This was one of Ms. Yellen's hopes when she was running the

Fed from 2014 to 2018; keep interest rates low and let the

economy run strong enough to keep driving hiring. In the

process, the theory went, disadvantaged workers could be

drawn from the fringes of the economy. With luck, inflation

wouldn't take off in the process. Her successor, Jerome

Powell, has generally followed the strategy, moving

cautiously on rates.

``This is a good time to be patient,'' Mr. Powell told

members of Congress Tuesday.

The plan seems to be paying big dividends now, but will it

yield long-term results for American workers?

Two risks loom. The first is that the low-skill workers who

benefit most from a high-pressure job market are often hit

hardest when the job market turns south. Consider what

happened to high-school dropouts a little more than a decade

ago. Their unemployment rate dropped below 6% in 2006 near

the end of a historic housing boom, then shot up to more than

15% when the economy crumbled. Many construction,

manufacturing and retail jobs disappeared.

The unemployment rate for high-school dropouts fell to 5

percent last year. In the past year, median weekly wages for

the group rose more than 6 percent, outpacing all other

groups. But if the economy turns toward recession, such

improvement could again reverse quickly. ``The periods of

high unemployment are really terrible,'' Ms. Yellen said.

The second risk is that this opportune moment in a long

business cycle might be masking long-running trends that

still disadvantage many workers. A long line of academic

research shows that automation and competition from overseas

threaten the work of manufacturing workers and others in mid-

skill jobs, such as clerical work, that can be replaced by

machines or low-cost workers elsewhere.

The number of receptionists in America, at 1.015 million in

2017, was 86,000 less than a decade earlier, according to the

Labor Department. Their annual wage, at $29,640, was down 5

percent when adjusted for inflation.

Tougher trade deals being pushed by the Trump

Administration might help to claw some manufacturing jobs

back, but economists note that automation has many of the

same effects on jobs in manufacturing and the service section

as globalization, replacing tasks that tend to be repeated

over and over again.

Andrew McAfee, co-director of the MIT Initiative on the

Digital Economy, said the next recession could be the moment

when businesses deploy artificial intelligence, machine

learning and other emerging technologies in new ways that

further threaten mid-skill work.

``Recessions are a prime opportunity for companies to

reexamine what they're doing, trim headcount and search for

ways to automate,'' he said. ``The pressure to do that is

less when a long, long expansion is going on.''

With these forces in play, many economists predict a

barbell job market will take hold, playing to the favor of

low- and high-skill workers and still disadvantaging many in

the middle.

The U.S. is adding jobs in low-skilled services sectors.

Four of the six occupations the Labor Department expects to

add the most jobs through 2026 require, at most, a high-

school diploma. Personal-care aide, a job that pays about $11

an hour to help the elderly and disabled, is projected to add

778,000 jobs in the decade ended in 2026, the most of 819

occupations tracked. The department expects the economy to

add more than half a million food-prep workers and more than

a quarter million janitors.

Those low-skill workers are reaping pay gains in part

because there aren't a lot of people eager to fill low-skill

jobs anymore. Only about 6 percent of U.S. workers don't hold

a high school diploma, down from above 40 percent in the

1960s, according research by MIT economist David Autor.

James O. Wilson dropped out of high school in the 10th

grade and started selling drugs, which eventually led to a

lengthy incarceration. When Mr. Wilson, 59, was released in

2013 he sought out training at Goodwill, where he learned to

drive a forklift. Those skills led him to a part-time job at

a FedEx Corp. facility at an Indianapolis airport. He was

promoted to a full-time job in 2017 and is now earning more

than $16 an hour. He has a house with his wife and enjoys

taking care of his cars, including a prized Cadillac.

``I wanted to show FedEx you can take a person, and he can

change,'' he said. ``I want FedEx to say, `Do you have any

more people like him?` ''

Skilled workers in high-tech and managerial positions are

also benefiting from the high-pressure labor market,

particularly in thriving cities. Of 166 sectors that employ

at least 100,000 Americans, software publishing pays the

highest average wages, $59.81 an hour in the fourth quarter

of 2018. Wages in the field grew 5.5 percent from a year

earlier, well outpacing 3.3 percent overall growth in hourly

pay. The average full-time employee in the sector already

earns more than $100,000 a year.

