[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2848-H2875]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 7, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 252 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 7.
  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) to preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1345


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 7) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more 
effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages 
on the basis of sex, and for other purposes, with Ms. Norton in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her decades 
of leadership fighting for working women.
  In 1963, the Equal Pay Act codified the right to ``equal pay for 
equal work regardless of sex.'' In fact, the Equal Pay Act was enacted 
1 year prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that, for the first time, 
provided for the enforcement of antidiscrimination laws. Over the past 
55 years, the Equal Pay Act, in combination with title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act, has produced substantial progress toward addressing 
inequities for women in the workplace.
  Yet, loopholes and insufficient enforcement have allowed gender-based 
wage discrimination to persist. Today, women earn, on average, 80 cents 
on the dollar compared to White men in similar jobs. The wage gap is 
even worse for women of color. It exists in every sector, regardless of 
education, experience, occupation, industry, or job title.
  Drawn out over a lifetime, the persistent wage gap could cost a woman 
anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million. For many, this is the difference 
between financial stability and poverty. In fact, we know that 
achieving pay equity would actually cut the poverty rate for working 
women more than 50 percent.
  That is why we are considering this historic legislation today. After 
decades of failing to address persistent wage inequity, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act is our opportunity to strengthen the Equal Pay Act, 
bolster the rights of working women, lift families out of poverty, and, 
finally, align our remedies for gender discrimination with other 
established antidiscrimination laws by eliminating caps on damages when 
employers act with malice or reckless indifference, consistent with the 
laws governing discrimination based on race or national origin, 
treating attorney fees consistent with title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act, and restricting an employer's inquiry and reliance on a 
prospective employee's previous salary. This is consistent with the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act, and similar restrictions regarding an 
applicant's marital or pregnancy status.
  As chair of the House Committee on Education and Labor, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in casting a vote for final passage of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act and making equal pay for equal work a reality for 
working women across this country.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Chair, my friend, the chairman, is a diligent and thoughtful 
colleague, and I believe his heart is in the right place.
  Everyone in this House is in agreement that pay discrimination on the 
basis of sex is wrong, no matter how you look at it. The law is very 
clear about this. But this bill doesn't do anything to help working 
women. This is a bill for trial lawyers, plain and simple. That is what 
shows a fundamental difference in outlook and principle. Democrats want 
women to sue their bosses; Republicans want women to become the bosses.
  Republicans have favored strong economic policies that will empower 
and enable women to keep driving the economy forward and build the 
lives they want for themselves. Instead of looking for ways to line the 
pockets of trial lawyers, we stand with working women.
  I am proud, Madam Chair, to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), one of the hardest working women I know.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Chair, I would like to start by thanking my dear 
friend and colleague, Ms. Foxx, the Republican leader of the House 
Education and Labor Committee, for her tremendous work and leadership 
on behalf of all American women and families.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the so-
called Paycheck Fairness Act. This should be called the ``Pay the Trial 
Lawyers Act.''
  Madam Chair, my State of Wyoming launched the fight for women's 
equality and rights when we became the first jurisdiction in the world 
to grant women the right to vote 150 years ago. Here in this Chamber, 
100 years ago, the House agreed that women should have the right to 
vote on a national basis. Leaders of the women's suffrage movement were 
fighting on behalf of women's rights. They were not fighting to provide 
greater payouts to trial lawyers. We should honor those women, and the 
generations of women who came after them, by defeating this sham bill.

  The bill my Democratic colleagues have put on the floor today offers 
no new protections for women in the workplace. It paints job creators, 
many of whom in the Trump economy are increasingly women, as evil. 
Republicans know that economic policies that generate growth, create 
jobs, and increase wages benefit women and men. Our policies empower 
women and facilitate the success of women-owned businesses, which 
account for roughly 9 million jobs and $1.7 trillion in revenue.
  Madam Chair, today's bill is just the latest example of the misguided 
and damaging policies Democrats in this

[[Page H2849]]

body are attempting to pursue. They claim to be ``for the people,'' but 
in the nearly 3 months that they have been in charge, they have 
embraced socialism; they have enabled anti-Semitism; they have passed 
legislation that violates the First Amendment and the Second Amendment; 
and they have repeatedly refused to take steps necessary to protect the 
lives of babies after those babies are born.
  Now, Madam Chair, they are telling us they are fighting for women 
when really they are simply fighting for trial lawyers. We have seen 
this movie before. The Democrats are not really for the people. They 
are for the government and for the special interest groups that support 
them. The American people know better, and we deserve better.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I call on my 
Democratic colleagues to come together with us, to work with us, so 
that we can actually make real progress for America's women and their 
families.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the sponsor of the bill.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 7, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act.
  It is a historic day on the House of Representatives floor, and we 
are going to pass paycheck fairness, equal pay for equal work, in this 
United States of America.
  Madam Chair, I thank the chairman of the Education and Labor 
Committee for getting this bill through the committee and onto the 
floor today. We have waited 8 years to be able to vote on this issue.
  The United States Congress has a rich history of making a difference 
in the lives of the American people: Social Security, the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, the GI Bill, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act, to 
name but a few.
  Today, we can make a difference for working women and their families. 
Today, we can address the biggest economic challenge of our time, that 
Americans are in jobs that do not pay them enough to live on. We can 
address their economic struggle. And, yes, this is a bill that the 
majority is passing today to address that economic need for families.
  I cannot tell you how difficult it has been to break through on 
something so simple: Men and women in the same job deserve the same 
pay. But now, the issue and the environment have collided. Equal pay is 
at the center of our public discourse, and paycheck fairness is ready 
for passage today.
  A bipartisan bill supported by every member of the Democratic Caucus, 
the Paycheck Fairness Act toughens remedies in the Equal Pay Act of 
1963 to give America's working women the opportunity to fight wage 
discrimination and to receive the paycheck that they have earned.
  Under existing law, damages are too insubstantial to provide women 
with full restitution or provide bad-acting companies a meaningful 
deterrent.
  Paycheck fairness puts gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal 
footing with other forms of wage discrimination by allowing women to 
sue for compensatory and punitive damages. It better protects employees 
from being fired for sharing their salary with coworkers. It 
establishes a grant program to provide salary negotiation training for 
girls and for women. It ensures that employers are not reliant on wage 
history when they hire an employee.
  Over 60 years ago, after Republican President Dwight Eisenhower 
called for equal pay legislation during his 1956 State of the Union 
Address on the floor of this House, and more than 55 years after 
President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, pay discrimination is very 
much still a reality in our country. In 2017, there were almost 26,000 
charges of unlawful, sex-based pay discrimination filed with the U.S. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and 996 Equal Pay Act charges.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Women continue to earn 20 percent less than men, on 
average, according to Census data. Women earn less regardless of the 
choices they make in their career or education. Across industries, 
whether you are a financial manager, a registered nurse, a 
schoolteacher, or an executive, a pay gap exists between men and women.
  Ten years ago, we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It 
reopened the courtroom door but did not address the underlying issue at 
hand today.
  We have an opportunity to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. It is a 
matter of right and wrong. Discrimination is unacceptable, and we are 
all diminished when we fall short.
  President Kennedy said, when he signed the Equal Pay Act, that this 
would ``add to our laws another structure basic to democracy'' and 
``affirm our determination that when women enter the labor force, they 
will find equality in their pay envelope.''
  We can do this today on the floor of this House. I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act and 
make sure that we guarantee equal pay for equal work.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my distinguished colleague.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Chair, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 7. It 
is a deeply flawed bill that offers false promises while empowering 
lawyers and bureaucracy, not empowering women.
  In fact, I agree with my colleague from Wyoming who said a minute ago 
it should not be called the Paycheck Fairness Act; it should be called 
the pay the trial lawyers act.
  If there exists residual bias and discrimination against women in the 
workplace, it is wrong, and it needs to end. Since 1963, equal pay for 
equal work has been the law of the land under the Equal Pay Act.
  Let me say that again. Since 1963, equal pay for equal work has been 
the law of the land. It is currently illegal for employers to pay 
different wages based on gender, and as the bill sponsor just said, 
there are currently mechanisms to address any wrongs that may be there.
  While I appreciate the sentiment of the bill before us, I cannot 
support its flawed approach. The pay the trial lawyers act does not 
build on the Equal Pay Act. It does not offer women new protections 
against discrimination in the workplace. Instead, it encourages 
lawsuits against employers by offering the prospect of unlimited 
monetary damages.
  The pay the trial lawyers act also creates an impossibly high burden 
of proof for job creators defending themselves in lawsuits.
  Furthermore, the pay the trial lawyers act handicaps job creators, 
including women-owned businesses, by adding onerous compensation 
reporting requirements. The Federal bureaucracy will heap yet another 
burden on hardworking Americans if this passes.
  So, Madam Chair, the pay the trial lawyers act does not build on the 
Equal Pay Act's success. Instead, it encourages lawsuits, hurts job 
creators, and empowers lawyers. Sadly, it also misses an opportunity to 
truly help women.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
deeply flawed bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
him also for his extraordinary leadership in matters that relate to the 
education of the American people, employment preparedness, fairness in 
our workforce, and, of course, today.
  Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for giving us this opportunity on 
this day of the House of Representatives. This is a day that God has 
made. Let us rejoice and be glad. And let us make the most of it in a 
very joyous way. It is a day of celebration.
  Madam Chair, the gentleman,  Bobby Scott, has been a supporter of 
this initiative for a long time, and I thank him for making today 
possible.
  And it happens on a day when we are honored to have, in the Speaker's 
chair, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, a champion to end 
discrimination in every way in our country, including discrimination in 
the paycheck.

