H.Res. 303

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7, the Democrats' conveniently titled, but painfully misguided, Paycheck Fairness Act, which should be called the paychecks for trial lawyers act.

We all agree on the fundamental principle of this bill: women should not be paid less than men for the same work.

That is not up for debate; and, for me, it has never been up for debate; and, for our country, it hasn't been since 1963, when the Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act, making equal pay the law of the land.

Moreover, in 1964, title VII of the Civil Rights Act codified nondiscrimination rules for employment, making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex.

The question before us today is whether the Democrats' Paycheck Fairness Act provides any additional protections to women in the workplace. The answer is a resounding no.

The United States has some of the most varied and complex workplaces in the world. Before the onslaught of COVID-19, women were earning merited paychecks in record numbers. According to a Harvard University analysis and numerous other studies, the difference in earning between men and women comes down to choices made regarding careers and parenting. Many working women take advantage of flexible work schedules to meet their diverse needs. A survey by Pew found 70 percent of working mothers say that a flexible schedule is extremely important.

Democrats aren't giving the full story when they talk about pay differences. Women are making career choices that are best for themselves and their families. Limiting their freedom to do so is wrong. Congress has no place in telling women their career choices are wrong, yet Democrats are hellbent on telling all Americans how to live their lives, how to spend their money, and now how to make career decisions.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is not a win for women in the slightest. It is a false promise that creates opportunities and advantages only for trial lawyers looking for easy payouts while causing irreparable harm to employers. By making it much easier to bring lawsuits of questionable validity against employers, trial lawyers will be able to force employers into settlements or try for unlimited paydays from jury awards, lining their own pockets and dragging women through tedious, never-ending legal proceedings.

In the United States, we believe in innocence until proven guilty, but this bill assumes otherwise. Under current law, business owners can defend themselves from a claim of pay discrimination by proving that a pay differential is based on legitimate, business-related factors other than sex.

H.R. 7 would radically alter this law, requiring a business owner to convince a judge or jury that the pay differential was required by ``business necessity.'' This is a nearly impossible burden of proof to meet that will lead to unfair judgments against business owners because the plain meaning of the term ``business necessity'' is that the pay differential must be absolutely essential to the business.

H.R. 7 would also result in a flood of litigation in front of judges and juries, who will delve into employer compensation decisions even when the employer can demonstrate that those decisions are based on legitimate, business-related reasons having nothing to do with the sex of the employee.

Fearing Big Government and liability risks that could leave them bankrupt, many business owners will likely implement rigid pay bands--a model used by government and unionized businesses. This means workers will not be compensated on the basis of merit.

This is the opposite of the American Dream. As one columnist wrote: ``equality of opportunity--not outcomes--is the American ideal.''

On top of the legal jeopardy this bill creates for employers, H.R. 7 also mandates that business owners submit mountains of worker pay data to the Federal Government. This will pose significant threats to the confidentiality and privacy of workers' pay data, create a data stash that would be impossible to protect or interpret, and cost business owners more than $600 million annually.

This bill purports to champion equality for women, yet it disregards the 40 percent of small businesses owned by women that will be forced to implement pay policies found in government-run workplaces and be stuck paying through the nose in compliance costs if this bill passes.

Even worse, H.R. 7 will severely limit workplace flexibility for women. Many working women take advantage of flexible work schedules to meet their diverse needs, yet this harmful legislation completely ignores this reality and threatens to take away the choices and freedom necessary for them to retain employment.

We know employees prefer workable and flexible schedules, and now is not the time to limit these options for women who have been hit particularly hard by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Should my Democrat colleagues wish to discuss additional policies which will foster the advancement of women in the workplace, we can consider legislation that safely reopens our schools and businesses, provides the flexibility and support to expand work-based learning programs and create viable pathways that enable more individuals to reskill and build fulfilling careers on their own terms, and promotes career and technical education, to name a few.

Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues would rather impose radical

and unworkable policy under the guise of progress than find bipartisan solutions which foster environments where individuals are empowered to succeed and make the decisions that are best for them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

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

Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 7 claim that despite current prohibitions against pay discrimination, female workers are still paid, on average, considerably less than male workers and, as a result, a pernicious wage gap exists. However, many studies demonstrate that the gap is not necessarily the product of workplace discrimination.

In fact, this gap nearly disappears when factors such as hours worked per week, rate of leaving the workforce, and industry and occupation are considered.

A 2020 study by compensation software company PayScale found that when controlling for job title, years of experience, industry, location, and other compensable factors, women earned 98 percent as much as men.

A 2009 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor found a gender wage gap of between 4.8 and 7.1 percent when controlling for economic variables between men and women.

A 2018 Harvard study found that the gap in pay between female and male bus and train operators working for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, MBTA, can be explained by the workplace choices that women and men make rather than other factors, such as discrimination. The study found that the earnings gap for MBTA bus and train operators is explained by the fact that the male operators took 48 percent fewer unpaid hours off and worked 83 percent more overtime hours per year than the female operators.

I want to point out that I am giving you facts here, Mr. Speaker, facts.

These differences are not due to any different work options faced by female and male operators. Rather, the study found that the female operators had a greater demand for workplace flexibility and a lower demand for overtime work hours than the male operators.

Pay discrimination is wrong and already illegal. We probably cannot say that enough. Any new legislation to combat pay discrimination should be based on facts, not supposition, not projection. The facts seem to be sorely missing from this debate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7 requires that the employer defense must be consistent with ``business necessity,'' a broad and ill-defined term.

We don't know how the courts will interpret this sweeping requirement, but we do know the dictionary says it means ``absolutely essential'' or ``indispensable.''

How can an employer prove that any one factor determining employee pay could rise to the level to be necessary for the survival of the business?

Proponents of H.R. 7 will argue this phrase has been adopted from title VII, as amended by the 1991 Civil Rights Act, but the phrase has spawned endless litigation because of its lack of clarity. Anyone who thinks this concept is simple and can just be carried over from title VII is either naive or has been misled.

Further, the dubious concept of business necessity was developed under controversial so-called disparate impact analysis and cannot simply be slapped onto the Equal Pay Act, especially where, as mandated by H.R. 7, damages are unlimited. In contrast, under title VII, in disparate impact cases, damages are limited to backpay and benefits.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Another provision in H.R. 7 requires that, in addition to proving business necessity, an employer must prove the business necessity accounts for 100 percent of the differential in compensation at issue. This is impossible to do. How can an employer explain slight differences in compensation based on educational level, experience, or quality of work on the job?

This bill is going to make it impossible for employers to pay differentially on merit for anything. It is a bad bill, and we should not be passing it.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7 would create impossible conditions in which to operate for businessowners large and small. It would result in endless litigation in front of judges and juries, who will delve into employer compensation decisions even when there has been a showing that those decisions are not based on sex.

Alternatively, businessowners will simply decide not to risk liability of unlimited damages, which could bankrupt them, and the end result will be the use of pay bands by employers, which imposes a government civil service model on the private sector that will result in everyone in the workplace being compensated equally without regard to merit.

This is a very broad goal of liberals in general: Pay everybody the same and stifle innovation, stifle initiative, stifle anybody being different.

This is the wrong thing for our country. That is not the way the United States of America operates. We value innovation, we value entrepreneurism, we value independent thinking. We don't want to crush everybody into thinking the same way. That is the way civil service works. That is the way the unions work. That is not the way it should be in private industry, which has made this country great.

This bill stalls upward mobility. It hurts all employees striving to succeed on the job, who want to be rewarded for their efforts.