Other technical industries, scientific research and

computer systems design, were also among the five best paying

fields. Some of the hottest labor markets in the U.S.--

including Austin, Texas; San Jose, Calif.; and Seattle--have

more than twice the concentration of technical jobs as the

country on average.

A Wall Street Journal analysis of Moody's Analytics data

found Austin to be the hottest labor market in the country

among large metros. It ranked second in job growth, third for

share of adults working and had the sixth-lowest unemployment

rate last year, among 53 regions with a population of more

than a million. San Jose, the second-hottest labor market,

had the lowest average unemployment rate last year and the

second-best wage growth.

While a strong economy is conveying benefits to a broad

swath of Americans, those in rural areas aren't experiencing

the same lift from the rising tide.

In metro areas with fewer than 100,000 people and in rural

America, the average unemployment last year was half a

percentage point higher compared to metro areas with more

than a million people, according to an analysis by job search

site Indeed.com.

``Finding work can be challenging for rural job-seekers

because rural workers and employers both have fewer

options,'' said Indeed economist Jed Kolko. ``Many rural

areas have slow-growing or shrinking populations.''

Bradley Cox lives in Vevay, Ind., a rural community of

fewer than 2,000 people. The 23-year-old graduated with a

bachelor's degree in business administration and liberal arts

from Indiana University East in December, but said he had

found opportunities limited in his region.

After years working in hourly positions at a casino, he

took a job last summer as a cashier at a CVS Health Corp.

drug store, making about $12 an hour. He hoped to work at a

bank, or perhaps in a traveling sales role, making use of his

business degree. ``But to be honest, for me to do that, I

would have to move to one of the cities or commute to one of

the cities, at least,'' he says. ``I don't have the

opportunity around where I live.''

Other workers are employed--but need to string together two

or more jobs to make ends meet.

Michelle Blandy, 48, had a full-time digital marketing job

in Phoenix but hasn't been able to find steady work since

moving to Harrisburg, Pa., to be closer to her family.

Instead she's pieced together some freelance projects,

occasionally drives for Lyft and sells refurbished jewelry

boxes on Etsy. ``I have applied for full-time jobs, I just

didn't have any luck,'' she said. ``Harrisburg is tiny

compared to Phoenix. There's not as many tech companies or

big companies here that are hiring.''

The good news is this long run of low unemployment could

last for a while. Economic theory holds that when

unemployment is very low, it stirs inflation, which causes

the Federal Reserve to raise short-term interest rates and

short-circuit growth and hiring. That kind of cycle ended the

1960s period of low unemployment, but inflation in this

period remains below the Fed's target of 2 percent.

That has allowed the Fed to keep rates low. By January

1970, when the unemployment rate was 3.9 percent, the Fed had

raised its target short-term interest rate to more than 8

percent to fight inflation. By contrast, when the jobless

rate fell below 4 percent last year, the Fed kept its target

rate below 2.5 percent thanks to low inflation.

``It may turn out that lower unemployment proves to be more

sustainable than it was in the 1960s,'' says Ms. Yellen. ``I

think we don't know yet.''

Again, I would point out that since the inauguration of Donald Trump, our labor market has, in fact, experienced a resurgence that a rising tide is indeed lifting all boats. It is incumbent upon us not to damage the economy that has brought the benefit to so many people--so many of those forgotten Americans--who were denied that benefit before, those very Americans to whom President Trump committed at the time of his inauguration in January 2017.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) to explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona.

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

Madam Speaker, while this resolution attempts to increase protections against wage discrimination based on sex, it does not significantly improve what already exists in current law.

I agree with my Democratic friends that there should be no tolerance for wage discrimination based on sex or for any other factor protected under the Equal Pay or Civil Rights Act, but this bill is not the way to do so.

So, Madam Speaker, as we conclude, I urge a ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 252 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 252, providing for consideration of two bills: H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act; and H. Res. 124, expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor. It self-executes a manager's amendment. It also makes in order nine amendments.

The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 124 under a closed rule, and it provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Madam Speaker, 56 years ago, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act. He referred to this law as a ``structure basic to democracy''--equal pay for equal work, in essence, equality. But the sad reality is that, over 56 years later, women are still paid less than their male counterparts for the same work. I know, because it happened to me.

One of my first jobs was in a male-dominated industry selling steel. It didn't matter if I performed as well, if not better, than my male colleagues; I was still paid less. I had to leave that job, which I loved, because I wasn't getting my fair share. It was a shame then, and it is a shame now.