[[Page H2850]]

  Madam Chair, today I rise in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. It 
reaffirms our Nation's sacred promise that equal pay deserves equal 
work.
  I do so in saluting Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, Madam Chair, the 
guardian angel of this legislation and the godmother of so many 
initiatives in this House to support progress for America's working 
families.
  The ability to balance work, to balance work and home is a challenge 
that many families face, men and women alike, but Rosa DeLauro has been 
a constant champion for America's working families.
  While we are talking today about equality in the paycheck, she has 
also been a champion for paid sick leave and affordable childcare. The 
list goes on and on. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman--guardian 
angel, godmother--for making today possible.
  I am very excited about this. It is historic. It should happen at a 
time when we have over 100 women serving in the House of 
Representatives, and it should happen in the same Congress that we will 
also observe the 100th anniversary of the passing of the amendment to 
have women have the right to vote.
  It is all very historic. It is all about progress, and that progress 
on this bill began in this Congress 2 months ago. House Democrats stood 
with Lilly Ledbetter on the 10th anniversary of President Obama signing 
the Lilly Ledbetter Act, exactly 10 years ago, signing that Fair Pay 
bill into law.
  It was a magnificent achievement, it, too, being led by George 
Miller, the chair of the committee Mr. Scott now chairs. Rosa DeLauro, 
of course, played a hand in that.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) then introduced the 
equal pay bill, and then we passed it in the House. It didn't pass the 
Senate--60 votes needed in the Senate--but she has persisted, and we 
are fortunate for that.
  We are grateful to her and to Lilly Ledbetter and the groups, so many 
outside groups that have worked so hard to mobilize and make this 
difference--some of them include the American Association of University 
Women, the National Women's Law Center, National Partnership for Women 
and Families, National Organization for Women, National Committee for 
Pay Equity, MomsRising, UltraViolet, Center for Law and Social Policy, 
the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, NAACP, League of 
Women Voters, U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, the list goes on and 
on, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Psychological Association, 
and many more--because that outside mobilization will be important in 
passing this legislation and turning it into law, into an improvement 
in the lives of America's working families.
  Now we are proud to pass this bill before Equal Pay Day, which is on 
April 2, next week--April Pay Day, which symbolizes when a woman's 
wages catch up to a man's earnings from the previous year. In other 
words, the first 3 months of the year, most women are working for free 
compared to what a man will make in the overall year.

  So April 2 is that day. By then, we will have already been 
celebrating for a few days.
  We pass this legislation during Women's History Month as we serve 
with a woman Speaker of the House and with more than 100 women in the 
same Congress, as I said before, marking 100 years since women won the 
right to vote.
  So this is about respect. It is about respect, my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, respect for women and the work that they do. And if 
they do equal work, why wouldn't they get equal pay?
  Would you, my colleague, like to get less than your colleagues on the 
Republican side of the aisle?
  Would you, any of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, like to 
work for less than our male counterparts?
  Well, why should women and the rest of the workforce then be 
subjected to that discrimination?
  Paycheck fairness is about respect. It is about justice for women, 
finally closing the wage gap that robs women of more than $400,000 over 
the course of their working lives. And for women of color, it is even a 
bigger difference.
  And this not only has an impact on their pay, it has an impact on 
their pensions and on their retirement. So this is very, very 
important.
  This legislation advances progress for families because it is about 
equal pay for women. It is about how that equality of paycheck affects 
their families, ensuring that women can earn the wages they have earned 
so they can pay for their family's everyday needs, such as rent, 
groceries, childcare, healthcare--the list goes on.
  Two-thirds of moms are either the primary breadwinners or co-
breadwinners in their households in our country. This legislation 
strengthens America, unleashing the full power of women in our economy 
and upholding the value of fairness.
  Do you believe in fairness in our democracy?
  When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 1963, he 
celebrated equal pay as a ``structure basic to democracy''--equal pay, 
a structure basic to democracy--enlarging the issue to our great 
democracy.
  We are proud to take this step to fully and finally secure the 
paycheck fairness that is fundamental to our democracy because it will 
implement the Equal Pay Act, make it enforceable.
  Yet, securing paycheck fairness is only the first step that House 
Democrats will take. We will continue to unlock the full economic power 
of women in our workplace with paid sick leave, led by Congresswoman 
DeLauro, affordable childcare, led by Congresswoman DeLauro, as well as 
a fair wage because we know that, in our economy and in our country, 
when women succeed, America succeeds.
  I, therefore, urge a bipartisan vote for this legislation for women 
to succeed and to have equality in our society as they have equality in 
their paychecks.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  Mr. BYRNE. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I believe all my colleagues can agree that women deserve equal pay 
for equal work. However, the bill considered today takes the wrong 
approach to ensure that current equal protections, protections that 
have been in place since 1963, are reaffirmed and fortified.
  This bill offers no new protections for women in the workforce. 
Instead, it makes it more difficult for employers and employees to have 
an open and informative discussion about hiring and other employment 
decisions.
  Perhaps worst of all, it is designed in a way that helps increase the 
bottom line for lawyers. That is right. The only paychecks that this 
legislation will increase are paychecks for lawyers.
  It is unfair to women; it is unfair to the workforce; and it is 
unfair to businesses.
  It may come as a surprise to many people that the so-called Paycheck 
Fairness Act offers no new protections against pay discrimination.
  Let me repeat that. The legislation being debated today offers no new 
protections against pay discrimination. Instead, it imposes a one-size-
fits-all mandate to one of the most varied and complex workforces in 
the world.
  Rather than allowing for informal discussions, the Paycheck Fairness 
Act strictly limits communications between employers and employees on 
key hiring decisions. Under this bill, the burden is laid on the backs 
of employers, and the lack of clarity for employees is simply 
unworkable.
  I don't see how limiting the discussion between employers and 
employees, particularly on hiring decisions, is going to help anybody; 
and I certainly don't see how opening the gates to limitless, frivolous 
lawsuits is going to help anybody.

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

[[Page H2851]]

attorney's fees for any judgment to 20 percent of the judgment. Sadly, 
this commonsense amendment was blocked by the Rules Committee.
  Why don't my colleagues want to join me in ensuring that money 
actually gets to victims of pay discrimination instead of simply 
padding the wallets of lawyers?
  It is a real shame this amendment was not made in order. I think we 
can all agree that the idea of discrimination against someone based on 
sex is absolutely unacceptable, and it is inconsistent with the values 
we hold as Americans.
  This issue is not partisan. In 1944, Republican Congresswoman 
Winifred Stanley introduced a precursor to the Equal Pay Act, which, 
since passing years later, has been the law of the land for the past 55 
years.
  The Equal Pay Act of 1963 specifically made it illegal to pay 
different wages to employees of the opposite sex for equal work. In 
addition, title 7 of the Civil Rights Act made it illegal for employers 
to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, 
and sex.
  Yet, as I said before, despite these protections on the books, there 
are bad actors who continue to practice pay discrimination. Based on 
laws existing for decades, it is unacceptable, and we must hold these 
bad actors accountable.
  Unfortunately, the Paycheck Fairness Act, as written, fails to 
improve employment protections.

                              {time}  1415

  We have a responsibility to the American people to craft strong 
policies that support women in the workplace, not merely offer weak lip 
service that, in fact, cripples employers and employees alike.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this phony bill, and, 
instead, let's work together in a bipartisan way to actually ensure 
women continue to thrive in the workforce.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, today women make up nearly half of our 
workforce. Sixty-four percent of mothers in the United States work 
outside the home. Many are the sole family wage earner. Their wages pay 
for rent, for groceries, for childcare, for healthcare. But even though 
it is 2019, too often, equal pay for equal work is not a reality.
  On average, White women earn 80 cents on the dollar compared with 
White men in substantially equal jobs. The wage gap is even more 
pronounced for women of color in nearly every line of work, regardless 
of education, experience, occupation, industry, or job title.
  This has severe and long-term consequences for the lives of working 
women, families, and for our economy. With the Equal Pay Act, title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and more recently, the Lilly Ledbetter 
Fair Pay Act, we have made some progress in reducing inequities for 
women in the workplace. But, unfortunately, loopholes and insufficient 
enforcement tools have allowed wage discrimination to persist.
  For example, a lack of easily accessible data on hiring and wages has 
made it difficult to detect, let alone prevent, wage discrimination. 
And even when wage discrimination is discovered, working women face 
significant barriers to fulfilling the heavy burden of proof for 
holding discriminating employers accountable.
  Last month, I was honored to chair the hearing on persistent, gender-
based wage discrimination. We heard witnesses describe the barriers to 
detecting wage discrimination and holding employers accountable. But 
most importantly, we heard how the Paycheck Fairness Act will provide 
workers with the tools they need to help close the gender pay gap and 
achieve wage equality.
  Several States have already acted to address pay inequities, 
including bipartisan efforts in my home State of Oregon. It is time for 
Congress to step up and address persistent wage discrimination 
nationwide.
  By passing the Paycheck Fairness Act, we have the opportunity to end 
discriminatory pay practices that contribute to keeping women and 
families in poverty. We have the opportunity to finally make equal pay 
for equal work a reality.
  Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter from AARP outlining 
support for the Paycheck Fairness Act because the bill will strengthen 
financial security for women while in the workforce, and later enhance 
retirement income security.

