Small Business Credit Protection Act

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 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.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him also for his extraordinary leadership in matters that relate to the education of the American people, employment preparedness, fairness in our workforce, and, of course, today.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for giving us this opportunity on this day of the House of Representatives. This is a day that God has made. Let us rejoice and be glad. And let us make the most of it in a very joyous way. It is a day of celebration.

Madam Chair, the gentleman, Bobby Scott, has been a supporter of this initiative for a long time, and I thank him for making today possible.

And it happens on a day when we are honored to have, in the Speaker's chair, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, a champion to end discrimination in every way in our country, including discrimination in the paycheck.

Madam Chair, today I rise in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. It reaffirms our Nation's sacred promise that equal pay deserves equal work.

I do so in saluting Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, Madam Chair, the guardian angel of this legislation and the godmother of so many initiatives in this House to support progress for America's working families.

The ability to balance work, to balance work and home is a challenge that many families face, men and women alike, but Rosa DeLauro has been a constant champion for America's working families.

While we are talking today about equality in the paycheck, she has also been a champion for paid sick leave and affordable childcare. The list goes on and on. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman--guardian angel, godmother--for making today possible.

I am very excited about this. It is historic. It should happen at a time when we have over 100 women serving in the House of Representatives, and it should happen in the same Congress that we will also observe the 100th anniversary of the passing of the amendment to have women have the right to vote.

It is all very historic. It is all about progress, and that progress on this bill began in this Congress 2 months ago. House Democrats stood with Lilly Ledbetter on the 10th anniversary of President Obama signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act, exactly 10 years ago, signing that Fair Pay bill into law.

It was a magnificent achievement, it, too, being led by George Miller, the chair of the committee Mr. Scott now chairs. Rosa DeLauro, of course, played a hand in that.

The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) then introduced the equal pay bill, and then we passed it in the House. It didn't pass the Senate--60 votes needed in the Senate--but she has persisted, and we are fortunate for that.

We are grateful to her and to Lilly Ledbetter and the groups, so many outside groups that have worked so hard to mobilize and make this difference--some of them include the American Association of University Women, the National Women's Law Center, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Organization for Women, National Committee for Pay Equity, MomsRising, UltraViolet, Center for Law and Social Policy, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, NAACP, League of Women Voters, U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, the list goes on and on, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Psychological Association, and many more--because that outside mobilization will be important in passing this legislation and turning it into law, into an improvement in the lives of America's working families.

Now we are proud to pass this bill before Equal Pay Day, which is on April 2, next week--April Pay Day, which symbolizes when a woman's wages catch up to a man's earnings from the previous year. In other words, the first 3 months of the year, most women are working for free compared to what a man will make in the overall year.

So April 2 is that day. By then, we will have already been celebrating for a few days.

We pass this legislation during Women's History Month as we serve with a woman Speaker of the House and with more than 100 women in the same Congress, as I said before, marking 100 years since women won the right to vote.

So this is about respect. It is about respect, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, respect for women and the work that they do. And if they do equal work, why wouldn't they get equal pay?

Would you, my colleague, like to get less than your colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle?

Would you, any of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, like to work for less than our male counterparts?

Well, why should women and the rest of the workforce then be subjected to that discrimination?

Paycheck fairness is about respect. It is about justice for women, finally closing the wage gap that robs women of more than $400,000 over the course of their working lives. And for women of color, it is even a bigger difference.

And this not only has an impact on their pay, it has an impact on their pensions and on their retirement. So this is very, very important.

This legislation advances progress for families because it is about equal pay for women. It is about how that equality of paycheck affects their families, ensuring that women can earn the wages they have earned so they can pay for their family's everyday needs, such as rent, groceries, childcare, healthcare--the list goes on.

Two-thirds of moms are either the primary breadwinners or co- breadwinners in their households in our country. This legislation strengthens America, unleashing the full power of women in our economy and upholding the value of fairness.

Do you believe in fairness in our democracy?

When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 1963, he celebrated equal pay as a ``structure basic to democracy''--equal pay, a structure basic to democracy--enlarging the issue to our great democracy.

We are proud to take this step to fully and finally secure the paycheck fairness that is fundamental to our democracy because it will implement the Equal Pay Act, make it enforceable.