In the sixties, women made 60 cents on the dollar. Now the average woman makes 80 cents compared to her male counterpart--80 cents. For women of color, the gender wage gap is even more severe:

For every dollar made by her non-Hispanic White male counterpart, an African American woman makes 61 cents, a Native American woman makes 58 cents, and women who look like me, Latinas, make 53 cents on the dollar for similar work. That is less than the average woman made in the 1960s.

Do I not work just as hard as my male counterparts?

Do I deserve to make 53 cents on the dollar?

Do I not have to support my household as much as a man?

Latinas lose, on the average, $28,386 every year. That amounts to more than $1 million over her career.

What would an extra $1 million mean for the working woman or for her children? That she never has to chose between paying for childcare or buying groceries or not worrying about how to send her kids to college. Maybe she could even fulfill the American Dream of purchasing a home.

Some people brush this off by arguing that women choose different or easier jobs than men, like being a teacher or a nurse. To those people, I ask: Who sets those salaries? When was the last time you were underpaid to teach 40 children in a classroom setting?

Nursing assistants each suffer roughly three times--three times--the rate of back and other injuries as construction workers. Are you going to tell me that the nurse who spends 12 hours on her feet taking care of those most in need doesn't deserve higher pay, or the 911 dispatcher who is working the graveyard shift, fielding call after call after call, coordinating an effective emergency response so that they themselves can save lives or the first responders can save lives?

Don't tell me women's work is easier. We need equality--in practice, not just in law.

H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act will make equal pay a reality. It addresses the many complicated facets of sex-based discrimination.

Even when it is crystal clear, it is incredibly difficult to win a lawsuit to prove that employers are discriminating on the basis of sex. The Paycheck Fairness Act requires employers to demonstrate that wage disparity is based on a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience.

In workplaces where women are empowered to know how much they are making compared to their male colleagues, the gender gap shrinks by 7 percent; however, some workplaces penalize employees for discussing their salaries. The Paycheck Fairness Act would prevent retaliation against employees for wage transparency.

Sex discrimination causes women to make 6.6 percent less than equally qualified male counterparts on their first job. Over time, as raises and bonuses are decided based on a women's prior salary history, this gap is made even worse. The Paycheck Fairness Act prevents employers from asking for a salary history.

Another factor that contributes to gender pay disparity is that women are less likely to negotiate for a higher salary. Studies show that men are expected to negotiate, but when women ask for more money, they are penalized and still paid less. The Paycheck Fairness Act creates a grant program to fund negotiation and skills training.

Currently, employees must opt in to class action lawsuits brought under the Equal Pay Act, running contrary to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This makes it more difficult for women to use the courts to correct equal pay disparities. The Paycheck Fairness Act allows them to opt out, removing barriers to participate in class action lawsuits and, therefore, addressing systematic gender-based inequality.

I have offered two amendments to the Paycheck Fairness Act bill to highlight the serious effects of the gender pay gap on women of color.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a step in the right direction. Women who look like me should not make 53 cents on the dollar for the same work as our White male colleagues, and even less than the average woman made 60 years ago. It is wrong, and it is unjust. That is why it is crucial we pass H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Now, I would like to turn your attention to H. Res. 124, expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly gay transgender individuals.

For me, this issue hits close to home. I am a proud mother of an Air Force veteran.

It wasn't a decision they made lightly. It was one made with great personal sacrifice, and the U.S. Government made a promise to them that they would be safe to be themselves.

Imagine how their mothers and fathers must feel knowing that our Nation has broken a promise to their children. This doesn't make us safer.

We should welcome every qualified person who is willing to stand up to deploy and enlist in our Armed Forces to serve alongside people like my son.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inform my colleague from Texas that the women in Texas make $0.72 to their male counterparts. I think Texas women deserve to have equal pay.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Trahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Florida an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, having more women enter the workforce does not mean that women are earning equal pay for equal work.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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

The smart and innovative women of Arizona's Eighth Congressional District deserve to have a voice in this debate, and I am going to give it to them.

They earn 80 cents to every dollar that their male counterpart earns. They deserve to have fair wages for the equal work that they are performing.

Before I begin my closing statement, I would like to take a moment to honor a valuable member of my staff: Justin Vogt.

Justin has been my legislative director for 2 years. During that time, he has been a phenomenal member of my team, designing innovative legislative initiatives, providing wise counsel, and serving as a generous mentor to my junior staff.