For these reasons and others, H.R. 7's provisions are unworkable and will benefit only trial lawyers, not innovative, hardworking workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

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

I thank the majority leader for his compliments of me. When Howard Coble first introduced me to the Republican Conference here he said, I was ``a feisty mountain woman from the Blue Ridge, who goes bear hunting with a switch.'' And so I have cherished that description of me over the years. I am a feisty woman because I grew up extraordinarily poor.

And the majority leader is correct, I would not tolerate discrimination against me. I won't tolerate discrimination against anyone. I abhor discrimination. I am also an Italian American. I abhor that kind of discrimination and have fought against that. I fought against racial discrimination. I doubt there are many people in this body that fought more against discrimination against women than I have or mentored more women than I have.

However, the majority leader also said something that made me think of the phrase, ``all things being equal.'' Well, rarely are all things equal. Obviously, when all things are equal, we want no discrimination, everybody to be treated the same. That is what I want.

I have one child, a daughter. I have two grandchildren, a grandson and a granddaughter. I certainly don't want either one of them discriminated against on the basis of anything.

But, I say to Mr. Hoyer, yes, 82 cents has been disputed. We hear the same old tired ``statistics.'' They are not accurate. So let's stop doing that. Let's deal with the facts.

H.R. 7 is not the answer to discrimination. It is going to make it more difficult for employers to create jobs and to pay women and everybody equally. We need alternatives and we have one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have never said everything is perfectly okay. I said this bill is not the answer to what issues may still exist out there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), and applaud her for how she has handled herself in the past few months through all the turmoil and all of the challenges she has had.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Women, in terms of employment and pay, have made great strides in this country. When I was graduating from high school, basically there were three open professions for women: nursing, teaching, and being a secretary. We have come a long way. We have also come a long way in terms of wages.

Do we have ways to go in this country in terms of the way everybody thinks about people who are different from them? We certainly do. Republicans and Democrats both agree that pay discrimination is repugnant and illegal. I will say it again and again. It is repugnant and illegal.

Despite misguided claims from the other side, this underlying principle is not up for debate. Women should not be paid less than men for equal work.

However, Republicans are not in the business of passing radical and prescriptive bills just to get flashy headlines and score cheap political points.

We are equally committed to promoting both fairness and strong policymaking, and when judged by these standards, today's bill falls woefully short. Pay discrimination is illegal.

You know, we have really heard nothing about the inadequacies of the current law or the current processes. What we have heard is that we need new legislation. Republicans disagree with that. Again, we want pay discrimination to be illegal and we want any such cases to be treated seriously and to be looked at. This bill offers no new protection against pay discrimination in the workplace, however. And that is sorely lacking in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7 is nothing more than a trial lawyer payout at the expense of hardworking women. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the en bloc amendments.

Madam Speaker, 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 while offering no new protections for pay discrimination in the workplace.

Unfortunately, I cannot support any of the Democrat amendments to H.R. 7 because none of them addresses the numerous unworkable and onerous provisions in the bill.

I appreciate that Representative Beyer's amendment recognizes the very serious problems with H.R. 7 by attempting to place a fig leaf on the expansive government data collection mandate in the bill. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, is still required to implement the draconian data collection scheme in the underlying bill, which is still extremely misguided, expensive, and unnecessary.

H.R. 7 requires business owners to submit reams of pay data to the EEOC disaggregated by job category, race, sex, and ethnicity. Moreover, the collection mandate also includes other employment-related data, including hiring, termination, and promotion data, which even the discredited 2016 Obama administration pay data collection scheme did not include.

The data collection mandate in H.R. 7 raises several concerns.

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

Second, 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. Madam Speaker, data is not the same as information.

Third, this mandate is overly burdensome. Under the Obama administration scheme, the data cells required from business owners when they file an Employer Information Report, EEO-1, with EEOC expanded 180 cells to 3,660. Let me say that again: from 180 cells to 3,660. H.R. 7's scheme will add on hundreds, if not thousands, of more data cells.

EEOC has estimated that with the new reams of pay data added, the collection will cost business owners more than $600 million annually. I doubt that is going to help one single woman in this country.

Although this amendment purports to give EEOC more discretion to implement the pay data collection, this data collection mandate should simply be removed from the bill.

In any event, discretion cuts both ways, and the Democrat-controlled EEOC may choose to implement a data collection scheme even more expansive.

Let me be clear that the Beyer amendment does not improve the draconian pay data collection mandate in

the underlying bill or the other serious flaws in other sections of H.R. 7 we have talked about today.

Representative Newman's amendment takes a longstanding reasonable requirement and makes it disruptive and unworkable.

First, the amendment requires a workplace notice posting of a partisan special-interest bill which fails to address pay discrimination in the workplace.

Second, under current law, covered employers must post a notice of the equal employment opportunity rights in a conspicuous place at the workplace. Employees who telecommute or otherwise do not have access to the physical notice must be provided an electronic version. Under Representative Newman's amendment, the employer must post electronic copies of a new notice on an internal website to which employees have access. This is unrealistic. H.R. 7 applies to millions of small businesses that do not have websites, much less internal websites for their employees.

In keep with the other impractical provisions in H.R. 7, the amendment adds another onerous requirement on small businesses that will be stuck with the bill.

Representative Ocasio-Cortez' amendment would create a new program for the Department of Labor to--I hate to say this word--``train'' employers regarding bias in negotiation and other wage-setting practices. The amendment includes a non-exhaustive list of 13 wage- setting practices on which employers allegedly need education. Employers may understandably review this list as 13 new ways for trial lawyers to allege violations of the Equal Pay Act.

I will compliment one aspect of Representative Ocasio-Cortez' amendment. It mentions compensation self-audits. Republicans agree that self-audits can be a useful tool in combating pay discrimination, and we urge support for the Republican substitute amendment which encourages employers to conduct self-evaluations to identify potentially unlawful pay differences and to take steps to rectify any unlawful pay practices. Unfortunately, H.R. 7 does not encourage these self-evaluations.

Representative Williams' amendment reestablishes the Obama-era National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force. This amendment would establish another politically biased government bureaucracy that includes agencies such as the EEOC and the Department of Labor already tasked with enforcing laws against pay discrimination and ensuring compliance with those laws.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I support equal pay for equal work. I don't know how many times Republicans have to say that, but we will keep saying it if necessary because equal pay for equal work is the right thing to do, but it is also required under two Federal statutes, and in most cases it is being adhered to.

Congress should focus on policies that will continue to increase economic opportunity and expand options for all workers. That is what we should be doing in the Education and Labor Committee: looking for ways to increase economic opportunity and expand options for all workers.

We shouldn't be doing away with pipeline jobs, we shouldn't be raising taxes, and we shouldn't be decreasing options for people to work in this country; but that is what this administration is doing, and that is what the other side is doing.

The Democrat amendments and the underlying bill fail miserably in terms of increasing options and expanding economic opportunity. It is pushing people into the bands, making everybody the same and treating everybody as though they have no individuality, they shouldn't be innovative, they shouldn't be creative, and they shouldn't strive for more. That is not the way to go.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Democrat en bloc amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, which was also introduced earlier this week by Representative Stefanik as a standalone bill, H.R. 2491, the Wage Equity Act of 2021.

Unlike the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, which will unfairly punish businessowners and reward trial lawyers at the expense of workers, this amendment will effectively address pay discrimination in the workplace and help working women by ensuring pay differences among workers of the opposite sex are due to legitimate business-related reasons.

Among other commonsense provisions, this amendment will direct funds and research towards women's advancement in the workplace and will also authorize a grant program to educate women in college careers and technical programs on negotiating pay.

This amendment will also allow job applicants to disclose prior salary history voluntarily, ensuring they control this information as they see fit.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 303 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, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 303, providing for consideration of H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. It self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Scott and makes in order six amendments to H.R. 7. It also provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor and makes in order six amendments to H.R. 1195. It also provides for one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides for an en bloc authority to Chairman Scott or his designee for both bills.

