Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, recently, two high school members of the Shelby American Legion Post 82 were selected as participants for the Boys Nation program in Washington. This is the first time that the Shelby American Legion Post 82 has ever had two candidates selected to participate in this prestigious educational program.

Robert Stockham of Pinnacle Classical Academy and Zachary Morrow of Burns High School will spend 1 week in Washington learning about the structure and function of the Federal Government. This opportunity, through The American Legion, is important, and I am confident these two young men will make the most of this experience.

Congratulations to both Zachary and Robert on this significant accomplishment.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 13, which negates a recent U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, rule. I urge Members to reject this misguided resolution.

The rule in question, often referred to as the conciliation rule, is fair, increases transparency, reduces senseless litigation, and upholds a Federal statute.

There are dozens of pressing problems demanding Congress' attention. Our southern border is being run over by drug dealers and human traffickers. America is vulnerable to cyberattacks from adversarial foreign nations, like China and Russia. Our children are months behind in their schoolwork because of Democrats' insistence on putting teachers' union leadership demands before students' interests.

We could be addressing those problems, but Democrats are choosing to elevate the repeal of this commonsense rule before all those other immediate issues.

Let's examine the facts of the matter. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires EEOC to engage in conciliation. Before the EEOC can pursue court proceedings against an employer for a discrimination claim, the agency must work with the business to resolve the dispute.

There are good reasons Congress established this requirement. Successful conciliations provide immediate relief to employees who suffered discrimination. Conciliations also save these employees time and money. Court cases are adversarial and can last years. Individuals who experience discrimination should not have to wait years for justice.

Nothing in the regulation prohibits the EEOC from using the court system if conciliation fails. For over four decades, EEOC's conciliation process remained largely ineffectual and unaltered. Antiquated bureaucratic systems deserve scrutiny, and this opaque practice was long overdue for improvement.

Prior to the rule's promulgation, a paltry 41 percent of the conciliations were successful. One out of every three employers declined to participate in this broken process.

In 2015, the Supreme Court reprimanded the EEOC for its inadequate conciliation process, which included failing to communicate basic information about the alleged discrimination to employers. The mounting evidence of a failed conciliation process grew harder and harder for the EEOC to ignore. That is why the conciliation rule was issued on January 14, after an extensive notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Under the rule, the core tenets of conciliation remain unchanged. Conciliation stays voluntary, does not favor either the employer or the worker, and protects individuals' privacy.

The rule requires the EEOC to provide employers with basic but important information in support of the agency's findings, including simple underlying facts, the legal basis for the finding, an explanation of the monetary relief calculations, and whether the EEOC designated the case for a class of individuals.

The rule also does not increase costs to taxpayers. EEOC is on the record saying its operating budget will absorb any minor costs associated with implementing the rule.

In summary, S.J. Res. 13 harms the victims of discrimination; encourages the EEOC to pursue needless, combative, and expensive litigation; and turns the EEOC back into a politically driven, runaway bureaucracy.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on S.J. Res. 13, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, Democrats have claimed that EEOC's conciliation rule could subject employees to retaliation. This claim could not be further from the truth.

First, the rule explicitly states that employees may remain anonymous in the conciliation process if they so choose. In such cases, settlement discussions would proceed with the employee or employees making claims of discrimination remaining anonymous.

Second, the existing statutes to which the conciliation rule applies all make it illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee for filing a charge with EEOC or participating in EEOC proceedings. An employer would be compounding its legal exposure if it unwisely tried to act against employees for making a complaint to the EEOC.

The claim that the conciliation rule will expose employees to retaliation is a red herring.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, in 2015, the Supreme Court harshly criticized EEOC's conciliation process in the Mach Mining decision, which held that a court may review whether the EEOC satisfied its statutory obligation to engage in conciliation before filing a lawsuit.

The agency claimed that two ``bookend letters'' were all that was needed to satisfy the statutory conciliation requirement, one at the beginning of the process announcing a finding of discrimination, and one at the end stating that conciliation had failed.

The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the EEOC must disclose to the employer ``what practice has harmed which person or class, and provide the employer an `opportunity' to discuss the matter in an effort to achieve voluntary compliance.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, S.J. Res. 13 is a partisan maneuver to overturn an eminently reasonable regulation. Before the rule, the EEOC's conciliation process was out of date, opaque, and ineffective. Individuals subject to workplace discrimination should not have to wait years for justice.

Employers are not asking too much when they request basic information about the EEOC's findings. The conciliation rule updates a broken system and is beneficial to both workers and employers.

S.J. Res. 13 delivers a partisan victory for the Democrats' technocrat base.

Madam Speaker, I reject S.J. Res. 13, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act.

Every worker--every worker--including older Americans should have the law on their side to protect them from workplace discrimination. The good news is that existing Federal statutes already prohibit workplace discrimination.

Despite what Democrats might have you believe, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of laws protecting Americans of all ages against discrimination in the workplace. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRA; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, ADEA; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Rehab Act; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA, make employment discrimination based on an individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability unlawful.

My Republican colleagues and I appreciate the stated purpose behind H.R. 2062. Age discrimination is wrong, but the bill before us today is fundamentally flawed and a classic example of a solution in search of a problem.

Age discrimination in the workplace is already illegal. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say that over and over and over today. Age discrimination in the workplace is already illegal.

There is no evidence indicating this bill is necessary. The committee's cursory examination of the bill earlier this year failed to uncover any suggestion that workers have been discouraged from filing discrimination or retaliation charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, the primary agency that enforces Federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate.