Now he will move on to be an excellent staff director for the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We are sad to see our waffle maker, Justin, leave our office, but we are so proud of all that he has accomplished.

Madam Speaker, 60 years from now, I hope that we have moved forward as a Nation. I hope that our daughters and granddaughters grow up in an America that recognizes their value through the quality of their work and not their gender. Imagine that.

The Paycheck Fairness Act gets us closer to securing a future for them.

A recent McKinsey study found that, if women's full potential in the labor market was reached, $4.3 trillion would be added to the labor market in 2025. Our economy would benefit from that woman power.

There has been enough talk about lawyer fees. Women attorneys deserve equal pay for equal work, too. This argument is nothing more than an attempt to avoid talking about the pervasiveness of wage discrimination in this country.

The policies in the Paycheck Fairness Act work. Just look at California. In 2017, Californian women made a median of 89 cents to every dollar made by their male counterparts.

In just a few years, we decreased gender pay disparity by more than any other State.

I have heard it said that addressing wage equity is bad for moms. What is bad about getting fair pay? Equal pay for equal work.

Mothers make 71 cents for every dollar earned by fathers in similar jobs. If we paid women fairly, maybe they would get a chance to spend more time with their kids.

If my colleagues care about moms spending time with their kids, let's pass National Paid Family Leave Act standards. Let's create better working conditions for pregnant women. Let's fund programs for affordable childcare.

This is just the beginning. The cost for American women, their families, and our economy is much too high to wait any longer.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her decades of leadership fighting for working women.

In 1963, the Equal Pay Act codified the right to ``equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.'' In fact, the Equal Pay Act was enacted 1 year prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that, for the first time, provided for the enforcement of antidiscrimination laws. Over the past 55 years, the Equal Pay Act, in combination with title VII of the Civil Rights Act, has produced substantial progress toward addressing inequities for women in the workplace.

Yet, loopholes and insufficient enforcement have allowed gender-based wage discrimination to persist. Today, women earn, on average, 80 cents on the dollar compared to White men in similar jobs. The wage gap is even worse for women of color. It exists in every sector, regardless of education, experience, occupation, industry, or job title.

Drawn out over a lifetime, the persistent wage gap could cost a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million. For many, this is the difference between financial stability and poverty. In fact, we know that achieving pay equity would actually cut the poverty rate for working women more than 50 percent.

That is why we are considering this historic legislation today. After decades of failing to address persistent wage inequity, the Paycheck Fairness Act is our opportunity to strengthen the Equal Pay Act, bolster the rights of working women, lift families out of poverty, and, finally, align our remedies for gender discrimination with other established antidiscrimination laws by eliminating caps on damages when employers act with malice or reckless indifference, consistent with the laws governing discrimination based on race or national origin, treating attorney fees consistent with title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and restricting an employer's inquiry and reliance on a prospective employee's previous salary. This is consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and similar restrictions regarding an applicant's marital or pregnancy status.

As chair of the House Committee on Education and Labor, I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a vote for final passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act and making equal pay for equal work a reality for working women across this country.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the sponsor of the bill.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

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

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Minnesota an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Chair, I would like to inquire how much time I have left.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I just want to make a couple of closing comments.

We have heard speaker after speaker complain that, if this bill passes, lawyers will get paid. Most lawyers, in fact, only get paid when they have a winning case; so if they want lawyers to stop getting paid, they could do this if we would stop discriminating.

The only way to enforce the laws against discrimination is to hire a lawyer and go to court, and that is when lawyers get paid. Stop the discrimination; stop the lawyers from getting paid.

There is also a suggestion that we ought to limit the amount of money that can be paid to lawyers. The fact is that no group supporting women support that limitation because the limitation sometimes can be so low that you can't hire a lawyer. It is only supported by groups supporting those representing people accused of discrimination.

It is also one-sided. There is no proposal to limit the amount of money that the guilty can pay their lawyers.

A comment was made about unlimited damages. The damages, in fact, in this bill are the same as you can get under race and religious discrimination, and the purpose of the bill is to conform the process for gender discrimination to the process for other forms of discrimination like race and religion.

The EEOC data, as my colleague from Virginia pointed out, is available, and if you do not report this data, you could have gross disparities. You could pay all the men one thing and all the women less, and until that is reported, nobody might notice.