Yet, securing paycheck fairness is only the first step that House Democrats will take. We will continue to unlock the full economic power of women in our workplace with paid sick leave, led by Congresswoman DeLauro, affordable childcare, led by Congresswoman DeLauro, as well as a fair wage because we know that, in our economy and in our country, when women succeed, America succeeds.

I, therefore, urge a bipartisan vote for this legislation for women to succeed and to have equality in our society as they have equality in their paychecks.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Byrne amendment.

Madam Chair, don't be mistaken. This amendment is a clear attempt to undermine the fundamental objectives of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which are to engender pay disparity by, in part, further clarifying congressional intent so that courts can no longer dismiss meritorious claims.

The Paycheck Fairness Act fixes current employment discrimination and pay discrimination laws, laws that have proven insufficient, given that women still earn 80 cents on the dollar compared to similarly situated White men. And, of course, the disparity for women of color is even greater.

Under the current Equal Pay Act, an employer is not liable for gender pay disparity if the disparity is due to merit, seniority, quality of production or ``a factor other than sex.'' Some courts have interpreted the ``factor other than sex'' criteria so broadly that it frustrates the codified intent of the Equal Pay Act.

For instance, some courts have found that the ``factor other than sex'' need not be business related or even related to the particular job in question. Some courts have interpreted the ``factor other than sex'' defense to include ``market forces,'' or worse, accepted the argument that pay disparity can be explained by an employer's ``random decision.''

Those interpretations are nothing more than a lifesaver for pretextual discrimination. This amendment does the same thing.

My Republican colleagues' suggestion that the Paycheck Fairness Act eliminates the ``factor other than sex'' defense is contradicted by the text of this bill. An employer may still raise a ``factor other than sex'' defense provided that the ``factor other than sex'' be bona fide, job related, and required by business necessity.

This amendment's attempt to strike section (3)(a)(3), which explains what constitutes a bona fide factor, is an attempt to create ambiguity so that courts continue to interpret the act's protection in a narrow way.

This bill provides necessary clarity that this bona fide factor defense is only available when there is a real business necessity. This bill ensures that there is a connection between the pay disparity and the specific job in question. This amendment is contrary to the congressional intent of the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill clarifies that the ``factor other than sex'' is only available on a bona fide job-related and business necessary reason.

It clarifies that this defense is not available where the employee demonstrates that a reasonable alternative employment practice would serve the same business purpose without producing a pay disparity and that the employer refused to adopt such an alternative practice.

Carefully consider those words. This is a burden-shifting provision that would simply allow an employee to show a reasonable alternative. It adds nothing to an employer's existing burden. It only allows an employee to rebut that defense with evidence.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, given that we are having a discussion here over who understands the text of the bill, to read it directly into the Record.

``The bona fide factor defense, described in subparagraph (A)(iv) shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor (i) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii) is job related with respect to the position in question; (iii) is consistent with business necessity; and, (iv) accounts for the entire differential in compensation at issue.''

It is very clearly set forth in the text.

Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, continue to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Byrne amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is my colleague from Alabama who is confused about the wording of this text. His amendment would specifically eliminate the wording that I just read into the Record.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates clarity. It simply replaces it with the words ``bona fide,'' with no additional definition or guidance, thereby ensuring that this defense will continue to be misunderstood, misused, and incorrectly applied by the courts.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I am opposed to all caps on attorney's fees in this type of case.

The only criteria for the amount of attorney's fees charged should be reasonableness in the context of the case itself.

I have spent more than 30 years in courtrooms, most of that time representing the defense in civil matters, almost always for companies; in other words, against the very trial lawyers we speak of.

So I have no bias in favor of those lawyers, but let me tell you this: representing plaintiffs in employment cases is a very hard job. These lawyers work for every penny they earn. They take cases that put their own livelihood at risk.

Many employment cases take years to resolve. Often they have to go to court over and over to litigate discovery and pretrial matters, and all the while, they are not collecting a paycheck from that case, because they have taken it on a contingent fee basis.

Without an award at the end of the case, they receive nothing, and they advance out-of-pocket expenses.

But even more important, without these lawyers, low-income female employees with legitimate grievances would have no recourse. Only with a competent lawyer's help can they proceed.

This motion, if passed, would discourage lawyers from taking these cases. And if they don't take these cases, employees, workers, families lose out.

The only test for attorney's fees should be reasonableness. Courts and judges are well equipped to determine whether a fee is reasonable, far better equipped than Congress is.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).

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