Over the last couple of decades, rates of age discrimination charges, a signed statement asserting employment discrimination, filed with the EEOC have remained steady. Additionally, the available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show unemployment trends for older workers are heading in a positive direction.

In 2018, older Americans earned 7 percent more than the median for all workers, a large increase from 20 years ago. For workers age 65 and older, employment tripled from 1988 to 2018, while employment among younger workers grew by about one-third. Likewise, over the past 20 years, the number of older workers on full-time work schedules grew 2\1/2\ times faster than the number working part-time.

The legislation we are debating today is another sweeping one-size- fits-all scheme. This ill-advised bill rewards Democrats' favored political friends, disregards real-world workplace experience, and rejects decades of Supreme Court precedent.

Our Nation's uncertain economic times demand pro-growth and pro- worker policies, but House Democrats would rather consider misguided proposals such as H.R. 2062. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act stifles job creation and harms small businesses and aging workers at a time when our languishing post-pandemic economy most needs their contributions.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation enriches trial lawyers, not plaintiffs. H.R. 2062 overturns Supreme Court precedent by allowing the plaintiffs to argue that age was only a motivating, not decisive, factor that led to an employer's unfavorable employment action. It allows these kinds of mixed-motive claims across four completely different nondiscrimination laws.

H.R. 2062 also allows mixed-motive claims where the plaintiff alleges the employer has taken action against a plaintiff because of a prior complaint of discrimination. Allowing mixed-motive claims in cases alleging retaliation puts employers in the impossible position of trying to prove that a legitimate employment decision was not in response to a prior complaint.

The only party that will be paid in nearly all mixed-motive cases is the plaintiff's attorneys. We know this will happen because, under the legislation, employers will be able to demonstrate that they would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factors.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, older Americans, the very people this legislation is purported to help, will in the vast majority of cases receive no monetary damages or other redress under H.R. 2062.

H.R. 2062 also increases frivolous legal claims against business owners. Job creators will spend valuable time and resources battling these undeserving claims, as the Supreme Court pointed out in the 2013 Nassar case. These same resources could be better used to prevent workplace harassment and discrimination.

When H.R. 2062 was considered by the Education and Labor Committee, Republicans offered amendments to address fundamental flaws in H.R. 2062.

We offered an amendment to strike the ill-advised and unworkable provisions allowing for mixed-motive retaliation claims.

We proposed collecting data and evidence to understand how age discrimination and retaliation charges and lawsuits have changed because of Supreme Court rulings.

We attempted to make sure the public understands that even successful plaintiffs under the bill will likely not receive any monetary damages while their lawyers will be paid.

We proposed a noncontroversial clarification to maintain protections for workers with disabilities.

And we tried to clarify the evidentiary standard for proving a claim under the bill.

Unfortunately, our commonsense amendments were defeated by Democrats along party lines.

Mr. Speaker, all workers should be protected from workplace discrimination, and they already are under current law.

H.R. 2062 is a distraction from the real problems plaguing our Nation, like the crisis at the border, over 9 million jobs begging for qualified workers, unaffordable college costs, and runaway economic inflation.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2062, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side say that workers feel they have been discriminated against. Well, we all have feelings and perceptions that are not accurate. I think my colleague from Illinois pointed out that the data simply does not support the feelings of many people, and I think we understand that in day-to-day life.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle also contend that the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services has weakened age discrimination protections. They also contend this decision has deterred workers from seeking relief from age bias. But let's look at the data; let's not go on feelings.

In the 11 years preceding the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, the primary agency that enforces Federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate, received an average of 18,548 charges of discrimination per year related to age discrimination. An EEOC charge is a signed statement asserting employment discrimination. Now, in the 11 years following Gross, the EEOC received an average of 19,783 charges per year relating to age discrimination, a slight increase from the previous 11 years.

So, it is obvious from EEOC data that there is clearly no evidence workers have been discouraged from filing age discrimination charges with the agency since the 2009 Supreme Court decision. And we had a Democrat administration during that time and 1 year of a Republican administration.

We also find that age discrimination charges as a percentage of all charges

filed with EEOC are approximately the same for the 11 years before and after the Gross decision, 22.4 percent and 22.5 percent, respectively. Again, this does not indicate workers are somehow discouraged from filing age discrimination charges.

Congress should make fact-based decisions, Mr. Speaker, and in this case, the facts do not support feelings or the assertions made by the proponents of H.R. 2062.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. Speaker, Democrats claim H.R. 2062 merely conforms age discrimination and retaliation claims with current law regarding mixed- motive discrimination claims under title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

However, Congress specifically drafted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ADEA, to be different from title VII, because age is uniquely different from the characteristics on which title VII prohibits discrimination, namely, race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The ADEA states that it is lawful for an employer to take an employment action otherwise prohibited by the statute if the differential treatment is ``based on reasonable factors other than age.''

Notably, this provision is not found in title VII.

The Supreme Court has also explained in several cases why age discrimination differs from other forms of discrimination.

For example, the Supreme Court, in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, in 2008, wrote that, ``Congress took account of the distinctive nature of age discrimination and the need to preserve a fair degree of leeway for employment decisions with effects that correlate with age.''

In addition, the Supreme Court, in the 2013 Nassar case, explained why a mixed-motive standard is ill-suited for retaliation claims.

The Supreme Court observed that with regard to mixed-motive standards in retaliation cases, ``lessening the causation standard could contribute to the filing of frivolous claims, which would siphon resources from efforts by employers, administrative agencies, and courts to combat workplace harassment.''

Allowing mixed-motive claims in age and retaliation cases, which H.R. 2062 does, will lead to more frivolous legislation.