                                                         AARP,

                                   Washington, DC, March 26, 2019.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Republican Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: On behalf of our 
     38 million members and all Americans age 50 and older, AARP 
     is writing to express our support for the Paycheck Fairness 
     Act (H.R. 7). This bill would strengthen financial security 
     for women both while in the workforce and later in 
     retirement, and it would provide an important protection for 
     all workers against age discrimination in hiring.
       Pay discrimination against women jeopardizes their 
     financial security, both while working and in retirement. The 
     roughly 20 percent pay gap between women and men who work 
     full-time, year-round means women's median earnings are more 
     than $10,000 a year less than men's, with an even bigger 
     shortfall for women of color. Because all elements of 
     retirement income--Social Security, pensions, and savings--
     are based on one's earnings while in the workforce, lower 
     earnings during women's work lives follow them into 
     retirement. As a result, women age 65 and older are 80 
     percent more likely than men to live below the poverty level 
     in retirement. By strengthening the law against pay 
     discrimination, H.R. 7 would help address women's lower pay 
     and lower incomes in retirement.
       In addition, AARP supports the Paycheck Fairness Act's 
     provision on salary history. While asking about a job 
     applicant's prior salary history has long been recognized as 
     a barrier to equal pay it has also proven to be a barrier to 
     employment for older workers. A majority (56 percent) of all 
     older workers age 50 plus have been prematurely pushed out of 
     longtime jobs before they choose to retire. Once displaced, 
     older workers have great difficulty finding reemployment, and 
     most are unable to find a job with wages comparable to the 
     job they lost. It is quite common for prospective employers 
     to use a prior higher salary level to disqualify an older 
     applicant from consideration because they simply assume that 
     the worker will require the same wage. However, there are 
     many reasons why an older worker might be willing to accept a 
     lower salary, including better benefits or work hours; a more 
     desirable job/firm; a career change; or simply desperation to 
     find a new job. In these cases, the ability of the employer 
     to ask about and rely on salary history in considering an 
     older applicant often results in age discrimination in 
     hiring.
       In conclusion, H.R. 7 will help prevent one of the age-
     related assumptions that hinder equal opportunity for older 
     workers, as well as enhance retirement income security for 
     women. For these reasons, we urge support for the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Nancy A. LeaMond,
         Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy & Engagement 
                                                          Officer.

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I also include in the Record a letter from 
the AAUW in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

                                                         AAUW,

                                                   March 25, 2019.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 170,000 
     members and supporters of the American Association of 
     University Women (AAUW), I urge you to vote in support of the 
     Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7) and to oppose harmful 
     amendments when the bill comes to the House floor as soon as 
     this week. Despite federal and state equal pay laws, gender 
     pay gaps persist. The Paycheck Fairness Act offers a much 
     needed update to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by providing new 
     tools to battle these pervasive pay gaps and to challenge 
     discrimination.
       In January, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Lilly 
     Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This vital law rectified the Supreme 
     Court's harmful decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & 
     Rubber Company. The law helps to ensure that individuals 
     subjected to unlawful compensation discrimination are able to 
     bring a case of ongoing pay discrimination regardless of when 
     it began. Despite the importance of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 
     Pay Act, this law's enactment only restored decades of prior 
     law--it did not give women new tools to receive equal pay for 
     equal work.
       There is no more fitting way to mark this historic 
     milestone than making real, concrete progress in ensuring all 
     women receive fair pay. While the gap has narrowed since 
     passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, progress has largely 
     stalled in recent years. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau 
     once again revealed that women working full-time, year-round 
     are typically paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to 
     men. The pay gaps have grown even wider for women of color. 
     African American women and Latinas make, respectively, 61 and 
     53 cents on the dollar as compared to non-Hispanic, white 
     men. The overall pay gap has only decreased

[[Page H2852]]

     by a nickel during the 21st century and, unless action is 
     taken, the pay gap between men's and women's earnings will 
     not close until 2106.
       Research indicates that the gender pay gap develops very 
     early in women's careers. Controlling for factors known to 
     affect earnings, such as education and training, marital 
     status, and hours worked, research finds that college-
     educated women still earn 7 percent less than men just one 
     year out of college. Over time, the gap compounds and widens, 
     impacting women's social security and retirement.
       Ensuring that women have equal pay would have a dramatic 
     impact on families and the economy. Many companies have 
     already recognized the benefits and the power of women's 
     increased economic participation, and that is why business 
     groups like the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce and Main 
     Street Alliance have endorsed the Paycheck Fairness Act. 
     According to a 2017 report from Institute for Women's Policy 
     Research (IWPR), the poverty rate for all working women would 
     be cut in half, falling from 8.0 percent to 3.8 percent, if 
     women were paid the same as comparable men. The same study by 
     IWPR indicates that the U.S. economy would have produced an 
     additional $512.6 billion in income if women had received 
     equal pay for equal work. This is why I urge you to pass this 
     important bill.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act would update and strengthen the 
     Equal Pay Act of 1963 to ensure that it provides effective 
     protection against sex-based pay discrimination in today's 
     workplace.
       The bill takes several important steps, including:
       Ensuring Non-Retaliation: The bill prohibits retaliation 
     against workers for discussing or disclosing wages. Without 
     the non-retaliation provisions of the Paycheck Fairness Act, 
     many women will continue to be silenced in the workplace--
     that is, prohibited from talking about wages with coworkers 
     due to the fear of being fired. This is an issue that keeps 
     women--like it kept Lilly Ledbetter--from learning of pay 
     discrimination against them.
       Prohibiting Use of Salary History: The bill prohibits 
     employers from relying on salary history in determining 
     future pay, so that prior pay discrimination doesn't follow 
     workers from job to job.
       Ensuring Job-Relatedness: The bill closes loopholes that 
     have weakened the Equal Pay Act over time by ensuring that 
     disparities in pay are justified by a business necessity that 
     is related to the job.
       Equalizing Remedies: The bill ensures women can receive the 
     same robust remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that 
     are currently available to those subjected to discrimination 
     based on race and ethnicity.
       Providing Additional Assistance and Resources: The bill 
     also provides technical assistance to businesses, requires 
     wage data collection, and supports salary negotiation skills 
     training programs to give workers the tools to advocate for 
     higher wages.
       Providing a Small Business Exception: The Equal Pay Act and 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act have an exemption for small 
     businesses that generate less than $500,000 in annual 
     revenues a year, and the Paycheck Fairness Act would keep 
     that exemption intact. The bill would also support small 
     businesses with technical assistance.
       The pay gap is persistent and can only be addressed if 
     women are armed with the tools necessary to challenge 
     discrimination against them, and employers are provided with 
     effective incentives and technical assistance to comply with 
     the law. I urge you to take a critical step towards achieving 
     pay equity by voting in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act 
     and opposing harmful amendments when the bill comes to the 
     House floor for a vote as soon as this week.
       We urge you to stand with women and families and vote yes 
     on the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7). Cosponsorship and 
     votes associated with this bill and amendments may be scored 
     in the AAUW Action Fund Congressional Voting Record for the 
     116th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                Deborah J. Vagins,
                Senior Vice President, Public Policy and Research.

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, today, we have this opportunity. Let's 
pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and make equal pay for equal work a 
reality.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik).
  Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Chair, I thank my good friend, Ranking Member 
Foxx.
  Madam Chair, there are nearly 75 million women working in the United 
States, the most in our Nation's history. Thanks to our strong economy, 
nearly 3 million jobs were created in the last year, and of those jobs, 
58 percent went to women.
  Women are graduating from college at a higher rate than their male 
counterparts and are increasingly their family's primary breadwinner. 
Despite all of these positive economic indicators, there remains 
evidence that in some cases women do not earn the same levels of 
compensation as men.
  Republicans strongly support equal pay for equal work, and we owe it 
to women to constructively engage on this important issue and put 
forward solutions to strengthen existing law.
  Democrats have put forth a bill that prioritizes trial attorneys and 
government regulation over women's economic empowerment. The Democratic 
bill, for the first time, would require data disclosure to the EEOC 
that collects compensation data broken down by the sex, race, and 
national origin of employees, while also tracking the hiring, 
termination, and promotion data of those employees.
  These intrusions into the operations of private businesses would add 
compliance costs exceeding $700 million per year. And on top of these 
onerous new requirements, H.R. 7 is a giveaway to trial attorneys by 
changing class action formation from opt in, to opt out.
  America's businesses will need to prepare for an onslaught of 
frivolous lawsuits which now will be open to unlimited compensatory and 
punitive damages.
  The bill establishes an impossibly high burden of proof for employers 
defending the legitimacy of any pay differentials between employees. We 
need to recognize that in today's modern economy, 40 percent of small 
businesses are run by women. This bill would make it harder for these 
women business leaders.
  This issue is far too important to leave to partisan solutions. That 
is why today I am proud to introduce the Wage Equity Act with over 40 
of my colleagues, which offers a stark contrast to the partisan 
approach laid out in H.R. 7. We looked to innovation in the States to 
find consensus, bipartisan policies that were supported by both 
Republicans and Democrats, and signed by Republican Governors, proof 
that equal pay for equal work is not a partisan issue, and that 
Republicans are, indeed, leading the way on women's economic 
opportunity.
  The Wage Equity Act is reflective of the modern workforce and 
supports the empowerment of women in today's economy. Specifically, my 
legislation allows employees to negotiate voluntary, flexible work 
arrangements. These dynamic compensation models empower the individual 
to seek the work arrangement that works best in their own life and for 
their own family.
  America's businesses, in particular our small businesses, which are 
the backbone of our economy, they seek to do right by their employees. 
In recognition of this, the Wage Equity Act creates a self-audit system 
for voluntary pay analysis by businesses.
  Under our proposal, a business could and should undergo a pay 
analysis to proactively rectify pay disparity should it exist. By 
creating this environment of consistent self-reflection, we can further 
empower businesses to do what they already seek to do, doing right not 
only for their employees, but following the law.
  Madam Chair, I believe that an individual should be able to negotiate 
employment based upon their qualifications and merit for the position. 
I also believe that the victim of wage discrimination at any point in 
their career should not have to have this discrimination follow them to 
their next job and compound throughout the rest of their career.
  That is why my bill protects the employee's right to not disclose 
their salary history during the job interview process unless they wish 
to voluntarily disclose it.
  We must acknowledge the compounding impact of wage discrimination on 
a person's career and be willing to discuss ideas to free employees 
from this burden.
  At the same time, we cannot erode the necessary negotiation that 
takes place in a job interview or ignore the role wage figures can play 
in advancement of an individual through their career.
  The Wage Equity Act protects the ability for an employee and their 
perspective employer to have a wage expectation conversation, an 
important part of any negotiation.
  My legislation protects an employee's ability to discuss compensation 
with their colleagues, while giving the employers the ability to set 
reasonable limitations on the time, location, and manner of this 
activity to protect employees from harassment.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