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I just wanted to take a moment--this is the first time I have been on the floor since we lost Congressman Hastings--to say for myself, personally, how much gratitude I have for having known him and been able to serve with him. I regret that I won't see his smiling face, at least in this body, again.

Madam Speaker, the two bills we are talking about today have the potential to drastically improve the working lives of millions of Americans.

In 2019, nearly 1 in 9 women in the United States lived in poverty, with even higher rates for women of color. More than 1 in 3 families, headed by unmarried mothers, lived in poverty. And 60 percent of all poor children lived in families headed by unmarried mothers.

The coronavirus pandemic has only deepened the divides that already existed in this country. Women are especially likely to be on the front lines of the pandemic. At the same time, they are also being paid less than their male counterparts.

Madam Speaker, 93 percent of childcare workers, 66 percent of grocery store cashiers, 70 percent of food servers, and 77 percent of clothing, shoe stores, and retail salespeople are women. Women-- disproportionately Black women and Latinas--make up more than 8 in 10 of those working as home health aides, personal care aides, and nursing assistants. They are also at great risk for contracting COVID-19.

Madam Speaker, 6 months ago, deep into the pandemic, 1 in 6 Latinas and 1 in 5 Black women reported not having enough food in the previous week, and many reported being behind on rent or mortgage payments. Even before the pandemic, women typically lost more than $10,000 every year to the gender wage gap, with even higher losses for women of color.

More than five decades after the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, a woman in America still makes only 82 cents on average for every dollar earned by her male counterpart. Compared to White men, Black women are paid 63 cents. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander women are paid 63 cents, American Indian or Alaska Native women are paid 60 cents and Hispanic women are paid 55 cents.

Based on today's wage gap, a woman who works full time year-round stands to lose over $400,000 over a 40-year career because of this disparity. This is not the United States that Frances Perkins, the first woman Secretary, envisioned, and we have an opportunity today to make a real change.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to have joined with my very dear friend, Chairwoman DeLauro, to introduce the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is an important step towards ending gender-based wage discrimination and ensuring that all women receive equal pay for equal work. It is time to make equal pay for equal work more than just a slogan and turn it into a reality.

Madam Speaker, we are also here to talk about the epidemic of violence against healthcare and social service workers. Last year, Department of Labor statistics show that they were nearly five times as likely to suffer a serious workplace violence injury than workers in other industries.

The General Accounting Office found that rates of violence against healthcare workers in hospitals, nursing homes, and residential care facilities is 5 to 12 times higher than the estimated rates for workers overall. Between 2011 and 2016, 58 hospital workers died as a result of workplace violence.

Madam Speaker, for me, this matter strikes close to home. In 2010, Napa State Hospital technician Donna K. Gross was killed outside of Napa State Hospital by a patient under psychiatric care. Donna was a constituent. She entered the profession to honor her mother, who battled mental illness and was a patient at this very same hospital. She was the mother of three grown children and was raising her granddaughter. Her colleagues described her by saying: ``First and foremost, Donna was a human service-type person and loved being with people and working with people.''

Donna's life was cut short when a patient brutally murdered her to steal jewelry and cash. This story is just one of thousands, and incidents are on the rise. Sadly, violence has become so commonplace for healthcare workers that they think it is part of their job, resulting in only 30 percent of violent incidents actually being reported.

Some States have stepped up to enact laws to require employers to establish a plan to protect against workplace violence. Donna's story, for example, inspired action in California that I was proud to be part of. That action in California served as the basis for the bill before us tomorrow.

These workers deserve national action, and they deserve it now. At the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, these workers are not receiving the urgent attention they need.

OSHA takes at least 7 years to put out a standard. But in some instances, it can take more than 20 years. People like Donna Kay Gross cannot wait any longer.

To protect the people who dedicate their lives to caring for us, we need to move now. In truth, we needed to move years ago. The longer we wait, the more people are suffering. The longer we wait, the more people like Donna will die.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee and representative of the beautiful city of Worcester, Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, so I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record a March 25 New York Times article entitled `` In 25 Years, the Pay Gap Has Shrunk by Just 8 Cents.''

[From the New York Times, Mar. 25, 2021]

In 25 Years, the Pay Gap Has Shrunk by Just 8 Cents

(By Francesca Donner and Emma Goldberg

Megan Rapinoe is a two-time World Cup champion who has

played to sold-out stadiums around the globe; what she has in

common with nearly every American woman is that she's

underpaid.

On Wednesday, Ms. Rapinoe testified during a hearing held

by Representative Carolyn B. Maloney to examine economic harm

caused by gender inequalities, particularly for women of

color.

Today is All Women's Equal Pay Day, Ms. Maloney said. But

it's not Equal Pay Day for all women.

Black women would have to work until Aug. 3, 2021, to earn

what men made in 2020. For Latina women, the date doesn't

come until Oct. 21.

``This is a disgrace,'' Ms. Maloney said. ``And it has

long-term consequences for women and families.''

Wage discrimination isn't limited to any one sector or

income level.

Take Ms. Rapinoe, whose fight for equal pay has become

something of a calling card for the U.S. women's team, and

who played a central role in the team's lawsuit on unequal

pay filed in 2019.

``One cannot simply outperform inequality,'' she said. ``Or

be excellent enough to escape discrimination.''

If it can happen to me, she said, ``it can--and it does--

happen to every person marginalized by gender.''

In Her Words looked at the history of Equal Pay Day, the

reasons for the wage gap and what can be done to close it.

It's a symbolic day that illustrates how far into the

current year American women would need to work to earn what

their male counterparts earned last year. Put another way,

because there is a disparity in what women and men are paid,

women would need to work around 448 days to earn what men

earn in just 365 days.

Race plays a part, too: For Black and Hispanic women, the

numbers are worse. For Asian women, the numbers skew a bit

better.

Estimates vary on how much the wage gap will cost an

American woman over the course of her career. The National

Women's Law Center puts it at $406,280 in lost income on

average, but that number can top $1 million for Hispanic

women and is just shy of $1 million for Black and Native

American women.

How did it become a thing?

Equal Pay Day was established in 1996 by the National

Committee on Pay Equity. Today marks the 25th. But debates

around pay equity date back much further than that.

Carolyn York, secretary-treasurer of the National Committee

on Pay Equity, pointed out in an email that in 1942, as huge

numbers of women began replacing men in the work force, the

National War Labor Board urged employers to make

``adjustments which equalize wage or salary rates paid to

females with the rates paid to males for comparable quality

and quantity of work on the same or similar operations.'' But

two decades on, in the 1960s, women were still earning only

around 59 cents for every dollar a man made.

Do other countries have a gender wage gap?

Of course they do. According to this O.E.C.D. study, the

United States falls behind Canada and ahead of Mexico. In

addition to Canada, other countries that have a smaller pay

gap than the United States are Romania, Colombia, Belgium,

Costa Rica, Denmark, Norway . . . the list goes on. And on.

Has the pay gap narrowed over time?

Yes, but not by much. We're talking pennies. This year,

it's estimated that American women will earn around 82 cents

for every dollar that a man earns. A decade ago in 2011, it

was 77 cents. In 1996, the first ``official'' Equal Pay Day,

it was around 74 cents. And this top-line number doesn't

account for differences in earnings among different racial

groups.

How is the wage gap number calculated?

The pay gap refers to the ratio of female to male median

annual earnings for full-time workers. Think of it as a

fraction: The numerator is the difference between male and

female median earnings, and the denominator is male median

earnings. The actual number might look different depending on

the source it's coming from, because some sources factor in

characteristics like age, family size, education level and

industry.