We should heed congressional and Supreme Court precedents and vote down H.R. 2062.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat: Republicans hate discrimination in any form. We particularly do not want any kind of discrimination in the workplace, and we do not want discrimination against older workers.

We know that older workers were excelling in the pre-pandemic economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, employment for workers age 65 and older tripled from 1988 to 2018, while employment for younger workers grew by only a third.

The number of employed people age 75 and older nearly quadrupled from 461,000 in 1988 to 1.8 million in 2018.

As the country continues to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, BLS recently reported that job openings reached a record high of 9.3 million in April 2021, while hiring lags far behind.

Employers are desperate to fill good-paying jobs, but qualified workers are hard to find because of Democrat-enacted policies.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to paint a bleak picture of job opportunities for older Americans, when, in fact, employment trends for older workers have been positive in recent decades and will continue to improve as the country fully reopens following the pandemic.

According to BLS, in 1998, the median weekly earnings of older, full- time employees was 77 percent of the median for workers 16 and up. In 2018, older workers earned 7 percent more than the median for all workers.

The labor force participation rate for older Americans has been rising steadily since the late 1990s. Participation rates for younger age groups either declined or flattened over this period.

Over the past 20 years, the number of older workers on full-time work schedules grew 2\1/2\ times faster than the number working part time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, older Americans make vital contributions in the workplace. Committee Republicans are committed to eliminating discrimination in the workplace, rebuilding our sluggish economy, and producing a competitive workforce.

Unfortunately, H.R. 2062 is a destructive and misleading bill that does not protect older workers, and it rewards trial lawyers at the expense of sound public policy. It is Democrats promising deliverance, but delivering disappointment.

This sweeping one-size-fits-all ruse is not the answer, unless Congress decides it wants to benefit trial lawyers at the expense of older American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2062, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Democrat amendments.

As I understand it, Representative Brown's amendment requires the EEOC chair to submit five annual reports to Congress on the number of age discrimination claims brought to the EEOC under this act. If H.R. 2062 somehow gets signed into law, these reports will be a day late and many dollars short because the law will have already harmfully reduced the burden of proof in these cases and nullified decades of Supreme Court precedent.

Before discussing my concerns with this amendment, I admit I am puzzled that it requires a study on how this legislation will affect future age discrimination claims when evidence is sorely lacking that there is a need for H.R. 2062 in the first place.

A witness who testified on H.R. 2062 before the Committee on Education and Labor acknowledged that EEOC data has not shown workers are discouraged from filing age discrimination charges with the EEOC following the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services.

With respect to this amendment, I have concerns about the feasibility and viability of the mandated reports. The amendment requires the EEOC to report each year for 5 years on charges filed with the agency under

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

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, Representative Williams' amendment requires EEOC to submit a contrived and convoluted report to Congress analyzing disparities that individuals face in pursuing relief under the mixed-motive evidentiary standard. The report must examine age discrimination combined with discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability.

This amendment does nothing to address the fatal flaws in the bill that would allow mixed-motive claims in age retaliation and disability cases, which will increase frivolous litigation while not providing any monetary damages for nearly all plaintiffs.

As a practical matter, I question whether EEOC will be able to complete the tortuous analysis proposed in the amendment.

As I noted previously, workers filing discrimination or retaliation charges with EEOC do not indicate whether they involve a mixed-motive claim, and EEOC does not collect this data. A mixed-motive claim is something a plaintiff's attorney adds to a lawsuit.

As such, I am skeptical whether EEOC will be able to find any data relating to mixed-motive claims.

More importantly, the amendment, which was submitted and then amended after the Rules Committee's stated deadline, will not fix the bill's many shortcomings, such as allowing mixed-motive claims in age discrimination and retaliation cases, even though congressional and Supreme Court precedents strongly advise against these changes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendments en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the only parties who will win in nearly all cases under H.R. 2062 with these amendments, if they are passed, are trial lawyers. Unfortunately, Democrats have chosen to further their pro-trial lawyer agenda by putting forward H.R. 2062, legislation that masquerades as protection for workers.

H.R. 2062 is yet another one-size-fits-all approach that fails to address the purported problem, neglects real-world experiences, and disregards decades of Supreme Court precedent.

These poorly drafted fig leaf amendments in the en bloc do nothing to address the fundamental flaws in H.R. 2062 and place an unworkable mandate on EEOC. I urge my colleagues to oppose them.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that there was a higher percentage of Republicans who voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the ADEA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and under

the ADA. It was President Bush who signed that bill.

So Republicans have a pretty good record on promoting and protecting the civil rights of Americans in this country, all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, for an employer to retaliate against an employee because that employee has previously made a discrimination complaint is wrong and it is already illegal.

H.R. 2062 reduces the standard of proof in retaliation cases by allowing mixed-motive claims, overturning the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in the Nassar case.

Allowing mixed-motive claims in retaliation cases is unworkable and contrary to the text, structure, and history of title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion in Nassar that in retaliation cases, ``lessening the causation standard could contribute to the filing of frivolous claims, which would siphon resources from efforts by employers, administrative agencies, and courts to combat workplace harassment.''

Justice Kennedy also wrote in his opinion that the concern about diverting resources was especially true because retaliation charges filed with the EEOC had nearly doubled in the past 15 years and had become the second most frequently filed category of complaint.

This concern is even more relevant today because retaliation is now the most frequently filed EEOC charge. All retaliation claims are inherently about differing explanations.

In these situations, the plaintiff has already made a discrimination complaint, and under the mixed-motive standard required under H.R. 2062, it will be a mere formality to plead that any subsequent negative action by the employer related to the employee was retaliatory.