[[Page H2853]]

  

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Chair, furthermore, the Wage Equity Act seeks to 
put women on equal footing with men as they start their careers.
  The legislation provides for a grant program targeted toward women in 
college and career tech programs to provide negotiation skills 
education.
  Lastly, my bill directs the GAO to study the manager's gap. We know 
that the wage gap greatly expands for women after they return to the 
workforce following parental leave. We must have a clear sense of the 
impact that leave during this time will have on an employee's future 
earning and opportunity potentials.
  These are commonsense proposals that are supported by Democrats and 
Republicans. I encourage my colleagues to reject Big Government 
overreach, and find practical, bipartisan solutions that improve and 
strengthen the existing law of the land: equal pay for equal work.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Scott for his 
leadership and Representative DeLauro for bringing this bill to the 
floor.
  I rise today in strong support of the Paycheck Fairness Act because, 
like Fannie Lou Hamer and Representative DeLauro, I am sick and tired 
of being sick and tired of paycheck inequity.
  For three decades, from the North Carolina House to the United States 
Congress, I have been fighting to close the gender wage gap. As the new 
chair of the Education and Labor Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, 
I am very proud to support this bill. It takes the average woman an 
additional 91 days to earn what her male peers earned in 2018, and that 
is unacceptable.
  In my district in North Carolina, women still only make about 82 
cents for every dollar a man makes. It is even worse for women of 
color, who are even less likely to make as much as their male 
counterparts working the same job. Black women earn only 61 cents for 
every dollar a man makes; Hispanic women only 53 cents.
  When we shortchange women, we shortchange our children, our families, 
and our economy. In fact, women are shortchanged $500 billion every 
year. Fifty-six years have passed since the Equal Pay Act was signed 
into law, and it has been 10 years since President Obama signed the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  Yet, our work remains unfinished. Today, the U.S. House of 
Representatives speaks loud and clear, and we will no longer wait while 
women continue to do the same work and not get the same pay. The time 
is up for that.
  Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter from AFSCME which 
states that the Paycheck Fairness Act is integral to ensuring women 
earn the same amount as men for equal work.

                                                       AFSCME,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 2019.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the members of the 
     American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
     (AFSCME), I am writing in support of the ``Paycheck Fairness 
     Act'' (H.R. 7). This legislation is integral to ensure that 
     women earn the same amount as men for equal work.
       To date, women make up almost 47 percent of the workforce 
     in America. Their participation has steadily climbed since 
     the 1970s, and they are completing college and university 
     education at higher rates. The range of occupations women 
     workers hold has also expanded with women making notable 
     gains in professional and managerial occupations. Yet with 
     more than 74.6 million women in the civilian workforce, there 
     is still a gender pay gap between men and women. That's why 
     passage of this bill is necessary. Even with the enormous 
     progress made by women over many decades, women continue to 
     face discrimination that limits their ability to succeed and 
     advance at work.
       Fifty-six years after former President John F. Kennedy 
     signed the Equal Pay Act into law, women earn less than men. 
     While that law along with other civil rights legislation like 
     Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act have helped to narrow 
     the wage gap, it still exists across all occupations, 
     industries, and trade and educational attainment. This 
     shortchanges many working families and creates little upward 
     mobility in compensation to meet basic household needs. 
     Currently, women make only 80 percent of every dollar a man 
     makes in nearly every occupation where there is enough 
     earnings data to compare. This gap in earnings translates 
     into $10,169 less per year in average earnings. This 
     percentage is even lower for women of color. Black women earn 
     61 cents, Latina women 53 cents, Native Hawaiian and Pacific 
     Islander women 62 cents, Native women 58 cents, and Asian 
     women 58 cents for every dollar paid to a white man. This 
     trend is not only troubling for women's career and financial 
     success, but it also limits their ability to save for 
     retirement.
       Stronger equal pay protections and enforcement measures are 
     essential to ensure that our workplaces treat women fairly 
     and operate free of discrimination on the job. AFSCME 
     strongly supports the ``Paycheck Fairness Act'' (H.R. 7) and 
     encourages swift passage to alleviate gender-based wage 
     discrimination, and ensure women receive equal pay for equal 
     work.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Scott Frey,
                           Director of Federal Government Affairs.

  Ms. ADAMS. By passing the Paycheck Fairness Act, we will strengthen 
the Equal Pay Act. We will bolster the rights of working women, and 
finally, we will put an end to gender-based wage disparity.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, before I recognize the next 
speaker, I include in the Record a chart which shows that pay 
discrimination charges filed per year with the EEOC have remained 
statistically consistent during the George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump 
administrations.

                     EEOC Equal Pay Act Statistics


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

       George W. Bush Administration (FY 2001-2008): 1,036.
       Obama Administration (FY 2009-2016): 999.
       Trump Administration (FY 2017-2018): 1,031.


             EEOC EPA Charges Resolved* (Average Per Year)

       Bush Administration (FY 2001-2008): 959.
       Obama Administration (FY 2009-2016): 1,078.
       Trump Administration (FY 2017-2018): 1,220.
       * EEOC resolves charges in a number of different ways: 
     negotiated settlement, withdrawal of charge upon receipt of 
     desired benefits, successful conciliation, unsuccessful 
     conciliation, a finding of no reasonable cause, or closure 
     for administrative reasons.


   Lawsuits filed by EEOC with EPA Claims (Average Per Year) (NOTE: 
               Numbers do not include private litigation)

       Bush Administration (FY 2001-2008): 9.
       Obama Administration (FY 2009-2016): 3.
       Trump Administration (FY 2017-2018): 8.

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chair, I rise today to speak out against H.R. 7, 
legislation that places unprecedented restrictions and liability on job 
creators that will harm the very women it claims to protect.
  As a small business owner with over 40 years of experience creating 
jobs, I know just how hard it can be for employers to find skilled and 
qualified workers.
  With 7.6 million available jobs throughout our Nation, the last thing 
we need to do is overregulate our businesses, especially when Federal 
law already makes it illegal to pay different wages to women for equal 
work.
  H.R. 7 dramatically increases liability for employers, eliminates a 
business owner's ability to contest gender-based pay discrimination 
cases, expands damages, and encourages frivolous lawsuits.
  Furthermore, this partisan bill offers no new protections against pay 
discrimination in the workplace. Rather, H.R. 7 directly benefits trial 
lawyers at the expense of working women. Taken as a whole, this bill 
will very likely limit or obstruct an employer's efforts to recruit, 
hire, promote workers, and to increase their pay--once again, empty 
partisan promises from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

                              {time}  1430

  However, after passing historic tax reform under the Republican-led 
Congress and eliminating burdensome red tape under the leadership of 
President Trump, our businesses are continuing to empower women across 
this country at unprecedented levels.
  We have more women working in the U.S. than ever before, nearly 75 
million. Women filled nearly 60 percent of the 2.8 million jobs created 
in the last year. One in five employer businesses nationwide is owned 
by women, including by my wife of 45 years, Robin.
  I need to keep this momentum going, not obstruct employers' efforts 
to recruit, hire, and promote workers.

[[Page H2854]]

  Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote today on H.R. 7.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, as vice chairman of the Committee 
on Education and Labor, I am so proud that our committee made it a top 
priority this year to bring the Paycheck Fairness Act to the floor, and 
I congratulate Chairman Scott for his leadership.
  This is an issue where the evidence could not be clearer. In 
Michigan's Ninth District, which I represent, for example, women's 
median annual wage is more than $10,000 lower than men's. I don't care 
how many jobs are created or how many women are working, we need to do 
something to, at long last, make women's pay equal to men's.
  If we allow this gap to persist, we are not just telling women they 
aren't worth as much as men. We are doing real damage to entire 
families and to our economy. Failure to tackle the pay gap isn't just 
discriminatory; it is shockingly shortsighted.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will finally align our treatment of gender 
discrimination with other established antidiscrimination policies. This 
is an opportunity to realize equal pay for equal work that we simply 
cannot afford to miss.
  I regret that my good friends across the aisle did not introduce a 
single bill to strengthen the Equal Pay Act across the 20 years they 
held the gavel in this Chamber. I hope they will join us today to lift 
up America's women and families to full equality at long last.
  Finally, I include in the Record a strong letter of support for H.R. 
7 from the AFL-CIO.