``We treat this issue as if you could summarize it in one

number,'' said Claudia Goldin, an economics professor at

Harvard University. ``It's the headline,'' not really the

full picture.

Are there jobs where women are better paid than men?

Not according to C. Nicole Mason, president of the

Institute for Women's Policy Research. When men enter female-

dominated sectors like nursing or education, the job begins

paying more, she explained. But the inverse is not true:

``When women enter male-dominated spaces, they don't get paid

more than men.''

How long will it take to close the pay gap if we do nothing

about it?

Mark your calendars for 2059; if current trends continue,

the gender wage gap is expected to close in a mere 38 years.

For Black and Hispanic women, the deadline is a whole century

away. If we do nothing, ``my daughter, and daughter's

daughter, will not see pay equity in their lives,'' Dr. Mason

said.

So what exactly explains the gap?

There are many factors at play, according to the American

Association of University Women. One of them is that the

fields in which women dominate tend to pay less than fields

dominated by men. This is irrespective of education or skill

required.

The ``motherhood penalty'' also complicates the wage gap.

Moms are less likely

to be hired, they receive lower salaries when they are, and

are less likely to be tapped on the shoulder for promotion.

(Ironic given research suggests moms are some of the most

productive employees.)

And women work around two-thirds of the low-paying jobs in

the United States; jobs that not only put workers at an

economic disadvantage, but also tend to be more unstable.

There is also ``invisible labor''--things like caregiving

responsibilities and household chores--that women do in

addition to their full-time work. ``Women perform up to 30

percent more unpaid labor,'' Dr. Mason said. Not to put too

fine a point upon it, but ``unpaid labor is unpaid.'' And

it's very hard--if not impossible--to do both your job and

take care of the household at the same time.

There's also good old-fashioned sexism at play: Even when

men and women are performing the exact same jobs, women tend

to receive less compensation thanks to overt or unconscious

biases, as well as stereotypes that make it more difficult

for women to negotiate.

The pay gap is caused by a ``layering effect'' of all of

these things, said Kimberly Churches, the CEO of the American

Association of University Women. Ultimately, ``this really is

how we value women and how we value women of color in our

society,'' she said.

Did Covid make it worse?

In a year of devastating job loss, especially for women--

hence the talk of a ``she-cession''--the Institute for

Women's Policy Research released a piece of research that

seemed, on its face, like good news. In 2020, it found the

weekly gender wage gap for full-time workers shrunk to 17.7

percent from 18.5 percent. Seems positive, right? Not so

fast.

As Ms. Goldin of Harvard explained, if the female labor

force is reduced, but most of those reductions are from the

bottom part of distribution (restaurant servers and retail

workers, for instance), then women's wages relative to men's

will rise.

This manifests as an overall rise in women's wages. And

that's what happened here.

But underneath the top-line number, Dr. Mason pointed out,

many, many lower-paid female workers are struggling.

What should companies do about it?

Closing the wage gap demands an investment of time and

resources.

First, companies can audit workers' pay and collect data to

determine the levels of disparity between their male and

female workers, said Serena Fong, a vice president at

Catalyst. Salesforce, for example, committed to reviewing all

its workers' salaries in 2015, and over the following years

spent more than $9 million on adjustments to give women equal

pay.

Salary bands, which give the range of pay for a given role,

can also help level the playing field between male and female

workers in salary negotiations. (Though broadly speaking, a

wide salary band can provide ``too much range to pay people

unequally,'' Dr. Mason said.)

And governments?

The Equal Pay Act, passed nearly 60 years ago, made it

illegal to discriminate by sex in setting wages. But in

practice, it can be hard for women to know whether they're

actually being paid equally. It's not common to ask your

colleagues what they make while you're chatting by the water

cooler.

In the last decade, more than a dozen states and the

District of Columbia have adopted legislation prohibiting pay

secrecy in the workplace. Still, a 2017-18 survey found that

nearly half of fulltime workers were discouraged or

prohibited from talking about their pay, meaning more

legislation and enforcement is needed.

Ms. Churches also supports passing the Paycheck Fairness

Act at a federal level, ``so we can ban the use of salary

history questions in the hiring process.'' Such questions

``just compound women's lack of earnings going forward as

they negotiate their salaries.''

And individuals?

Ask your colleagues how much they make, as awkward as that

may sound.

Negotiation is also key. Research shows that women who

consistently negotiate their salaries make more than $1

million more over the course of their lifetimes, compared

with those who don't. But of course, Covid hasn't helped: A

new survey from Ann Elizabeth Konkel of Indeed suggests women

feel even more uncomfortable asking for a raise or promotion

than they did prepandemic.

Mr. Speaker, on the anniversary of Women's Equal Pay Day, U.S. women's soccer player Megan Rapinoe, in a congressional hearing said: ``One cannot simply outperform inequality.''

Wage discrimination isn't limited to any one sector or income level, and Congress must act to stop it.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of this issue is really about the proper enforcement of a bill that was first enacted in 1963. We generally agree on the importance of that legislation.

Where we disagree is enforcement. And we have had years to see what the proper disincentives are and incentives for proper behavior when it comes to protecting women in the workforce, and on the second bill-- predominantly women--but people who work in vulnerable positions where they are subject to greater violence.

On pay equity, we look at States like California where I am from, and we can see that our laws, our aggressive laws have worked, at least to help with the pay equity situation. Who can deny, in our lifetimes, the benefit to the U.S. economy, to all of us, for having women in the workforce? We should be able to compensate that benefit that we have all gotten.

As a survivor of cancer, I have been taken by how many young women went into the medical profession, and they helped to develop the medicine that has saved my life, a disease that, 15 years ago, at stage IV, when I was diagnosed, there was little that could be done to extend people's lives. That research came from brilliant people, many of them women. Why would I want to inhibit or disincentivize any young person, any woman, any young woman from going into that field?

I know that my friend from Texas knows this, we want the best and the brightest to help with our medical challenges, irrespective of what their background is or what their sex is.

Mr. Speaker, every day we wait to pass these bills, healthcare workers are being harmed and families are going deeper and deeper into poverty. Our inequality issues get worse, not better. We should not waste another moment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation that I have introduced in every Congress since 1997.

Since then, we have pushed and battled to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963. We launched, side by side, into the fray to elevate pay discrimination, to emphasize how central its impact is to working families.

I cannot tell you how difficult it has been to break through on something so simple; so simple. Men and women in the same job deserve the same pay. It is a principle that we adhere to in this Congress, and I don't believe anyone would challenge it. The same is true of the U.S. military.

Last month, we recognized Equal Pay Day on March 24, which is the day into the current year that women must work to meet the wages earned by men in the previous year.

The National Committee on Pay Equity tells us, at its lowest point in 1973, full-time, working women earned a median of 56.6 cents to every dollar that full-time working men earned. Today, women who work full- time, year-round are paid, on average, only 82 cents for every dollar paid to men.

The gap exists in every State, regardless of geography, occupation, education, or work patterns. And it is worse for women of color. Latinas are typically paid 55 cents; Native American women 60 cents; Black women 63 cents; Asian American and Pacific Islander women are paid as little as 52 cents.

This wage disparity costs the average American woman and her family an estimated $400,000 to $2 million, impacting Social Security benefits and pensions.

Today, the issue and the environment have collided. This pandemic has brought out the depth of our problem, exposed existing inequalities, and threatened women's economic security at a disproportionate rate. Women have lost more than five million jobs; and as we seek to rebuild our economy, let us remember that the pay gap hurts not only women, but also the families who depend on them.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation, which has the support of every member of the Democratic Caucus, as well as three Republicans. It would toughen the remedies in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to give America's working women the opportunity to fight wage discrimination and receive the paycheck they have rightfully earned.