Under H.R. 2062, a plaintiff claiming retaliation will always survive the summary judgment stage of the litigation and the case will either settle or go to trial. This will increase the number of frivolous claims against unsuspecting business owners and impose related financial costs noted in the Supreme Court decision, thus limiting important resources that could otherwise be used to combat discrimination.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the claim that employees have been harmed by the Nassar decision.

And, by the way, when employees win lawsuits claiming retaliation under the current standard, they can receive monetary damages, back pay, and reinstatement, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Under H.R. 2062, this won't happen in nearly all of the cases. Only the trial lawyers will be paid.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment strikes the harmful, overly broad, and unworkable provision in H.R. 2062, which allows mixed-motive claims in retaliation cases.

The amendment protects the current standard of proof as described in the Nassar case, and I urge Members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendments en bloc containing Representatives Allen's and Foxx's amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, recently, my friend Jean Donaldson was driving home late one afternoon and had a tire blow out.

Jean stopped in the parking lot of the business Clean & Dry, where Chase Grogan, an employee of the business, noticed her plight and offered to help.

Despite it being near quitting time, Chase insisted on helping Jean and proceeded to change her tire so that she could get home. Jean was, of course, grateful and offered compensation, which he declined.

We often come to the floor to praise people who have done extraordinary acts, and we should continue to do that. However, it is good for us to acknowledge all the Chase Grogans of the world who, every day, do extraordinary acts of kindness with little recognition.

By acknowledging Mr. Grogan, we are acknowledging all who do those kindnesses every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have long supported protections in Federal law for all workers, including pregnant workers, and we believe employers should provide reasonable workplace accommodations for pregnant workers, empowering them to achieve their highest potential.

I speak not only as a concerned Congresswoman on this issue but also as a mother and grandmother. Discrimination of any type should not be tolerated, and no one should ever be denied an opportunity because of unlawful discrimination.

That is why I support meaningful protections under Federal law to prevent workplace discrimination, including Federal laws that rightfully protect pregnant workers.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are examples. These Federal laws already ensure workers are not being discriminated against and receive reasonable accommodations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

I agree with the underlying principle of H.R. 1065 and appreciate the bipartisan negotiations that took place during the 116th Congress to get this bill to where it is today. And I am pleased to see the changes we negotiated last Congress were incorporated in the legislative text this time around.

When the bill was introduced last Congress, it did not require that a pregnant worker, in order to be eligible for an accommodation, be able to perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation. This is a sensible provision now included in the bill.

A definition of ``known limitations'' related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions was also initially omitted. The bill now includes such a definition, including a requirement that employees communicate the known limitation to the employer. This provision will help workers and their employers understand their rights and responsibilities.

Additionally, the bill introduced last Congress appeared to allow employees a unilateral veto over offered accommodations. However, the bill now clarifies that reasonable accommodations will typically be determined through a balanced and interactive dialogue between workers and employers.

The bill introduced last Congress also did not include the limitation on applicability to employers with 15 or more employees, as is the case in title VII of the Civil Rights Act and title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but it now includes the 15-employee threshold.

Finally, the bill now includes a provision that if an employer makes a good faith effort to determine a reasonable accommodation through the interactive process with the employee, the employer is not liable for damages.

Unfortunately, there is one key provision missing from this bill. One of the core tenets of the Constitution is the guarantee of religious freedom. In fact, it is the first freedom mentioned in the Constitution.

For the last 240 years, the Supreme Court has upheld that principle in its decisions, and laws written by Congress have maintained strong protections for religious liberty. Yet, the bill we are discussing today deals an unnecessary blow to religious organizations, potentially forcing them to make hiring decisions that conflict with their faith.

Our job in the people's House is not to defy the Constitution, but to uphold it. No employer should have to choose between abiding by the law and adhering to their religious beliefs.

That is why Republicans offered an amendment in committee that would include a narrow but longstanding provision from the Civil Rights Act that is not currently incorporated in this bill. Committee Democrats voted down this commonsense amendment.

I also submitted the same amendment to the Rules Committee so that it could be debated today, but the Democrats prevented me from offering it. As a result, I cannot, in good conscience, vote in favor of this legislation.

I want to reiterate that I am pleased with the bipartisan negotiations that took place on H.R. 1065. When we work together, we can effect real change. But I will never support any bill that infringes on the Constitution, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Taking away rights from our citizens is not a win for the American people; it is a win for Big Government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

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

Mr. Speaker, Democrats claim it is not necessary to incorporate the religious organization protection from the Civil Rights Act in H.R. 1065 because the bill does not repeal that provision and it will still be effective if the bill becomes law. I strongly disagree.

H.R. 1065 will create legal jeopardy for religious organizations, as I have previously stated.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume the provision is superfluous. What would be the harm in including the Civil Rights Act provision in H.R. 1065?

At worst, the provision would be duplicative with the Civil Rights Act, causing no harm to workers or employers.

Let's remember that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, better known as the ADA, includes a religious organization protection similar to the one in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ADA provision has caused no harm.

My conclusion is that the key sponsors of H.R. 1065 are saying the quiet part out loud in their opposition to the religious organization protection in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I have reached this conclusion because Democrats have also claimed that the Civil Rights Act provision is overinclusive, to begin with, and would provide too much protection in this instance.

Are Democrats saying that the existing Civil Rights Act protection for religious organizations should also be repealed?

Again, this is a provision that has been law for 56 years.

As I have stated previously, the longstanding Civil Rights Act religious organization protection should be added to H.R. 1065. At worst, it would do no harm. At best, it will prevent religious organizations from being required to violate their faith.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in their statements supporting H.R. 1065, Democrat Members have encouraged the House to follow the examples of States that have enacted pregnancy accommodation laws. However, the majority of these States have laws that include important protections for religious organizations.