                                                      AFL-CIO,

                                                   March 25, 2019.
       Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO strongly urges your 
     support of the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R 7) when it comes to 
     the House floor this week.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act is a long overdue remedial 
     measure that responds to the demonstrated inadequacies of the 
     1963 Equal Pay Act. Although the Equal Pay Act made it 
     illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to male and female 
     employees who perform the same work, wage disparities between 
     men and women persist in both the private and public sectors, 
     at every educational level, across the country. Women working 
     full time are paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to 
     men, and this gap is greater for women of color. While 
     belonging to a union is the surest way to guarantee equal pay 
     on the job--unionized women earn some 27 percent more than do 
     their non-union counterparts--the Paycheck Fairness Act would 
     provide new effective tools to close the wage gap.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act provides targeted remedies 
     designed to update the 1963 Equal Pay Act. It requires 
     employers to demonstrate that wage gaps between men and women 
     doing the same work truly result from factors unrelated to 
     gender. It prohibits employers' use of prior salary history 
     in setting pay for new hires and employer retaliation against 
     workers who discuss their pay with coworkers. Last, H.R. 7 
     brings Equal Pay Act remedies and class action procedures 
     into conformance with those available for other civil rights 
     claims, and strengthens the government's ability to identify 
     and remedy systematic wage discrimination by requiring 
     employers to report pay data to the EEOC.
       When women endure pay discrimination, entire families 
     suffer. We urge you to support final passage of the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act (S. 84), and to oppose any amendment that would 
     weaken this important and long overdue legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
                                     Director, Government Affairs.

  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, while I believe belonging to a 
union is the surest way to guarantee equal pay on the job, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act will provide effective new tools to close the wage gap.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER. Madam Chair, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 
7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. I am a mother and a grandmother. I have 
raised two boys and one husband. I have owned businesses, managed 
employees, made payroll, served in the State legislature, and herded 
buffalo. I don't need any more men trying to tell me that they need to 
protect me from being paid less. I am perfectly capable of negotiating 
a fair wage for a fair day's work and choosing exactly what is 
important to me when making my own decisions.
  The bill proposed by my colleagues across the aisle tells young women 
entering the workforce that they are unable to negotiate for their own 
jobs or take control of their own life and that they need to be coddled 
by the government in order to succeed. What arrogance.
  We are not some delicate and helpless group that needs men to tell us 
just how bad we have it and just how much they need to make sure that 
we are looked after. I can take care of myself, thank you, and so can 
every single woman in this country. This bill is nothing more than a 
trial lawyer's dream and a job creator's nightmare.
  The Equal Pay Act already makes it illegal to pay unequal wages for 
equal work. The men can go try to find somebody else who needs their 
help. In the meantime, I am going to focus on actually helping women 
earn more by creating good-paying jobs, by growing our economy, and by 
building a system that allows for flexible work schedules and nurtures 
entrepreneurship.
  We can't legislate respect any more than we can legislate common 
sense. Women know real respect is earned. We don't need the men's help, 
and we don't need the government's help. We just need them both to get 
out of our way.
  I wholly oppose this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson).
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. I thank Representative DeLauro for her 
efforts in continuing to push this bill to fruition.
  As chair of the HELP Subcommittee and as an African American woman, I 
feel very strongly about the issue of pay fairness. Our Nation cannot 
adequately improve labor conditions without addressing the stark 
inequities that exist along gender and racial lines. The fact that, on 
average, women currently earn just 80 cents for every dollar a man 
earns for the same position and amount of work is just plain wrong and 
is a disgrace.
  By passing the Paycheck Fairness Act and promoting wage parity, we 
can lift families out of poverty and keep harmful biases out of the 
workplace. There are too many poor working people in America working 
two and three jobs to keep their families whole. Research has shown 
that a woman's level of education and work experience or chosen 
industry do not necessarily shield her from unfair pay. This problem is 
widespread and can be found across all sectors of the economy, 
affecting even the most prepared women.
  Economically disadvantaged women are hit extremely hard, as are women 
of color. There are two Americas, a rich and prosperous America and a 
poor and struggling America. Black and Latina women earn 61 cents and 
53 cents, respectively, for every dollar earned by men who perform the 
same job--such a discrepancy, such a stark statistic, such a shame. The 
wage gap is too wide and narrowing much too slowly for Congress not to 
act.
  I strongly support H.R. 7 as a positive step toward correcting this 
glaring injustice. I reiterate my strong support for H.R. 7, and I urge 
all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for paycheck fairness.
  Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter of support from the 
National Education Association.

                               National Education Association,

                                                   March 26, 2019.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our three million members 
     and the 50 million students they serve, we urge you to VOTE 
     YES on the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2019 (H.R. 7). Votes 
     associated with this issue may be included in NEA's Report 
     Card for the 116th Congress.
       Equal pay for equal work is NOT today's reality.
       The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 2017, 
     the median weekly earnings of full-time, salaried female 
     workers were 82 percent of those of full-time, salaried male 
     workers.
       According to AAUW, the pay gap is even bigger for women of 
     color with African Americans earning 61 cents, American 
     Indian/Alaskan natives 58 cents, and Latinas 53 cents for 
     every dollar paid to white men.
       The gender pay gap exists in all demographics, all parts of 
     the country, and nearly all occupations--including female-
     dominated professions like teaching and nursing.
       The Institute for Women's Policy Research reports that 
     closing the pay gap would cut the poverty rate for working 
     single mothers in half and lift 2.5 million children out of 
     poverty.

[[Page H2855]]

       The Paycheck Fairness Act of 2019 would help by:
       Requiring employers to demonstrate that gender is NOT the 
     reason they pay employees different amounts to perform the 
     same jobs.
       Prohibiting employers from asking job candidates about 
     their salary histories.
       Protecting employees from retaliation if they discuss their 
     pay with colleagues.
       Strengthening enforcement of equal pay laws by requiring 
     employers to provide to the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission (EEOC) data on salaries, promotions, and 
     dismissals, broken down by race and gender.
       Putting in place robust remedies for discrimination.
       For all of these reasons, we urge you to VOTE YES on H.R. 
     7.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Marc Egan,
                                 Director of Government Relations.

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Chair, we have made it clear that we do not believe H.R. 7 is 
good for working women, but no one has to take our word for it. There 
are more working women today than ever before.
  Here is what many of the job creators who have helped make that a 
reality have to say about H.R. 7.
  The H.R. Policy Association said:

       As written, the bill would penalize legitimate, 
     nondiscriminatory pay decisions; impose an unworkable burden 
     of proof on employers that even The Washington Post has said 
     ``potentially invites too much intrusion and interference 
     with core business decisions''; and add to the confusing 
     labyrinth of State and local pay history laws.

  The National Federation of Independent Business said:

       H.R. 7 requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
     to issue regulations providing for collection of employers' 
     compensation data. Most small business owners do not have a 
     human resources department or a full-time staff member in 
     charge of reporting and compliance. NFIB members report 
     unreasonable government regulations as their second most 
     important small business problem.

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

       Though well-intended, H.R. 7 would not resolve lingering 
     issues of pay discrimination, particularly when safeguards 
     are already available under the Equal Pay and Fair Labor 
     Standards Acts. Instead, under H.R. 7, women could be 
     perceived as a legal liability, ultimately reducing 
     employment opportunities. Rather than impose new regulations 
     that increase the cost of doing business and kill jobs, 
     Congress should remove barriers that limit prosperity for 
     both men and women.

  This bill, as my colleagues have said, is a sham, and it simply 
doesn't do what my colleagues across the aisle say it will do.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).
  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, let me be very clear: Equal pay for equal 
work has never been a reality for women in America.
  Congress recognized this for the first time 56 years ago, before I 
was even born, when the Equal Pay Act was passed. This was a 
foundational piece of civil rights legislation. But a half century 
later, it is clear that the Equal Pay Act isn't working for everyone, 
and it isn't working fast enough.
  In my district, for every dollar that men in Naperville or Batavia or 
McHenry make, women make 71 cents. That is the worst pay gap in 
Illinois. It means we have to work at least 10 years longer to earn the 
same lifetime income. At this rate, every woman in America wouldn't 
make equal pay for doing the same work for almost 200 years.
  In my community in Illinois, the 14th Congressional District isn't 
willing to wait that long, and neither are the House Democrats. That is 
why I am standing here today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act. There is no point in a woman's life, from 
childhood to retirement, where the gender pay gap doesn't hurt her. The 
Paycheck Fairness Act would take huge, critical steps to fix that.
  The Committee on Education and Labor held hearings on the act, and we 
heard from experts how this bill would do things like lift children out 
of poverty, contribute billions of dollars to America's economy, and 
make sure women have a safer, healthier retirement.
  Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter signed by 315 State, 
local, and national organizations that support the Paycheck Fairness 
Act.