Madam Chair, there are pay gaps. Discrimination still exists, and this legislation is one step in closing that pay gap. We need to pass the legislation.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers in support of this legislation.

International Federation of Professional & Technical

Engineers, AFL-CIO & CLC,

Washington, DC, March 26, 2019.

Dear Representative, On behalf of the 90,000 members

represented by the International Federation of Professional

and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), we are writing in support of

H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. Sponsored by Congresswoman

Rosa DeLauro, this legislation will amend the Fair Labor

Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to

victims of gender-based discrimination in the payment of

wages. With a floor vote scheduled this week, IFPTE urges you

to vote for H.R. 7.

Today, women earn 80 cents to every one dollar earned by

their male counterparts. It is even worse for African-

American women, who earn only 61 cents on the dollar compared

to white non-Hispanic men, while Hispanic and Latina women

earn only 53 cents

on the dollar compared to white non-Hispanic men. While these

glaring differences should be unacceptable in any day and

age, the impact is even greater today with poverty rates

among women recently reaching their highest peak in nearly

two decades.

The problem of unequal pay for equal work spans every

sector and all educational levels. According to a 2017

Department of Professional Employees (DPE, AFL-CIO) fact

sheet, Professional Women: A Gendered Look at Inequality in

the U.S. Workforce, women with a bachelor's degree or higher

earned $1,230 in median weekly wages in 2015, while men with

a comparable education earned $1,420. The DPE fact sheet also

looked at wage disparities per occupational category and

found that, without exception, women's wages lag far behind

men. Despite comprising 55 percent of workers in professional

and related occupations, women in those professions earn 28

percent less than men.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is aimed at closing the pay

discrimination gap by strengthening the Equal Pay Act of

1963. This legislation will:

Clarify acceptable reasons for differences in pay to ensure

that a wage gap is legitimate and truly a result of factors

other than gender;

Allow for reasonable comparisons between employees to

determine fair wages;

Prohibit employer retaliation against workers who inquire

about employee wages in general, or disclose their own wage;

Provide women with the option to proceed in an opt-out

class action lawsuit and allow women to receive punitive and

compensatory damages for pay discrimination;

Increase training for Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) staff to better identify and handle wage

disputes;

Require EEOC to develop regulations directing employers to

collect wage data;

Require the Department of Labor to reinstate activities

that promote equal pay (i.e. educational programs, technical

assistance to employers, promoting research about pay

disparities between men and women); and,

Establish salary negotiation skills training for women and

girls.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a long overdue bill to help

close the pay gap suffered by women workers. IFPTE urges you

to support H.R. 7.

Sincerely,

Paul Shearon,

President.

Matthew Biggs,

Secretary-Treasurer/Legislative Director.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of my point of order.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I believe all my colleagues can agree that women deserve equal pay for equal work. However, the bill considered today takes the wrong approach to ensure that current equal protections, protections that have been in place since 1963, are reaffirmed and fortified.

This bill offers no new protections for women in the workforce. Instead, it makes it more difficult for employers and employees to have an open and informative discussion about hiring and other employment decisions.

Perhaps worst of all, it is designed in a way that helps increase the bottom line for lawyers. That is right. The only paychecks that this legislation will increase are paychecks for lawyers.

It is unfair to women; it is unfair to the workforce; and it is unfair to businesses.

It may come as a surprise to many people that the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act offers no new protections against pay discrimination.

Let me repeat that. The legislation being debated today offers no new protections against pay discrimination. Instead, it imposes a one-size- fits-all mandate to one of the most varied and complex workforces in the world.

Rather than allowing for informal discussions, the Paycheck Fairness Act strictly limits communications between employers and employees on key hiring decisions. Under this bill, the burden is laid on the backs of employers, and the lack of clarity for employees is simply unworkable.

I don't see how limiting the discussion between employers and employees, particularly on hiring decisions, is going to help anybody; and I certainly don't see how opening the gates to limitless, frivolous lawsuits is going to help anybody.

It should be noted, the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act that the Speaker just alluded to was signed 10 years ago with the promise that it would alleviate pay discrimination in the workplace. Yet, if you look at pay discrimination charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, they have remained steady each year since 1997, both before and after the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act became law. I am hearing that same kind of overpromising when it comes to H.R. 7.

In an effort to improve the bill and ensure the damages actually go to the women impacted instead of lawyers, I offered an amendment that would cap

attorney's fees for any judgment to 20 percent of the judgment. Sadly, this commonsense amendment was blocked by the Rules Committee.