It would require employers to prove that pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons; ban retaliation against workers who discuss their wages; it facilitates a wronged worker's participation in a class action suit; and it prohibits employers from seeking the salary history of prospective employees.

And by now, we are all familiar with the case of Lilly Ledbetter. Her bosses said: ``Their plant did not need women; that women did not help, and, in fact, they caused problems.''

Well, a jury found that, yes, Lilly Ledbetter had been discriminated against, and awarded her $3.8 million in back pay and damages, which the Supreme Court eliminated. She received nothing, as it closed the courtroom door to all women.

We, the Congress, reopened that door with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It reversed the Supreme Court's decision. It was a court access case, but it

did not address the underlying issue of pay discrimination.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, in his State of the Union address, said: ``Legislation to apply the principle of equal pay for equal work without discrimination because of sex is a matter of simple justice. I earnestly urge the Congress to move swiftly to implement these needed labor measures.''

When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law nearly 58 years ago, he said: ``It is a first step. It affirms our determination that when women enter the labor force, they will find equality in their pay envelopes.''

The Paycheck Fairness Act is the next step. It simply brings the Equal Pay Act into line with the remedies already available for those who are subject to other forms of employment discrimination. That is it, pure and simple.

We have passed paycheck fairness through this House in 2008, 2009, 2019. But, now, in the 117th Congress in which we welcomed the most women in our history, we must get it into law. We have the opportunity to make good on that promise that Presidents of both parties have made. We need to seize that moment.

It is time for us to say that the work that women do in our society today is valued and respected, and the contribution that we make, if it is good enough for the women in the House of Representatives, then it is good enough for women all over the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act by a broad coalition of organizations that promote economic opportunity for women.

February 3, 2021.

Co-Sponsor and Support Swift Passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act

Dear Member of Congress: As members of a broad coalition of

organizations that promote economic opportunity for women and

vigorous enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, we strongly

urge you to co-sponsor and push for swift passage of the

Paycheck Fairness Act as a top priority of the 117th

Congress. Despite federal and state equal pay laws, gender

pay gaps persist, and earnings lost to these gaps are

exacerbating the financial effects of COVID-19, falling

particularly heavily on women of color and the families who

depend on their income. This legislation offers a much needed

update to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by providing new tools to

battle pervasive pay gaps and to challenge discrimination.

The COVID-19 pandemic and systemic racism have exposed how

the work performed primarily by women, and particularly Black

and brown women, has long been and continues to be

undervalued and underpaid, even as the rest of the country is

newly recognizing the essential nature of this work. Black

women, Latinas, and other women of color are especially

likely to be on the front lines of the crisis, risking their

lives in jobs in health care, child care, and grocery stores;

they are also being paid less than their male counterparts.

At the same time, women in this country lost more than 5

million jobs in 2020; indeed, women accounted for 100% of the

jobs lost in December 2020. The unemployment rate for Black

women and Latinas remains exceptionally high. These high

jobless numbers threaten to exacerbate gender wage gaps when

women regain employment. We cannot build back an economy that

works for everyone without ensuring that all women can work

with equality, safety, and dignity, starting with pay equity.

There is no more fitting way to begin this session than by

making real, concrete progress in ensuring all women receive

fair pay. The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens

the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to ensure that it provides robust

protection against sex-based pay discrimination. Among other

provisions, this comprehensive bill bars retaliation against

workers who voluntarily discuss or disclose their wages. It

closes loopholes that have allowed employers to pay women

less than men for the same work without any important

business justification related to the job. It ensures women

can receive the same robust remedies for sex-based pay

discrimination that are currently available to those

subjected to discrimination based on race and ethnicity. It

prohibits employers from relying on salary history in

determining future pay, so that pay discrimination does not

follow women from job to job. And it also provides much

needed training and technical assistance, as well as data

collection and research.

Women are increasingly the primary or co-breadwinner in

their families and cannot afford to be shortchanged any

longer. Women working full-time, year-round are typically

paid only 82 cents for every dollar paid to men. But for

every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic male

counterparts, Black women only make 63 cents, Native women

only 60 cents, and Latinas only 55 cents. While Asian

American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women make 87 cents for

every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, women in many

AAPI communities experience drastically wider pay gaps.

Furthermore, moms are paid less than dads. And even when

controlling for factors, such as education and experience,

the pay gaps persist and start early in women's careers and

contribute to a wealth gap that follows them throughout their

lifetimes. These pay gaps can be addressed only if workers

have the legal tools necessary to challenge discrimination

and employers are provided with effective incentives and

technical assistance to comply with the law.

We recently commemorated the twelfth anniversary of the

enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. That vital law

rectified the Supreme Court's harmful decision in Ledbetter

v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. The law helps to ensure

that individuals subjected to unlawful compensation

discrimination are able to have their day in court and

effectively assert their rights under federal

antidiscrimination laws. But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay

Act, critical as it is, is only one step on the path to

ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work. It's time to

take the next step toward achieving equal pay. We urge you to

prioritize the Paycheck Fairness Act in the 117th Congress by

co-sponsoring and urging swift passage of this legislation,

taking up the cause of Lilly Ledbetter and all those who have

fought for equal pay.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to

contact Kate Nielson, Director of Public Policy & Legal

Advocacy at the American Association of University Women or

Emily Martin, Vice President for Education & Workplace

Justice at the National Women's Law Center.

Sincerely,

9to5; A Better Balance; AFCPE (Association for Financial

Counseling & Planning Education); All-Options; American

Association of University Women (AAUW): AAUW of Alabama, AAUW

of Alaska (AAUW Fairbanks (AK) Branch), AAUW of Arizona, AAUW

of Arkansas, AAUW of California, AAUW of Colorado, AAUW of

Connecticut, AAUW of Delaware, AAUW of District of Columbia

(AAUW Washington (DC) Branch, AAUW Capitol Hill (DC) Branch),

AAUW of Florida, AAUW of Georgia, AAUW of Hawaii, AAUW of

Idaho, AAUW of Illinois, AAUW of Indiana, AAUW of Iowa, AAUW

of Kansas, AAUW of Kentucky, AAUW of Louisiana, AAUW of

Maine, AAUW of Maryland, AAUW of Massachusetts, AAUW of

Michigan, AAUW of Minnesota, AAUW of Mississippi, AAUW of

Missouri, AAUW of Montana, AAUW of Nebraska, AAUW of Nevada,

AAUW of New Hampshire, AAUW of New Jersey, AAUW of New

Mexico, AAUW of New York, AAUW of North Carolina, AAUW of

North Dakota, AAUW of Ohio, AAUW of Oklahoma, AAUW of Oregon,

AAUW of Pennsylvania, AAUW of Puerto Rico, AAUW of Rhode

Island, AAUW of South Carolina, AAUW of South Dakota, AAUW

of Tennessee, AAUW of Texas, AAUW of Utah, AAUW of

Vermont, AAUW of Virginia, AAUW of Washington, AAUW of

West Virginia, AAUW of Wisconsin, AAUW of Wyoming.

American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Unions

(AFL-CIO); American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees; American Federation of Teachers; AnitaB.org;

Association of Flight Attendants-CWA; Bend the Arc Jewish

Action; California Women's Law Center; Catalyst; Center for

American Progress; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP);

Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research;

Clearinghouse on Women's Issues; Coalition of Labor Union

Women: Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union Women; Community

Health Councils; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the

Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; Connecticut Women's Education

and Legal Fund (CWEALF); Disciples Center for Public Witness.