                   Vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act

                                                   March 25, 2019.
       Dear Representative: As members of a broad coalition of 
     organizations that promote economic opportunity for women and 
     vigorous enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, we strongly 
     urge you to vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act when it comes 
     to the House floor for a vote. Despite federal and state 
     equal pay laws, gender pay gaps persist. This legislation 
     offers a much needed update to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by 
     providing new tools to battle the pervasive pay gaps and to 
     challenge discrimination.
       In January, we celebrated two major accomplishments. First, 
     an historic number of women were sworn into the 116th 
     Congress, many of whom--along with their male colleagues--ran 
     and won on issues central to the economic well-being of 
     families. Second, on January 29, 2019, we commemorated the 
     tenth anniversary of the enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter 
     Fair Pay Act. That vital law rectified the Supreme Court's 
     harmful decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber 
     Company. The law helps to ensure that individuals subjected 
     to unlawful compensation discrimination are able to have 
     their day in court and effectively assert their rights under 
     federal antidiscrimination laws. But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 
     Pay Act, critical as it is, is only one step on the path to 
     ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work.
       There is no more fitting way to begin this historic 
     Congress than by making real, concrete progress in ensuring 
     all women receive fair pay. The Paycheck Fairness Act updates 
     and strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to ensure that it 
     provides robust protection against sex-based pay 
     discrimination. Among other provisions, this comprehensive 
     bill bars retaliation against workers who voluntarily discuss 
     or disclose their wages. It closes loopholes that have 
     allowed employers to pay women less than men for the same 
     work without any important business justification related to 
     the job. It ensures women can receive the same robust 
     remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that are currently 
     available to those subjected to discrimination based on race 
     and ethnicity. It prohibits employers from relying on salary 
     history in determining future pay, so that pay discrimination 
     does not follow women from job to job. And it also provides 
     much needed training and technical assistance, as well as 
     data collection and research.
       Women are increasingly the primary or co-breadwinner in 
     their families and cannot afford to be shortchanged any 
     longer. Women working full-time, year-round are typically 
     paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to men, and when we 
     compare women of color to white, non-Hispanic men, the pay 
     gaps are even larger. Moms are paid less than dads. And even 
     when controlling for factors, such as education and 
     experience, the pay gaps persist and start early in women's 
     careers and contribute to a wealth gap that follows them 
     throughout their lifetimes. These pay gaps can be addressed 
     only if workers have the legal tools necessary to challenge 
     discrimination and when employers are provided with effective 
     incentives and technical assistance to comply with the law.
       It's time to take the next step toward achieving equal pay. 
     We urge you to vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act and 
     encourage your colleagues to do the same, taking up the cause 
     of Lilly Ledbetter and all those who have fought for equal 
     pay.
           Sincerely,

       9to5, National Association of Working Women:
       9to5 California; 9to5 Colorado; 9to5 Georgia; 9to5 
     Wisconsin.
       A Better Balance
       ACCESS Women's Health Justice
       Advocacy and Training Center
       American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Unions 
     (AFL-CIO):
       PA AFL-CIO.
       African American Ministers In Action
       American Association of University Women (AAUW):
       AAUW of Alabama; AAUW of Alaska; (AAUW Fairbanks (AK) 
     Branch, AAUW Kodiak (AK) Branch); AAUW of Arizona; AAUW of 
     Arkansas; AAUW of California; AAUW of Colorado; AAUW of 
     Connecticut; AAUW of Delaware; AAUW of District of Columbia 
     (AAUW Washington (DC) Branch, AAUW Capitol Hill (DC) Branch); 
     AAUW of Florida; AAUW of Georgia; AAUW of Hawaii; AAUW of 
     Idaho; AAUW of Illinois; AAUW of Indiana; AAUW of Iowa; AAUW 
     of Kansas; AAUW of Kentucky; AAUW of Louisiana; AAUW of 
     Maine.
       AAUW of Maryland; AAUW of Massachusetts; AAUW of Michigan; 
     AAUW of Minnesota; AAUW of Mississippi; AAUW of Missouri; 
     AAUW of Montana; AAUW of Nebraska; AAUW of Nevada; AAUW of 
     New Hampshire; AAUW of New Jersey; AAUW of New Mexico; AAUW 
     of New York; AAUW of North Carolina; AAUW of North Dakota; 
     AAUW of Ohio; AAUW of Oklahoma; AAUW of Oregon; AAUW of 
     Pennsylvania; AAUW of Puerto Rico; AAUW of Rhode Island; AAUW 
     of South Carolina; AAUW of South Dakota;

[[Page H2856]]

     AAUW of Tennessee; AAUW of Texas; AAUW of Utah; AAUW of 
     Vermont; AAUW of Virginia; AAUW of Washington; AAUW of West 
     Virginia; AAUW of Wyoming.
       American Civil Liberties Union
       American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO
       American Federation of State, County, and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME)
       American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
       American Psychological Association
       Americans for Democratic Action
       Anti-Defamation League
       Atlanta Women for Equality
       Bend the Arc: Jewish Action
       Bozeman Business & Professional Women
       California Employment Lawyers Association
       California Federation of Business & Professional Women
       Caring Across Generations
       Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for Healthy 
     Families and Communities
       Catalyst
       Center for Advancement of Public Policy
       Center for American Progress
       Center for Law and Social Policy
       Central Conference of American Rabbis
       Citizen Action of New York
       Clearinghouse on Women's Issues
       Coalition of Labor Union Women:
       California Capital Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; 
     Chesapeake Bay Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; 
     Chicago Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; Derby City 
     Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; Grand Prairie/
     Arlington Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; Greater 
     New Jersey Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; Greater 
     Oklahoma City Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; 
     Houston Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; Ohio 
     Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; Kentucky State 
     Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; Los Angeles Chapter, 
     Coalition of Labor Union Women.
       Metro Detroit Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; 
     Michigan Capitol Area Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union 
     Women; Missouri State Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union 
     Women; Neshaminy Bucks Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union 
     Women; Philadelphia Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; 
     Rhode Island Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; San 
     Diego Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; Southwestern 
     PA Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; St. Louis Metro 
     Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; Western New York 
     Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women; Western Virginia 
     Chapter, Coalition of Labor Union Women.
       Congregation of Our Lady of the Good Shepherd, US Provinces
       Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF)
       Disciples Women
       Ecumenical Poverty Initiative
       Equal Pay Today
       Equal Rights Advocates
       Feminist Majority Foundation
       Friends of the Delaware County Women's Commission
       Futures Without Violence
       Gender Equality Law Center
       Girls For Gender Equity
       Girls Inc.
       Grameen Development Society (GDS)
       Graphic Communications Conference/International Brotherhood 
     of Teamsters Local 24M/9N
       Greater New York Labor Religion Coalition
       Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.
       Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters--USA--JPIC
       Hope's Door
       Hudson Law PLLC
       Indiana Institute for Working Families
       Interfaith Worker Justice
       International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
       International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
     Workers (IAMAW)
       International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and 
     Transportation Workers (SMART) Local 20
       International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers--3rd 
     District
       International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 29
       International Federation of Professional and Technical 
     Engineers (IFPTE)
       International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
     Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
       JALSA: Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action
       Jewish Women International
       Justice for Migrant Women
       Lambda Legal
       The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
       League of Women Voters of St. Lawrence County, NY
       Legal Aid At Work
       Main Street Alliance
       Maine Women's Lobby
       McCree Ndjatou, PLLC
       Methodist Federation for Social Action
       MomsRising
       Mississippi Black Women's Roundtable
       NAACP
       National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good 
     Shepherd
       National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF)
       National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), AFL-CIO
       National Center for Transgender Equality
       National Committee on Pay Equity
       National Council of Jewish Women
       National Domestic Workers Alliance
       National Education Association
       National Employment Law Project
       National Employment Lawyers Association:
       NELA-Georgia; NELA-Houston; NELA-Indiana; NELA-New Jersey; 
     NELA-New York; NELA-Pennsylvania; NELA-Texas.
       National Federation of Business and Professional Women 
     Clubs
       National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund
       National Organization for Women:
       Anne Arundel County NOW; Arlington NOW; Baton Rouge NOW; 
     California NOW; Central Phoenix/Inez Casiano NOW; Charlotte 
     NOW; Chester County NOW; Connecticut NOW; DC NOW; East End 
     NOW; Florida NOW; High Desert NOW; Hollywood NOW; Illinois 
     NOW; Indianapolis NOW; Jacksonville NOW; Louisiana NOW.
       Maryland NOW; Miami NOW; Michigan NOW; Minnesota NOW; 
     Montana NOW; Morris County NOW; North Carolina NOW; Nevada 
     NOW; New Orleans NOW; New York City NOW; New York State NOW; 
     Northern New Jersey NOW; Northwest PA NOW; Oregon NOW; 
     Pennsylvania NOW; Philadelphia NOW; Seattle NOW.
       Seminole County NOW; South Jersey NOW--Alice Paul Chapter; 
     Southwest ID NOW; Southwest PA NOW; Sun Cities/West Valley 
     NOW; Texas State NOW; Washington County NOW; Washington NOW; 
     Washtenaw County NOW; West Pinellas NOW; West Virginia NOW; 
     Westchester NOW; Will County NOW; Williamsport NOW; Wisconsin 
     NOW; Worcester NOW.
       National Partnership for Women & Families
       National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
       National Women's Law Center
       National Women's Political Caucus
       NC Women United
       NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice
       New York Paid Leave Coalition
       New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
       North Carolina Justice Center
       Oxfam America
       PathWays PA
       People For the American Way
       Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates
       PowHer NY
       Progressive Maryland
       Public Citizen
       Restaurant Opportunities Centers United
       Service Employees International Union (SEIU):
       SEIU Local 6686.
       SiX Action
       Southwest Women's Law Center
       Texas Business Women Inc.
       Transport Workers Union
       U.S. Women and Cuba Collaboration
       U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce
       UltraViolet
       Union for Reform Judaism
       Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation
       UNITE HERE! Local 57
       United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries
       United Mine Workers of America:
       United Mine Workers of America District Two.
       United Nations Association of the United States
       United State of Women
       United Steelworkers (USW):
       United Steelworkers, District 10; USW Local 1088; L.U. 
     #1088 USW.
       UN Women USNC Metro New York Chapter
       UnidosUS
       Voter Participation Center
       Westminster Presbyterian Church
       Women Employed
       WNY Women's Foundation
       Women of Reform Judaism
       Women's All Points Bulletin, WAPB
       Women's Voices, Women Vote Action Fund
       WomenNC
       Women's Law Project
       Women's Rabbinic Network
       YWCA USA:
       YWCA Allentown; YWCA Alliance; YWCA Asheville; YWCA 
     Berkeley/Oakland; YWCA Billings; YWCA of Binghamton & Broome 
     County; YWCA Brooklyn; YWCA Cambridge; YWCA Central Alabama; 
     YWCA Central Massachusetts; YWCA Clark County; YWCA Contra 
     Costa/Sacramento; YWCA Corpus Christi; YWCA Gettysburg & 
     Adams County; YWCA Great Falls; YWCA Greater Austin; YWCA 
     Greater Baton Rouge; YWCA Greater Cincinnati; YWCA Greater 
     Harrisburg; CYWCA Greater Miami-Dade.
       YWCA of Greater Portland; YWCA of Kauai; YWCA Mahonini 
     Valley; YWCA McLean County; YWCA Metropolitan Phoenix; YWCA 
     Mount Desert Island; YWCA New Hampshire; YWCA of the Niagara 
     Frontier; YWCA Oklahoma City; YWCA Olympia; YWCA Orange 
     County; YWCA Pasadena-Foothill Valley; YWCA of the Sauk 
     Valley; YWCA Seattle/King/Snohomish; YWCA South Hampton 
     Roads; YWCA Southeastern Massachusetts; YWCA St. Paul; YWCA 
     of Syracuse and Onondaga County; YWCA Tri-County Area; YWCA 
     of the University of Illinois; YWCA of Van Wert County; YWCA 
     of Watsonville; YWCA Western New York; YWCA Westmoreland 
     County; YWCA Yakima.
       Zonta Club of Greater Queens
       Zonta Club of Portland

  Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I also want to acknowledge the hard

[[Page H2857]]

work and leadership of Chairman Scott, Representative DeLauro, and 
committee staff on the issue of equal pay.
  This is a bipartisan bill with support from both parties. I encourage 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting the 
Paycheck Fairness Act and take this important step toward ending 
gender-based discrimination at work.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Chair, earlier, my colleagues presented some interesting 
numbers. The wage gap is a truly fascinating subject to study because 
there are statistics to show it is vast, and there are statistics to 
show, in many cases, it is virtually nonexistent.
  We should note the numbers that really aren't up for debate. There 
are more working women today than ever before, 74.9 million. A record 
2.8 million new jobs were created in the past year, and nearly 60 
percent of those jobs are now filled by women. There are more women 
owning businesses and employing Americans than ever before. That was no 
accident. Women are the direct beneficiaries of strong economic policy.
  They need strong economic policy. They don't want more ways to sue 
people. They want more freedom to work in the jobs they want.
  We are here for women, Madam Chair, not their lawyers.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
  Ms. OMAR. Madam Chair, I am honored to rise today to speak on H.R. 7, 
the Paycheck Fairness Act. I am proud to be part of a Congress that is 
finally taking action to close the gender pay gap. After so many years 
of inaction on this issue when our Republican colleagues were in the 
majority, I think it is fair to say that it is about time.
  It is hard to imagine that, in this day and age, women could be paid 
less than a man for doing the same job. But it happens, and it happens 
often. Statistics show that pay disparity isn't a thing of the past; it 
is happening today. It isn't just holding women back; it is amplifying 
racial inequalities across the country.
  We often hear the statistics that say women make 80 cents to every 
dollar that is paid to a man, but those figures are often worse for 
women of color. Black women are making only 61 cents on the dollar. For 
Latina women, that is 53 cents. For Native American women, it is 58 
cents. Clearly, the pay gap is compounded by a racial gap.
  It should be obvious to all of us that this problem extends beyond 
the workplace.
  Madam Chair, you see the impact everywhere you look around our 
society. Women of color are less likely to have healthcare coverage. 
They are more likely to experience hunger. They are less likely to own 
a home or be fully prepared for retirement.

                              {time}  1445

  At the end of the day, those pennies on the dollar add up, and that 
loss of income is putting women of color at a serious disadvantage.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will take aggressive action to remedy these 
inequalities and tear down the economic barriers that women of color 
face. It will do that, in part, by ensuring the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission has the information it needs to detect pay 
discrimination and to identify those additional cross-section biases.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. OMAR. Madam Chair, I am proud to introduce an amendment with my 
colleague, Representative Beyer from Virginia, that will ensure that 
the major employers are required to report that information to that 
commission. That will go a long way to finally ending the systemic 
barriers that women and women of color face in this country.
  I thank Chair Scott and Chair DeLauro. I am really excited to be part 
of this change-making Congress.
  I include in the Record a letter from the NAACP in support of this 
legislation.

         Washington Bureau, National Association for the 
           Advancement of Colored People,
                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 2019.
     Re: NAACP Strong support for the immediate passage of H.R. 7, 
         the Paycheck Fairness Act.

     The Honorable,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's 
     oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based 
     civil rights organization, I strongly urge you to support and 
     vote in favor of H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. This 
     critical legislation would update and strengthen the Equal 
     Pay Act of 1963, which mandated that employers pay equal 
     wages to men and women who perform substantially the same 
     work. The Paycheck Fairness Act closes loopholes in the Equal 
     Pay Act which have diluted its effectiveness in combating 
     unfair and unequal pay. While the Equal Pay Act has helped to 
     narrow the wage gap between men and women in our workforce, 
     significant disparities remain and must be addressed.
       Especially in today's economy, more women work outside of 
     the home and their paycheck is a necessary part of their 
     households' resources. Yet all too often women are forced to 
     raise their families on incomes lower than that of male 
     colleagues performing the same jobs. According to 2018 data, 
     women in the United States are typically paid 80 cents for 
     every dollar paid to men. The median annual pay for a woman 
     who holds a full-time, year-round job is $41,977 while the 
     median annual pay for a man who holds a full-time, year-round 
     job is $52,146--a difference of $10,169 per year. The 
     statistics are even worse for women of color. African-
     American women make only 61 cents, and Hispanic women only 53 
     cents, for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men. 
     These gaps translate into a loss of almost $24,000 a year for 
     African-American women and almost $28,500 annually for 
     Hispanic women.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act is a responsible, steady yet 
     aggressive bill. It will help remedy this inequity and close 
     this unacceptable gap. In short, the legislation will protect 
     women and families across America by: protecting against 
     retaliation for discussing salaries with colleagues; 
     prohibiting employers from screening job applicants based on 
     their salary history or requiring salary history during the 
     interview and hiring process; requiring employers to prove 
     that pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related 
     reasons; providing plaintiffs who file sex-based wage 
     discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act with the same 
     remedies as are available to plaintiffs who file race- or 
     ethnicity-based wage discrimination claims under the 1964 
     Civil Rights Act; removing obstacles in the Equal Pay Act to 
     facilitate plaintiffs' participation in class action lawsuits 
     that challenge systemic pay discrimination; and creating a 
     negotiation skills training program for women and girls.
       I again urge you to do all you can to see that this 
     important legislation is enacted as quickly as possible so 
     that women can begin to have some parity for a day's work. 
     This in turn will help hard working American women, their 
     children and their families gain the economic stability they 
     deserve. Please support the Paycheck Fairness Act and work to 
     eliminate this unacceptable gap in pay.
           Sincerely,
     Hilary O. Shelton,
       Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President 
     for Policy and Advocacy.

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I am a businessman. I am also the father of 
three daughters.
  I have managed people and managed compensation plans for more than 40 
years, and I know that we cannot manage what we do not measure. I agree 
with my friend, the Republican congresswoman from New York, that men 
and women should be paid equally for equal work. This should be a 
bedrock principle of our democracy.
  But if we don't gather the data, how will we ever know if there is 
paycheck fairness?
  My middle daughter is a computer programmer--well paid. She was 
dismayed to learn around Christmastime that her male counterparts doing 
exactly the same work were making more money.
  It is a fiction that this will be a burden on employers with more 
than 100 employees. Absolutely none of these employers have not 
digitized their paycheck process decades ago. The collection of this 
data requires a keystroke; that is all. All the data, already there, 
already gathered.
  Pay transparency is the most powerful way to achieve paycheck 
fairness.