At least 15 States and the District of Columbia have pregnancy discrimination, or pregnancy accommodation laws, that include a religious organization protection similar to section 702 of the Civil Rights Act. The States include Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Kentucky's pregnancy accommodation law, which was highlighted by a Democrat-invited witness at a hearing on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act as a successful workable solution, includes a limited religious organization protection very similar to section 702

of the Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately, the bill before us today omits this needed provision.

If we are to follow the example of these States and recommendations from congressional testimony, then a provision protecting religious organizations should be added to H.R. 1065.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce worked with the Education and Labor Committee to make improvements to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. However, the Chamber does have few, if any, religious organizations as members. Therefore, it is understandable they would not take the position on protections for these organizations.

As Members of Congress, we should ensure that the legislation we consider is fair to all and does not infringe on fundamental rights.

The religious organization protection that I am advocating, which comes from the Civil Rights Act, will ensure religious organizations are not compelled to make decisions that violate their faith.

H.R. 1065 should include the religious organization protection from the Civil Rights Act, which would not detract from any of the provisions included in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, being able to bear children is a great gift, and I am very pleased that God gave me that opportunity.

I would like to address the claim that the Civil Rights Act's protection for religious organizations is not needed in H.R. 1065 because these employers could raise the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA, as a defense to a lawsuit.

However, RFRA does not provide the same protections for religious organizations as the Civil Rights Act. In fact, RFRA's provisions are much narrower than the protection for religious organizations in the Civil Rights Act.

Moreover, RFRA defenses are difficult to win in court. Indeed, more than 80 percent of the time, courts rule in favor of the government and against the person seeking protection under RFRA.

The claim that the Civil Rights Act's longstanding religious organization protection does not need to be incorporated in H.R. 1065 because of RFRA is not persuasive. Indeed, the protection should be added to the bill to ensure it does not infringe on religious freedoms.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee just said that this is going to stop the patchwork of laws related to this issue.

Au contraire, Mr. Chairman. This is going to add to the confusion, which is the point I have been making over and over and over again. Simple addition of the reference to the Civil Rights Act would keep us from adding to the patchwork of laws and the confusion that this bill is going to create. And I am sorely disappointed that we could not work out this last little accommodation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans will not stand for discrimination of any kind. As a mother, a grandmother, and a very strong pro-life advocate, workplace protections for pregnant women are particularly important to me. My Republican colleagues and I have long been committed to policies and laws that empower all Americans to achieve success, and this includes current protections in Federal law for pregnant workers.

While meaningful and necessary bipartisan improvements were made to H.R. 1065, it falls short in protecting one of the Nation's most treasured rights: Freedom of religion.

Democrats' refusal to include a commonsense, current-law provision that protects religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith is shortsighted and disappointing. Congress should not be in the business of taking away rights from the American people.

In fact, as we all know, the Constitution starts with the three most important words outside the Bible: We the People.

And then in the First Amendment to the Constitution--and I want to jog the memories of my colleagues--the Constitution enshrines the right of religious freedom by saying: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion''--and this is very important, the next part--``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

That is what we are talking about here today. We are talking about the free exercise of religion. I will say again: Congress should not be in the business of attempting to take away rights from the American people. The Constitution does not give us that right.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Police Week, it is important that we remember the innumerable sacrifices that are made every day by the men and women of law enforcement.

In communities across America, they serve as the gatekeepers of law and order. Even as the far left calls for defunding the police, these dedicated heroes will not hesitate when called upon to serve.

I believe that their hard work should be recognized every day because, without them, law and order would cease to exist and criminality would reign.

May God bless the proud women of law enforcement. Under your watch, the American people remain protected.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Charter School Week. This week, we honor the hope that charter schools deliver to millions of students nationwide, and we are reminded that education is about students, not politics. One such example is Piedmont Community Charter School in North Carolina's Fifth District.

Regardless of ZIP Code, all American families deserve to decide, free of government interference, which learning environment best suits their child's strengths.

For 30 years, charter schools have prepared underserved students for lifelong success. Charter school alumni graduate from college at two to four times the national average for low-income families.

While Democrats dictate one-size-fits-all education requirements, Republicans are fighting to offer educational freedom and choice. Charter schools offer students from every walk of life the opportunity to learn in an environment that works for them so they can develop tools to thrive.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding tonight for a very short but very serious and solemn set of comments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two members of the Watauga County Sheriff's Office who lost their lives in the line of duty on April 28.

Sergeant Chris Ward, an 8-year law enforcement officer, and K-9 Deputy Logan Fox, a former deputy of the Ashe County Sheriff's Office, left an indelible mark on Watauga County.

This is a tremendous loss not only for Watauga County, but also for law enforcement across the State and country. These two fallen heroes dedicated their lives to law enforcement, and many who knew them recognized that their passion for serving the community they were proud to call home was second to none.

This Monday, a Community Day of Remembrance in Boone, North Carolina, was held in their honor.

Businesses, organizations, and proud citizens of Watauga County came together to show their overwhelming support for law enforcement and for first responders.

Mr. Speaker, across America law enforcement officers like Sergeant Ward and Deputy Fox wake up every day with one important goal in mind: fulfilling their duty to uphold law and order. These proud men and women leave for work knowing that they may not come home to their families, but still, they answer the call to serve without a moment's hesitation. That level of commitment to one's duty and community is truly awe-inspiring, and I firmly believe that we owe law enforcement a profound debt of gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I will always support law enforcement across this country. They are true gatekeepers of law and order, and they must be respected.