Equal Pay Today; Equal Rights Advocates; Every Texan;

Family Forward Oregon; Family Values@ Work; Feminist Majority

Foundation; Futures Without Violence; Gender Justice; Holy

Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIC; In Our Own Voice:

National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda; Indiana

Institute for Working Families; Institute for Women's Policy

Research; Justice for Migrant Women; KWH Law Center for

Social Justice and Change; Labor Council for Latin American

Advancement; Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights;

League of Women Voters of the United States; Legal Aid at

Work; Legal Momentum, The Women's Legal Defense and Education

Fund; Legal Voice; MANA, A National Latina Organization;

Methodist Federation for Social Action; Mi Familila Vota.

Michigan League for Public Policy; MomsRising; NAACP;

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd;

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF);

National Association of Social Workers; National Center for

Law and Economic Justice; National Committee on Pay Equity;

National Council of Jewish Women; National Domestic Violence

Hotline; National Education Association; National Employment

Law Project: National Employment Lawyers Association National

Employment Lawyers Association--Eastern Pennsylvania,

National Employment Lawyers Association--Georgia; National

Network to End Domestic Violence; National Organization for

Women: Florida NOW, Illinois NOW, Indiana NOW, Jacksonville

NOW, Kanawha Valley NOW, Maryland NOW, Monroe County NOW,

Montana NOW, Northwest Indiana NOW, South Jersey NOW-Alice

Paul chapter.

National Partnership for Women & Families; National WIC

Association; National

Women's Law Center; National Women's Political Caucus; Native

Women Lead; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; New

Jersey Citizen Action; NewsGuild-CWA; New York Women's

Foundation; North Carolina Justice Center; People For the

American Way; PowHer New York; Prosperity Now; Reinventure

Capital; Restaurant Opportunities Centers (ROC) United;

Service Employees International Union; Shriver Center on

Poverty Law; TIME'S UP Now; U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce;

Union for Reform Judaism; United State of Women; WNY Women's

Foundation; Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest

Pennsylvania; Women Employed; Women of Reform Judaism;

Women's Fund of Rhode Island; Women's Fund of the Greater

Cincinnati Foundation.

Women's Law Project; Women's Media Center; Women's Rights

and Empowerment Network; YWCA USA: YWCA Allentown, YWCA

Arizona Metropolitan Phoenix, YWCA Billings, YWCA Butler,

YWCA Central Alabama, YWCA Central Indiana, YWCA Central

Maine, YWCA Central Virginia, YWCA Dayton, YWCA Duluth, YWCA

Elgin, YWCA Genesee County, YWCA Greater Austin, YWCA Greater

Baton Rouge, YWCA Greater Cincinnati, YWCA Greater Cleveland,

YWCA Greater Portland, YWCA Greenwich, YWCA Hartford Region,

YWCA Kalamazoo, YWCA Kauai, YWCA Kitsap County, YWCA

Knoxville and the Tennessee Valley, YWCA Lower Cape Fear,

YWCA McLean County, YWCA Metro Detroit--Interim House, YWCA

National Capital Area, YWCA New Hampshire, YWCA North Central

Indiana, YWCA Northern New Jersey, YWCA Oahu, YWCA Pierce

County, YWCA Princeton, YWCA QUINCY, YWCA Sauk Valley, YWCA

Seattle king Snohomish, YWCA South Hampton Roads, YWCA

Southeastern Massachusetts, YWCA Southern Arizona, YWCA

University of Illinois, YWCA Utah, YWCA Western New York,

YWCA Wheeling, YWCA Yakima; Zonta USA Caucus.

Madam Speaker, the gender pay gap is a pervasive problem that demands thoughtful, multipronged solutions. The Paycheck Fairness Act represents a comprehensive response to the shortcomings of existing law and addresses the holes that have emerged over time.

Representative Stefanik's substitute, the Wage Equity Act, is exactly what the Paycheck Fairness Act has been fighting over the years. It purports to offer protections, but, in reality, it creates loopholes that give a wink and a nod to discrimination. Not only would it offer empty protections, it would erode existing protections already in place.

The substitute includes inadequate protections for workers who discuss or disclose wages. While ostensibly protecting employees who disclose or discuss that pay, it allows employers to place limitations on when, where, and how employees may do so, negating the point of the provision.

Madam Speaker, you cannot remedy pay discrimination if you have no idea that you are making less than the man across the hall. When workers fear retaliation for talking about their pay, any wage gap they face is likely to continue to grow undiscovered in the shadows.

More egregiously, there is no mechanism for enforcement, as it would allow employers who conduct self-designed pay audits to escape accountability for unlawful pay disparities and deny a worker a remedy.

I think it bears repeating that corporations do not feel free to sell us spoiled meat, lock our daughters up in ninth-floor sweatshops with no fire escapes, employ our underage sons in coal mines, force us to work 13-hour shifts without overtime or a break because corporations experienced a moment of Zen and decided to evolve.

No. They were forced into greater accountability and social concern by the legitimate actions of a democratic government. In other words, if we depend on goodwill or a self-audit, then we are all screwed.

This amendment seeks to destroy the entire purpose of the bill and allows companies to evade accountability for violating the law.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and a ``yes'' vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Madam Speaker, as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, pursuant to House Resolution 303, I call up the bill (H.R. 1195) to direct the Secretary of Labor to issue an occupational safety and health standard that requires covered employers within the health care and social service industries to develop and implement a comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act.

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

Madam Speaker, if there is one lesson that all Americans have learned in the last year from the shared experience of the COVID pandemic, it is that our Nation's healthcare workers have truly been heroic, putting their lives and health at risk, treating and caring for millions of patients suffering from a scary deadly disease. I am sure that every Member in this Chamber at some point has tweeted, issued statements, held up signs thanking nurses, EMTs, doctors, and many other caregivers for their amazing work.

But as all those brave workers can attest, there is a second colliding epidemic that they continue to face, namely, frightening levels of violence at rates that far exceed those faced by any other sector in our economy.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has studied this alarming phenomenon, found that 73 percent of all violent incidents that happen in American workplaces happen to healthcare and social assistance employees. Year after year, BLS tallies tens of thousands of violent incidents which could be prevented by the standard required by today's legislation.

Today, we have the power right here in this Chamber to prevent this wave of violence by passing H.R. 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act.

The primary source of this violence comes in the form of assaults: kicking, hitting, spitting, even the use of firearms and other weapons from patients and those who accompany them.

H.R. 1195 would require an enforceable workplace violence prevention standard within 42 months after enactment at about 200,000 healthcare centers, not small doctors' offices or clinics. The standard would require that covered employers develop a workplace violence prevention plan that is tailored to the specific conditions and hazards present at each workplace, not a one-size-fits-all mandate.

Since 1996, OSHA has published voluntary guidelines that recommended many commonsense measures that employers can take to reduce the risk and severity of violent incidents. These guidelines are an excellent resource, but the fact that we continue to see an alarming growth in violence means that relying on ad hoc, voluntary adoption is failing to protect our healthcare heroes. We need an enforceable standard.

Over the last 5 years, in the last two administrations, despite verbal support for an enforceable OSHA rule, nothing has moved in the rulemaking process. History shows that with no deadlines in statute, OSHA takes 15 to 20 years to issue a standard.

Indeed, in the last administration, despite giving lip service for 3 years that they were creating a new rule, not one administrative step was actually taken to protect healthcare and social assistance workers.

I want to be very clear. Right now, over at that agency, this issue is dead in the water.

Every year we fail to address this situation, we are condemning thousands of nurses, doctors, aides, EMTs, and social workers to suffer preventable injuries, sometimes fatal, on the job.

That is why a huge coalition of healthcare workers from the American College of Emergency Physicians, National Nurses United, American Nurses Association, EMTs, and many more have come together, begging Congress to enact this bill.