Why don't my colleagues want to join me in ensuring that money actually gets to victims of pay discrimination instead of simply padding the wallets of lawyers?

It is a real shame this amendment was not made in order. I think we can all agree that the idea of discrimination against someone based on sex is absolutely unacceptable, and it is inconsistent with the values we hold as Americans.

This issue is not partisan. In 1944, Republican Congresswoman Winifred Stanley introduced a precursor to the Equal Pay Act, which, since passing years later, has been the law of the land for the past 55 years.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 specifically made it illegal to pay different wages to employees of the opposite sex for equal work. In addition, title 7 of the Civil Rights Act made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex.

Yet, as I said before, despite these protections on the books, there are bad actors who continue to practice pay discrimination. Based on laws existing for decades, it is unacceptable, and we must hold these bad actors accountable.

Unfortunately, the Paycheck Fairness Act, as written, fails to improve employment protections.

We have a responsibility to the American people to craft strong policies that support women in the workplace, not merely offer weak lip service that, in fact, cripples employers and employees alike.

I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this phony bill, and, instead, let's work together in a bipartisan way to actually ensure women continue to thrive in the workforce.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, this amendment adds the language ``a bona fide business- related reason'' to make clear to the courts that the factor other than sex defense in the Equal Pay Act cannot be used as a loophole or excuse for using sex as a factor.

This amendment additionally strikes the remaining provisions of the underlying bill relating to applications of the factor other than sex defense.

These unnecessary provisions require that, even when an employer already shows the factor is other than sex, it must meet additional illogical and insurmountable burdens, effectively paving an unimpeded path to the promise of unlimited punitive and compensatory damages for trial lawyers.

In sum, this amendment strengthens current law and eliminates the new and untested concepts the underlying bill imposes on employers. It would make it impossible for an employer to defend any difference in pay, even when based on any number of legitimate job-related factors.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I was listening to the gentlewoman talk and I don't know that she has read my amendment, because my amendment actually solves the problem that she poses. There are some circuits that have given opinions just exactly as she said. What my amendment does is substitute for those decisions the bona fide business-related reason, which has been decided by a number of circuits. It is very clear. There is nothing amorphous about it. Practitioners in this area, like myself, understand exactly what it means. It actually solves the problem posed by the gentlewoman and makes it a lot better than what is in the underlying bill.

The problem with the underlying bill is that it injects amorphous new things that we don't have any idea what they would mean. What my amendment does is it actually makes it clear and solves the very problem that she stated in her presentation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentlewoman had to say. I was listening very carefully to her. I think she does have it confused, however, because it does inject an additional burden for employers that is not in the law right now and it does provide a ton of unclarity with regard to what they are going to have to do to comply with it. And I think my use of the bona fide business-related reason is going to inject the clarity we need and actually protect plaintiffs more than what is in the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentlewoman. I don't think she understands what that language actually means, how it has actually been interpreted by the courts, and how it may be totally misinterpreted against plaintiffs in these types of lawsuits.

What my amendment does is actually strengthen the hand of parties that have a clear understanding of what they are trying to accomplish there, either the plaintiffs or the defendants. It is an improvement in the bill for plaintiffs and defendants. We should all be for this, not against it. I don't want to go tit for tat with her on everything, but I do think she misunderstands both the amendment and the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, I heard what she read into the Record. I already read that. I understand exactly what it says. I think maybe I haven't made myself clear:

The underlying bill injects clarity into the law, which hurts plaintiffs in their cases. This will hurt women in bringing their cases. It will take years to try to get clarity through the court system, if we ever get clarity. That hurts plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

Defendants like to throw up unclarity. So I guess, perhaps, if you wanted to argue from that point of view, let's have a confusing bill. I am going to get clarity into the bill that actually helps women. And it is the irony of this whole proceeding that the bill that is supposed to help women, that they say is going to help women, hurts them. I am trying to help women with my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this language is consistent with how nearly all circuit courts of appeal have interpreted this factor.

``Bona fide business-related reason'' is not an empty phrase. For example, in one case where the employer alleged that the difference in pay was based on the higher paid person's participation in a bona fide skills development program, the court carefully examined the program to determine whether it was legitimate and, in fact, found that it was not.

This amendment helps women. If you want to help women in the workforce, this amendment does it. Their bill doesn't.

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