Calls to defund the police from the left are egregious and divisive. That rhetoric is profoundly dangerous and is an insult to the men and women who work around the clock to protect us.

God bless the countless law enforcement officers across this country and their families. We are forever grateful for the sacrifices you continue to make.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding and for holding this Special Order tonight.

The American people are frightened by what they are seeing unfold at the southern border. That fear is real, and it is only amplified by an administration that has chosen to sit back and do absolutely nothing.

For months, the Biden administration has struggled to decide what to call this situation, often scrambling to find the newest and less severe synonym to the word ``crisis.'' The word ``crisis'' suits this situation perfectly, but apparently, that word is too harsh, according to the White House.

Pretty soon, this administration won't have any words left to use, and they will accept the reality that they need to own up to the crisis they created.

Republicans are not interested in letting complacency take hold while the country we love is left open and vulnerable and changed forever. We will continue to call out this administration for its failures, and we will continue to fight to protect America and its citizens.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act.

Ensuring workplace safety for all American workers, especially our Nation's caregivers, is an issue of the utmost importance and is deserving of a serious and thorough solution. I agree with my colleague; we all appreciate what healthcare workers have done. I do every day, but particularly since we have had COVID.

H.R. 1195 purports to take a responsible approach to the issue of workplace violence, but legislation that results in a rushed and overly prescriptive rule that omits important input from stakeholders and experts, while driving up compliance costs for already struggling industries, is far from a sensible solution. Yet, that is what we are asked to consider today.

Workers in the healthcare and social services industries are at an increased risk of workplace violence, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics finding they are five times more likely to experience violence in the workplace than workers in other industries.

While the threat is real, the response the Democrats are proposing to address the situation, to further their own partisan agenda, is not grounded in reality.

Workplace violence is already a well-recognized hazard by employers and employees in the healthcare and social services industries. According to a 2018 American Hospital Association survey, 97 percent of respondents indicated they already have workplace violence policies in place.

In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, is already enforcing workplace violence prevention measures, issuing citations to employers who fail to provide safe workplaces during both the Obama and Trump administrations.

The agency is also working on a rule through the standard OSHA rulemaking process and has announced plans to initiate a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act panel, a key part of the rulemaking process that allows the agency to gather valuable feedback from small businesses before a regulation is written.

H.R. 1195 is particularly ill-timed and ill-advised as it forces OSHA to issue an interim final rule on workplace violence within 1 year, which will significantly strain healthcare facilities that are heroically working on the front lines, responding to a once-in-a- century pandemic.

The CBO recently estimated the cost of this bill to private entities would be at least $1.8 billion in the first 2 years that the rushed OSHA rule is in effect and $750 million annually after that. The cost to public facilities will be at least $100 million in the first 2 years and $55 million annually after that.

Financially struggling healthcare facilities, such as rural hospitals that are already at risk of closure, cannot afford a rushed and costly government-imposed mandate from Washington bureaucrats.

The House is considering H.R. 1195 at a time when the Biden administration is also considering a burdensome, overreaching emergency temporary standard, ETS, on COVID-19. Though OSHA is weeks behind in deciding whether to issue the ETS, handing down two expensive, punitive Federal mandates on an already burdened healthcare industry could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

There may be a time and place where a workplace violence regulation is appropriate, but now is certainly not it.

While I cannot support H.R. 1195, I want to be clear. The safety of our Nation's healthcare and social service workers is not a partisan issue. Republicans offered a workable solution at a recent committee markup and were willing to negotiate with our colleagues across the aisle on a compromise, one that requires OSHA to analyze a rule properly, heed appropriate and necessary input from stakeholders, and launch an educational campaign on workplace violence prevention.

Yet, here we are, considering another Democrat bill being pushed through with no Republican input.

Healthcare workers are familiar with the Hippocratic oath: ``First, do no harm.'' In its rush to judgment, H.R. 1195 does great harm. By short-circuiting the public input process and prescribing a specific result from the beginning, this bill will not achieve what it aims to accomplish.

Our healthcare workers and caregivers deserve an evidence-based and effective solution that protects them in the workplace. H.R. 1195 fails to deliver this result.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

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

H.R. 1195 does not allow for a solid, well-researched foundation for a national workplace violence prevention standard. Input from experts and stakeholders is vital as OSHA undertakes rulemaking on this issue.

In February 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, published its research agenda for healthcare and social assistance. The research agenda identifies the information and actions most urgently needed to improve safety in the industry.

The CDC identified the following concerns regarding the current state of research on the issue of healthcare workplace violence:

Many existing studies have evaluated workplace violence

risk factors and prevention measures, but most lack the

comprehensive, facility- and work area-specific perspective

that is needed to effectively prevent workplace violence.

Additionally, many of these studies examine the effects of

training programs, showing little impact on workplace

violence incident and injury rates.

We should heed the words of caution from CDC regarding our current knowledge base, and we should make sure OSHA receives input from all perspectives, including smaller healthcare providers, before it enacts a national standard.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As we have discussed today, workplace violence is a very real and persistent issue for healthcare and social service workers.

The Democrat title of H.R. 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, presupposes that the rushed, overly prescriptive, and complex Federal regulation required by this bill will somehow prevent workplace violence.

However, a true solution to violence in the workplace will not be in the form of a Federal regulation. Rather, a broader, bipartisan approach is needed to address the root causes of this serious and complicated issue.

According to the American Hospital Association, increases in assaults in healthcare facilities are being driven, in part, by growing numbers of behavioral healthcare patients being treated in emergency departments and other acute-care settings.