No more delays. It is time that Congress puts a clock on this issue so that we can get the preventative measures in place nationwide that we know will save lives.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chair of the committee, Mr. Scott, for his great support on this measure, as well as Chair Adams, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections chair, as well as my Republican colleagues, because there actually is some agreement on the basics on this issue.

Lastly, I want to thank our outstanding, stellar staff: Richard Miller; Jordan Barab, who is leaving us shortly, at the end of the month, for his incredible institutional knowledge and work; and Maria Costigan, from my office.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 26, 2021.

Hon. Bobby Scott,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Scott: I write concerning H.R. 1195, the

``Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social

Service Workers Act,'' which was additionally referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce.

In recognition of the desire to expedite consideration of

H.R. 1195, the Committee on Energy and Commerce agrees to

waive formal consideration of the bill as to provisions that

fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on

Energy and Commerce. The Committee takes this action with the

mutual understanding that we do not waive any jurisdiction

over the subject matter contained in this or similar

legislation, and that the Committee will be appropriately

consulted and involved as this bill or similar legislation

moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues

within our jurisdiction. I also request that you support my

request to name members of the Committee on Energy and

Commerce to any conference committee to consider such

provisions.

Finally, I would appreciate the inclusion of this letter in

the report on the bill and into the Congressional Record

during floor consideration of H.R. 1195.

Sincerely,

Frank Pallone, Jr.,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Very briefly, again, I appreciate that Ms. Foxx acknowledges the severity of this issue, and I think that is important. But I would note, if anyone checks with the House Clerk's office, we actually have a solid number of Republican cosponsors on this bill. I want to make that clear, for the record, and I appreciate their support as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the chair of the Committee on Education and Labor and an outstanding staunch supporter of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Madam Speaker, I would just note that the bill language explicitly protects a comment period for all stakeholders, including hospitals and every other institution affected by it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), who is the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections and a staunch advocate for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Just to be clear, Madam Speaker, that CBO score is not per facility. That score is spread out over 200,000 healthcare centers. If you do the math, it is actually $9,000 per year per facility.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan), an outstanding new member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens), an outstanding member of the Committee on Education and Labor who worked very diligently to protect the comment process called for in this bill.

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

First of all, I just want to compliment Ms. Foxx about her very thoughtful remarks about what is driving this crisis out there for healthcare workers. There is no question that behavioral health and the heroin and opioid addiction--and we heard this from witnesses who testified before our committee.

But I would respectfully suggest that the people who are actually out there on the front lines, the EMTs--their association has endorsed this bill--and the American College of Emergency Room Physicians--they are the ones right there taking in these very sort of high-risk, intense cases--have issued a letter of support for H.R. 1195 because they realize that what this bill will, in fact, create, is a safer system for better communication, better lighting, not leaving people alone with patients, who have been identified as high-risk.

Really, all you have to do is talk to any ER doc. They will tell you it is tough out there, and we need to change. We need to have systems in place to better protect them.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from the American College of Emergency Physicians.

American College of

Emergency Physicians,

March 23, 2021.

Hon. Joe Courtney,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Courtney: On behalf of the American

College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and our 40,000

members, thank you for introducing for H.R. 1195, the

Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social

Service Workers Act. ACEP appreciates your leadership to help

establish procedures to ensure that emergency physicians,

health care workers, social workers, and patients, are

protected from violence in the workplace, and we urge

Congress to swiftly consider and pass this important

legislation.

Violence in the emergency department is a serious and

growing concern, causing significant stress to emergency

department staff and to patients who seek treatment in the

emergency department (ED). According to a survey conducted by

ACEP in 2018, nearly half of emergency physicians polled

reported being physically assaulted, with more than 60

percent of those occurring within the past year. Nearly 7 in

10 emergency physicians say ED violence has increased within

the past 5 years. Beyond the immediate physical impacts, the

risk of violence increases the difficulty of recruiting and

retaining qualified health care professionals and contributes

to greater levels of physician burnout. Most importantly,

patients with medical emergencies deserve high-quality care

in a place free of physical dangers from other patients or

individuals, and care from staff that is not distracted by

individuals with behavioral or substance-induced violent

behavior.

There are many factors contributing to the increase in ED

and hospital violence, and like you, we recognize there is no

one-size-fits-all solution. Employers and hospitals should

develop workplace violence prevention and response procedures

that address the needs of their particular facilities, staff,

contractors, and communities, as those needs and resources

may vary significantly.

To this end, ACEP asks that Congress also take into

consideration how emergency departments are staffed to ensure

that the important provisions of this legislation are

implemented in the most appropriate manner. As you are aware,

emergency physicians may be employed in an ED in a variety of

ways, whether directly employed through the hospital in an

academic setting, or contracted as a member of a small

democratic practice or a larger, national physician group.

Given that emergency physicians and these groups do not

control the resources of an individual facility that they

staff, it would be neither practical nor effective to require

contracted groups themselves to be responsible for

implementing, tracking and reporting of violent incidents.

ACEP believes that emergency physicians that contract with

hospitals or facilities should not be held responsible for

situations or hazards outside of their direct control;

however, they can and should serve an integral role in

developing effective violence prevention strategies. We

appreciate your efforts to date to provide additional clarity

on what a ``covered employer'' is ultimately responsible for,

and ask Congress to ensure that any new federal requirements

do not create any unintentional or undue burdens for entities

that do not control the health care workplace.

Once again, thank you for your leadership on this important

issue. ACEP looks forward to working with you to ensure

patients, health care workers, and all others in the

emergency department (ED) are prepared for and protected

against violent acts occurring in the department.

Sincerely,

Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, FACEP,

ACEP President.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), another outstanding supporter of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from AFT, which is a union that represents hundreds of thousands of frontline workers, including nurses, across the country in support of H.R. 1195.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), my neighbor and good friend.

Madam Speaker, really quick, on page 11 of the bill it specifically states that the plans proposed to be adopted by OSHA would ``be tailored and specific to conditions and hazards for the covered facility or the covered service, including patient-specific risk factors and risk factors specific to each work area or unit.'' That is not one size fits all.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a Member who can really bring a very powerful personal experience to this issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

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

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, the April 9 CBO report that came out, which, again, cited the numbers which were cited accurately by the opposition, is a number that is spread out over 200,000 facilities across the country.

If you do the math, we are talking about $9,000 per facility per year. Ask yourself whether or not that figure, weighing the balance of what we are trying to protect here, which is people's health and lives, is worth it.

I think most people would apply common sense to that and realize that it is not going to drive healthcare costs through the roof. In fact, it is going to protect workers and protect them from absenteeism. It is going to protect these institutions from high workers' compensation costs. It is just common sense.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. DeSaulnier from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I first want to acknowledge, along with Mr. DeSaulnier, the poignant loss that we all feel here in the House with the departure of our friend, Alcee Hastings. He was a fixture in the Rules Committee for all the years I have been on the committee. Certainly, while yesterday we acknowledged that we feel his absence, we also feel his presence. He was truly larger than life on the committee.

Today's rule provides for consideration of two bills that are meant to improve working conditions and compensation. The House actually considered these same bills last Congress. They did not receive consideration in the Senate, and I do not believe any substance has changed in the underlying bills.

The first bill, H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, seeks to prevent wage discrimination on the basis of sex, a fact that is already prohibited under current law. This legislation will help trial lawyers but offers no new protections against pay discrimination.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits all discrimination in pay based upon sex or any other non-job-performance-related issue. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Sex-based wage disparity is in direct violation of not one but two Federal laws.

It is important to acknowledge that bad actors engage in gender pay discrimination. Their actions are illegal,

and they leave employers vulnerable to burdensome lawsuits and heavy fines.

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

Congress must not forget the positive economic trends that this Nation enjoyed before the arrival of the novel coronavirus in the United States. The Trump administration made great strides reining in Federal overreach, which quickly improved opportunities for all Americans. Unemployment was at the lowest level in nearly half a century, and median wages across all demographic groups rose faster than at any other time in American history.

Unfortunately, the majority has crafted legislation that would place greater burdens on employers, reduce the privacy of employees, and increase Federal spending. H.R. 7 does little to protect the wages of American workers who are experiencing gender pay discrimination. In fact, it makes it harder for employers to defend legitimate differentials in pay based on factors other than sex.

Currently, employers may pay differential wages due to factors other than sex, like education, training, or experience. This means that 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 she has an advanced degree or more 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 businesses, including hiring the most qualified individuals, regardless of sex.

H.R. 7 would now require that non-sex reasons for any wage disparity have a business necessity, a term which is not defined in the bill. Providing a gender-based business necessity that accounts for the entire differential in pay is nearly an impossible standard to defend against.

This change to a bona fide factor defense does not consider the reality of the labor market. Employees are often willing to accept lower pay for greater control over their work location, schedule, and vacation time. Studies have shown that this is particularly true for women.

With the threat of lawsuits 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 work arrangements, employers will be incentivized to transform jobs that were once negotiable and flexible into jobs that are much more rigid.

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 increase that her male coworker did not receive, then that man could file suit against the employer on the basis that the bonus is not a business necessity due to the vagueness in terms in H.R. 7. With this threat in mind, employers are much less likely to use performance-based pay and bonuses, despite studies showing that such pay models actually do increase employee productivity.

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

H.R. 7 also requires employers to provide disaggregated employee information to the Department of Labor without delineating mechanisms to keep that information safe. Have we ever heard that the Federal Government has lost employee data or that the Federal Government may not be the best steward of citizens' private information? Maybe we should limit the data received until those capabilities are, in fact, improved and verified.

The second bill included in this rule, H.R. 1195, requires that the Secretary of Labor issue a rule on workplace violence prevention in the healthcare and social service sectors. Some may be surprised to hear that acts of violence are the third leading cause of fatal occupational injuries. Of these incidents, approximately 8 percent were intentionally caused by another person.

When Americans go to work each day, they do not expect to face violence or other harm. This risk is especially high for healthcare providers and social workers. These caregivers can be subject to patients who may not be in control when under the influence of medication or may have some other mental stress, upset family members, ongoing domestic disputes, and, unfortunately, even gang violence.

The rate of workplace violence resulting in days away from work for healthcare providers is, on average, four times higher than for other professions. In addition, healthcare providers and social workers are less likely to report incidents. This may be partly due to the pledge to do no harm and the inclination to forgive patient-caused injuries as accidental. Regardless of the situation, all workers deserve a safe workplace.

Currently, there is no mandatory standard on workplace violence prevention. However, in 2015, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration published guidelines for preventing workplace violence for healthcare and social service workers and is currently working on a rule for workplace violence prevention.

H.R. 1195 would require the Secretary of Labor to issue a rule on workplace violence prevention based upon OSHA's 2015 guidelines. An interim standard is required within 1 year, and a final rule must be issued within 2 years.

While the goal of this legislation is very important, the timeframe imposed on the Department of Labor and OSHA does exceed the norm. While no one believes that we should continue to delay worker protections, OSHA has already begun the rulemaking process and is gathering stakeholder input.

Perhaps, rather than pass a bill to require the issuance of a rule, we should be considering reforms to the entire OSHA rulemaking process. In other words, let's improve the bureaucracy rather than simply flogging it.

While an OSHA rulemaking would ensure enforcement of workplace violence prevention policies, according to a 2018 American Hospital Association survey, 97 percent of respondents reported they already have a workplace violence prevention policy in place. In 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that additional research was required to identify effective strategies to prevent violence, particularly in healthcare settings.

We can all agree that there is a need for OSHA to do its work to issue a workplace violence prevention regulation to protect healthcare providers and social service workers. I hope we are able to accomplish this goal, but I do worry that we are placing another costly burden on entities through what is supposed to be an expedited process that may require modification in the future to ensure an effective and safe workplace for all Americans.

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

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule immediately to consider H.R. 2430, the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act. This critical bill would extend the Drug Enforcement Administration's authority to temporarily schedule fentanyl analogues for another year.

Unfortunately, President Biden's open border policy is encouraging drug trafficking of substances like fentanyl. So it is imperative that the Drug Enforcement Administration retain this authority to keep those dangerous substances out of our communities.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a critical reauthorization and it is imperative to maintaining our Nation's efforts to address the opiate epidemic.

In February of 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration used its authority to place nonscheduled fentanyl-like substances temporarily into schedule I for a period of 2 years. It is important that we do not let this authorization lapse, as it listed fentanyl is still an eminent threat to Americans.

The Drug Enforcement Administration testified that the positive impacts since implementing this temporary schedule are significant, stating that prior to this action, the DEA observed a rapid and continuous emergence of a new fentanyl-like substance each time it is scheduled to remove a fentanyl-like substance. In other words, you take one out and one would pop up.

We simply cannot return to that reality because of the deadly nature of this substance.

Just last month, two north Texas teenagers died from counterfeit pills containing fentanyl. Last year, the Dallas DEA found over 16 kilograms of fentanyl targeting the region. It contained over 8 million lethal doses--one for every north Texas resident.

Unfortunately, throughout this pandemic, the opiate crisis has continued, and it has gotten worse. Exacerbating this problem is the ease with which fentanyl is being smuggled across our southern border. The changes in border security enforcement that have occurred have sent a message to the cartels and the drug smugglers that securing our sovereignty is no longer an administration priority. What is worse is that some adults and children are forced to carry these drugs into the United States by smugglers. Sometimes innocent individuals traffic drugs into the United States in their vehicles without even knowing that the cartels have placed it there without their knowledge.

The only way to limit the exploitation of innocent individuals and to protect our American communities is to limit the market for these vile products.

During the past year, this country has suffered over half a million deaths to an unforeseen disease. We should do everything we can to trample the market of a known killer: fentanyl. We must equip our communities to address this issue at its very source.

The temporary emergency rescheduling of fentanyl analogues to schedule I is a necessary tool for the Drug Enforcement Administration to work with other agencies and law enforcement officials to address the threat of illicit fentanyl.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this bill, and I strongly urge fellow Members to defeat the previous question and support H.R. 2430.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) to speak on the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer) to speak on the amendment.

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

And just to speak a little further on the amendment that has been offered if the previous question is defeated, H.R. 2430; like so many Members, I too have traveled down to the border. The difference is I have done that many times over the last 12 years.

It has never been this bad; and I need to emphasize that. I encourage the President and the Vice President to visit the southern border, come to the Lower Rio Grande Valley and see for themselves, firsthand, just how bad this crisis is.

And then back to the business at hand. I want to be very clear about the two bills included in today's rule. Wage discrimination has no place in any society, and it is currently illegal in the United States of America.

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

Prior to the pandemic, nearly 75 million women participated in the workforce, more than at any other time in history. A robust and resilient economy will provide the jobs, provide the wages and the wage gains that Americans expect and deserve.

Also, workplace violence is a threat that no American should have to face. The threat is particularly high for healthcare workers and social service workers. These workers dedicate their lives to taking care of others, and they deserve to be taken care of in return.

While I support the goal of H.R. 1195, I believe it would benefit from further discussion to ensure that the timeline for issuing a rule and developing workplace violence prevention will produce the most effective and safe outcome for American workers.

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

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