The opioid and drug abuse epidemic is another major contributing factor to workplace violence, as healthcare workers are often tasked with treating patients that may be under the influence of potent drugs or experiencing their painful side effects.

Unfortunately, H.R. 1195 does nothing to address these realities.

Ultimately, an OSHA workplace violence regulation that is written under the standard rulemaking process will be much more informed and effective because it will require evidence-based input related to behavioral health and opioid abuse that are responsible for many workplace violence incidents.

But as I said earlier, we need to roll up our sleeves and develop a comprehensive, bipartisan response to address the root causes of this serious and complicated issue.

Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1195, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the American Hospital Association, AHA, is opposed to

Madam Speaker, we are hearing from the people who are on the front lines, and we have said we want to protect the people on the front lines. Well, let's listen to the people on the front lines.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, we grieve for anyone who is killed violently in this country under any circumstances. Again, that is not a partisan issue.

Madam Speaker, the healthcare industry is currently in the midst of responding to a once-in-a-century pandemic and has rightly prioritized significant resources to caring for patients and keeping its employees safe from COVID-19.

Forcing OSHA to issue an interim final standard on workplace violence within 1 year, as H.R. 1195 requires, will have a devastating impact on the healthcare industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The last thing our healthcare providers need during this unprecedented public health crisis is more costly mandates from Washington that will strain resources and personnel and jeopardize patient care.

Moreover, the Biden administration is expected to soon impose new employer mandates in the form of an OSHA emergency temporary standard for COVID-19 and, eventually, a permanent infectious disease rule, which will have a significant impact on the healthcare industry.

At a time when healthcare facilities are experiencing massive revenue losses and have invested significant resources into responding to COVID-19, the issuance of two new regulations from Washington, potentially within months of each other, will be devastating.

Our Nation's healthcare providers have responded admirably to the pandemic and are doing heroic work to keep Americans safe and healthy. The House should reject this ill-timed and ill-advised legislation that will inhibit work and burden the healthcare industry at exactly the wrong time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, overbearing regulations burden workers and stifle the economy. Preventing workplace violence in healthcare and social service settings is crucial, and we should get this done by allowing OSHA to issue standards through the normal rulemaking process, which brings all experts and parties, including small businesses, to the table.

Short-circuiting the process and rushing to a conclusion eliminates valuable technical and scientific input and will lead to unintended consequences, which could have a detrimental impact on workplace safety outcomes.

A bipartisan solution was possible here, but once again, Democrats have kicked it to the curb. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1195, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

We all agree American workers should be kept out of harm's way on the job so they can safely and healthily return home to their families. These caregivers deserve protections, but H.R. 1195 is the wrong approach to address the important issue of workplace violence.

I am disappointed by the lack of effort to develop a workable bipartisan solution to combat workplace violence before this flawed legislation was rushed to the floor by Democrat leaders in Congress.

In fact, committee Democrats chose not to hold a legislative hearing focused on this bill. Unfortunately, the Democrat amendments only reinforce that H.R. 1195 is the wrong approach to addressing this important issue.

Representative Brown's amendment, while well-intentioned, ignores the fact that there are Federal agencies other than OSHA that would be better equipped to handle a regulatory requirement for the education of healthcare and social service workers who work with the victims of torture, trafficking, or domestic violence.

The question of whether employer education programs governed by OSHA, the Federal Government's workplace safety agency, are appropriate to address the objectives of this amendment should be thoroughly vetted and discussed during the rulemaking process before decisions impacting healthcare facilities and their patients are made. H.R. 1195 does not allow for this to occur.

Representative Cohen's amendment is also well-intentioned, but will unilaterally expand the reach of a flawed regulation to include numerous small facilities.

This is particularly problematic because H.R. 1195 precludes the opportunity for OSHA to conduct a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act panel prior to a regulation being written, a key element in the process which considers the impact of proposed regulatory changes on small businesses. The implications of such a proposal should be carefully evaluated through the established OSHA rulemaking process before a decision is made regarding expansion to additional facilities.

With regard to Representative Delgado's amendment, I agree with his assessment that employers will need compliance assistance and technical help from OSHA in order to understand the complex and burdensome new rule mandated by this bill.

However, this amendment is little more than window dressing. While technical assistance is always welcome and appropriate for a rule of this complexity, this amendment places an arbitrary time limit that is woefully insufficient to cope with a rushed and flawed rule. Moreover, technical assistance after employers are subject to a rule in which they had no input is too little, too late.

Rather than amend a flawed bill by allowing the Department of Labor to help businesses after the fact, we should reject this bill and instead allow OSHA to pursue its established rulemaking process that provides ample opportunity for feedback from stakeholders and the public, which will ensure a better product and eliminate the need for this type of amendment.

Representative Jones' amendment puts the cart before the horse. Consultation with outside experts regarding compliance should occur while a regulation is being written by OSHA and before it is issued so the final product takes this expertise into account. This amendment simply adds yet another costly mandate on employers.

H.R. 1195, which requires OSHA to issue an interim final rule within 1 year, short-circuits the opportunity for the agency to hear from experts before a rushed rule is issued. This amendment is a feeble attempt to correct this critical flaw.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that every Member of this Chamber is committed to ensuring American workers are safe in the workplace. I appreciate Mr. Courtney's very kind comments about my concern for this personally, but I can say every Republican feels this way.

Our Nation's caregivers, who have been on the front lines of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, are deserving of a responsible, workable, and thorough response to the serious issue of violence in the workplace. However, this legislation is a far cry from a sensible or workable solution.

H.R. 1195 is overly prescriptive and heavy-handed and takes the wrong approach, prejudging and imposing a rushed regulation without allowing for necessary stakeholder input. Unfortunately, the Democrat amendments do nothing to change this fact.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe I have the right to close, and I apologize for neglecting to say I oppose the amendment at the beginning.

I believe I have the right to close, therefore, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. Courtney for the comments he has made during this debate today. He has been a very kind colleague.

However, what we should be doing is more debating of some of the underlying issues that are creating this increased workplace violence, and we are not doing that as a Congress.

We need to be looking at why these things that are happening are happening. And I am sorry that we are not doing that. And I am sorry we are doing a rushed product here when we could be working together.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the en bloc amendments and ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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 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 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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a partner in important work to prevent and treat child abuse through the bipartisan Stronger Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or Stronger CAPTA.

Child abuse and neglect are heartbreaking, immoral, and inexcusable. No child should ever have to endure pain and suffering at the hands of a parent or caregiver, yet, unfortunately, such behavior continues to affect millions of children across the country.

This bill, Stronger CAPTA, is focused on doing what Congress can do to see that no child experiences the dreadful impacts caused by neglect and abuse. This legislation is the result of bipartisan collaboration among members of the Committee on Education and Labor and will strengthen Federal efforts to recognize, prevent, and treat child abuse and neglect nationwide.

While we have a variety of perspectives represented on the committee, I believe this compromise will benefit children and families and maintain important protections for parents and faith-based providers of care to families.

Importantly, Stronger CAPTA not only protects children, but it also maintains and strengthens parental rights. While there are certainly instances where intervention is necessary, this legislation includes important safeguards to limit unsubstantiated or false reports and provides education to child protective service workers about the rights of parents and families.

The first priority of the Federal Government should always be to protect and respect the family unit, while fostering an environment for both parents and children to thrive. Stronger CAPTA gives a holistic view of child abuse and neglect, providing States with resources designed to strengthen families and keep children with those who love them most.

CAPTA was originally enacted in 1974, to support the development of programs aimed at prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment of child abuse and neglect.

Stronger CAPTA seeks to continue this important work while putting more emphasis on prevention so that abuse and neglect can be stopped before it happens.

Madam Speaker, the need to pass this legislation and send it to the President's desk is urgent. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, heightened stress, school closures, loss of income, and social isolation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the risk for child abuse and neglect.

The rate of child maltreatment has ticked up in recent years, devastating families and communities across the country and underscoring the necessity to open America's schools safely. Without teachers interacting with students every day, an entire line of defense against neglect and abuse is lost.

Additionally, due to the increased demand on their services, State child protective service agencies are struggling to respond to the growing number of reports they receive each year.

That is why we are here. Stronger CAPTA will help States address the recent and devastating rise in child abuse and neglect by improving the quality of child protective services and building networks of prevention services designed to strengthen American families.

It improves collaboration between States regarding accountability, supports the development of strategies and best practices for reducing rates of abuse and neglect linked to parents' substance abuse disorder, and ensures that no child is removed from a family solely because of their economic situation or without a judicial order, except in cases of imminent harm.

Furthermore, the bill seeks to prevent and treat child abuse by engaging the community. We want to prevent abuse before it ever happens, and one of the best ways to accomplish that goal is to ensure that communities and parents work together in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of prevention services.

I believe every Member of this body wishes to live in a world where laws like Stronger CAPTA are not necessary. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world, but it is reassuring that during times of extreme political divisiveness, we can come together for the greater good.

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the hard work done on both sides of the aisle to author this bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting some of our most vulnerable citizens. Protecting America's children from abuse and neglect is something we can all agree is of paramount importance, and I am glad we could work together on such a meaningful initiative.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the Stronger CAPTA, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, no child should ever have to endure the pain of abuse or neglect by a parent or caregiver, and that is why today's work is so important.

By passing today's bill, we are focused on protecting the most vulnerable citizens among us and give them a voice here in Congress.

The bipartisan Stronger CAPTA bolsters prevention efforts and streamlines current assurances and requirements so States can focus on serving and providing treatment to children rather than spending more time filling out paperwork.

Child abuse and neglect has no place in America's homes, and it is my hope that today's legislation will significantly reduce the number of children who must cope with the devastating impacts of abuse and neglect.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this critical legislation. Again, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 are attempts by the Federal Government to exert more force over law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves and their families.

Let me remind my Democrat colleagues that the Second Amendment explicitly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Maybe they would remember that if they carried a pocket copy of the Constitution with them like I do every single day. Apparently not.

I am proud to stand with the millions of gun owners in this great country who share an abiding gratitude for the Constitution and the Second Amendment itself.

Make no mistake, these bills are created in bad faith. They are partisan shams that rob us of our freedoms.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Robert Meek Jr. who has served as my District Director since 2016.

To put it simply, Bob is a man of both conviction and courage. No matter the duty, he executes it with poise, a strong dedication to service, and with an abiding gratitude for those he works alongside.

As a retired Colonel of the U.S. Army Reserve, as the son of a Second Lieutenant who served as a B-25 Mitchell bomber copilot in World War II, and father of 3 military sons, Bob has dedicated his life not only to being an advocate for military families, but also serving as a strong voice for servicemembers both past and present.

From traveling thousands of miles across North Carolina's Fifth District with me to meeting with countless scores of proud North Carolinians who are proud to live there, Bob has always acted with a servant's heart, one of his many features that everyone admires.

I speak for both myself and the staff when I say working alongside Bob has been an honor. As he enters this new phase of his life, may God continue to bless him, his family, and the lives of everyone he will continue to serve.