[[Page H2858]]

  Men and women together are outraged when they see actual measured pay 
unfairness. But where incomes are most fair, where they are most 
transparent--in the military and in government--paycheck inequity is 
small or even nonexistent.
  This is not a bill for lawyers. This is a bill for business owners 
and business managers who want to do the right thing and now will have 
the data to do that right thing.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I have left the chair, where I had been presiding, to speak on my 
bill, which is included in H.R. 7. My bill is Pay Equity for All, to 
bar an employer from asking about a person's prior pay.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank all of you who have led this bill to where 
we are today. I also am very much for the bill in which my bill is 
included, H.R. 7, which includes class actions, for example, the 
clarification for which has been most needed.
  Expanding this bill is personal for me. I was the first woman to 
chair the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and enforce the Equal 
Pay Act, expanding it during my term at the commission.
  I, therefore, am very grateful to my good friend Rosa DeLauro, a 
great champion of equal pay, for including my Pay Equity for All Act in 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, many employers may not recognize that they are 
discriminating against women because they may not intentionally do so. 
But setting wages based on salary history is routinely done in the 
workplace, perhaps even by some in the Congress, and it reinforces the 
wage gap and may be the most important reason for the persistence of 
the wage gap that we have been unable to unlock.
  What it means is that historically disadvantaged groups--women and 
minorities in particular--often start their careers with unfair and 
artificially low wages compared to their White male counterparts. This 
then gets imbedded--this discrimination--and compounded throughout 
their careers, so they never catch up with their male counterparts.
  Job offers ought to be based on an applicant's skill and merit, not 
past salary or salary history.
  My bill keeps an employer from asking applicants for their salary 
history or their salary in the last job during the interview process or 
as a condition of employment.
  One study has shown, if you don't ask this question, wages are set at 
9 percent higher. Therefore, this bill is a very important component of 
bridging the wage gap.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
the chairman of the full committee, I acknowledge the ranking member, 
and indicate that, as all of us who have come to the floor, this is an 
enormously historic day.
  For those of us who know the history of equal pay for women in 
America, this is a journey long in coming and continuing--first with 
the Equal Pay Act of some 50-plus years ago; then with the Lilly 
Ledbetter Act 10 years ago; and now with this historic legislation, the 
Paycheck Fairness Act--to make good on the idea that women should not 
be getting less than their male counterparts: African American women 
earning 61 percent, Latina women earning 53 percent, and Hawaiian and 
Pacific Islanders earning 62 percent versus White, non-Hispanic men.
  The most important part of this legislation is the protection given 
to women today, requiring employers to prove that pay disparities exist 
for legitimate, job-related reasons other than sex. It bans 
retaliation against workers who wish to discuss their wages. It removes 
obstacles in the Equal Pay Act to allow workers to participate in 
class-action lawsuits and improves the Department of Labor tools for 
enforcing the Equal Pay Act.

  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from 
Texas an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, it is important to note that no one, as 
a woman, can ask you what your previous pay was--how denigrating that 
is--and use it as a basis to not pay you what you really deserve in 
this new position.
  Also, women are heads of household; they deserve the ability to 
provide for their family.
  Madam Chair, this is not a lawsuit bill. This is an opportunity bill. 
This is a fairness bill. This is the ability to go into court to 
receive justice. And, yes, as part of justice, class-action lawsuits 
can work.
  I believe that the Paycheck Fairness Act should be passed, promptly 
going to the other body, and be signed by the President of the United 
States, because women, too, have the responsibilities to serve and 
provide for their family.
  This is an historic piece of legislation. I thank Rosa DeLauro.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chair of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, in 1963, when the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, 
women earned 59 cents on the dollar compared to men.
  In the 56 years since, that gap has only closed by 21 cents. Women 
still make only 80 cents on the dollar compared to their male 
counterparts and earn less than men in nearly every single occupation.
  The pay gap is even more extreme for women of color. Over the course 
of an entire career, that gap results in women losing millions of 
dollars in earnings compared to their male counterparts.
  In today's economy, in which women make up more than half of the 
workforce and are the sole or co-breadwinner in half of American 
families, that is simply unacceptable.
  Being paid fairly for your work is a fundamental issue of fairness 
and freedom. Pay disparity can limit women's career choices and their 
financial independence, but equal pay enables women to save for 
retirement, to build careers, to buy homes, and to support their 
families.
  Today, I am proud to vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation 
I have cosponsored in every Congress since 1997.
  This legislation gets us closer, at last, to fulfilling the promise 
of equal pay for equal work and finally ensuring that women have the 
ability to fight back against wage discrimination and close the wage 
gap.
  I wish to thank Chairman Scott for including language in this bill 
that mirrors legislation I introduced with Representative Eleanor 
Holmes Norton to address how employers use salary history.
  Many women and minorities start their careers with unfair and 
artificially low salaries compared to their White male counterparts. 
That discrepancy can be compounded from job to job, when employers rely 
heavily on salary history in compensation packages.
  This change will help ensure that women's pay is based on their merit 
and not on the past discrimination of other employers.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to finish 
the work of closing the wage gap.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I have worked for most of my life. I entered the 
workforce as a young woman, not because I wanted to but because I had 
to. I knew the burden of poverty well. If I didn't work to support 
myself, if I didn't contribute to my family income, we would go hungry.
  Well, I have been enormously blessed to have gone from working for 
survival to working for pleasure and, I hope, a greater purpose. I know 
there are millions of women of all ages in this country today who must 
work to survive, just as I did.
  When I entered the workforce, equal pay for equal work--equal pay for

[[Page H2859]]

women--was a demand, but not yet the law. Today, it is the law. The 
Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act are clear that pay 
discrimination is wrong, it is unacceptable, and it is illegal.
  Managers who discriminate on the basis of sex are breaking at least 
two Federal laws, and they have no excuses.
  No one should operate under the assumption that women have reached 
their full potential in the workplace.
  Over the years, I have experienced sexism and misogyny. I have seen 
unfairness. I have seen, also, remarkable advancement, and I have 
remained disappointed in many ways.
  So, for the sake of all the working women I have known and know now, 
women who work because they choose to and women who work because they 
must, I looked for anything in this legislation worthy of their 
support. I found that this bill wasn't written for their sake at all.
  This bill is a cynical political ploy that borders on paternalism. 
There is not a single new or strengthened legal protection against pay 
discrimination for working women in H.R. 7.

                              {time}  1500

  This bill is entirely designed for trial lawyers, and Democrats must 
think women are too dumb to understand what they have done.
  It is an insult to women everywhere that Democrats are passing this 
bill off as something good for them. This bill is like every other 
cheap product in drugstores and supermarkets across America that has 
been covered in pink packaging, marketed as the solution women have 
been waiting for, and sold for twice what it is worth.
  We know women are smarter than that. Democrats, who have assumed that 
women will always follow their agenda, realize they are running out of 
time, and that is why they have stooped to a stunt like H.R. 7.
  Women in America are embracing their power and potential in ways they 
never have before. I am not talking about the record number of women in 
Congress. I am talking about the historic, groundbreaking number of 
women in the workforce.
  More than half of the record number of new jobs created in the past 
year have gone to women. More women are stepping up to start and lead 
businesses, to be job creators themselves, than ever before.
  Women need Representatives in Washington who will cheer for them, not 
their rich lawyers. If Democrats want to champion a bill to make life 
easier for trial lawyers, that is their choice, but they should be 
honest about it and, for once, bypass the opportunity to talk down to 
hardworking women everywhere.
  For the women who work today because they must, I am glad they have 
the legal protections I didn't when I was in their shoes. It was women 
like them who paved the way for suffrage a century ago. It was women 
like them who made equal pay for equal work the law of the land, and it 
is women like them, today and tomorrow, who will continue to clarify, 
to sharpen, and to exemplify what ``a more perfect Union'' was always 
supposed to look like. This House should follow their lead.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I would like to inquire how much 
time I have left.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Chair, I just want to make a couple of closing comments.
  We have heard speaker after speaker complain that, if this bill 
passes, lawyers will get paid. Most lawyers, in fact, only get paid 
when they have a winning case; so if they want lawyers to stop getting 
paid, they could do this if we would stop discriminating.
  The only way to enforce the laws against discrimination is to hire a 
lawyer and go to court, and that is when lawyers get paid. Stop the 
discrimination; stop the lawyers from getting paid.
  There is also a suggestion that we ought to limit the amount of money 
that can be paid to lawyers. The fact is that no group supporting women 
support that limitation because the limitation sometimes can be so low 
that you can't hire a lawyer. It is only supported by groups supporting 
those representing people accused of discrimination.
  It is also one-sided. There is no proposal to limit the amount of 
money that the guilty can pay their lawyers.
  A comment was made about unlimited damages. The damages, in fact, in 
this bill are the same as you can get under race and religious 
discrimination, and the purpose of the bill is to conform the process 
for gender discrimination to the process for other forms of 
discrimination like race and religion.
  The EEOC data, as my colleague from Virginia pointed out, is 
available, and if you do not report this data, you could have gross 
disparities. You could pay all the men one thing and all the women 
less, and until that is reported, nobody might notice.
  Madam Chair, there are pay gaps. Discrimination still exists, and 
this legislation is one step in closing that pay gap. We need to pass 
the legislation.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, our Republican colleagues say the Paycheck 
Fairness Act is unnecessary, a boom for trial attorneys and a burden on 
employers, but once again the latest numbers tell a different story. 
American women continue to lag far behind fair pay for equal work.
  The latest numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau once again revealed 
that American women working full-time, year-round, are typically paid 
only 80 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. The pay 
gaps are even more severe for women of color: 61 cents for African 
American women and 53 cents for Latina women.
  Women take home less money than they have rightfully earned in every 
industry, no matter what they do, how high their level of education, or 
where they are from.
  Not only is this a matter of basic equality, economic justice and 
freedom, it also compounds and is a significant issue impacting women's 
retirement security.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act provides a long-overdue remedy to the 1963 
Equal Pay Act. It will give women the tools needed to successfully 
challenge pay discrimination and to incentivize employers to comply 
with the law.
  I urge all my colleagues to support its passage.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise today to voice my support 
for H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The purpose of this legislation 
is simple: ensuring all women are rewarded with equal pay for equal 
work. The landmark Equal Pay Act of 1963 has helped us to achieve 
progress in this crucial policy area, but the Equal Pay Act, enacted 
over a half-century ago, is out of date and out of touch with today's 
business world. The Paycheck Fairness Act makes necessary and common-
sense improvements to this historic law so that we can take another 
step toward eradicating gender-based wage discrimination.
  Most importantly, this bill seeks to make equal pay a reality for 
women of color. Race and gender wage gaps harm not just the economic 
security of women but also of their families. A woman of color who 
works full time, year round, can lose more than $1 million in income 
over a 40-year career because of the wage gap. Currently, black women 
earn $0.60 for every dollar earned by their white male counterparts. 
Native American women earn $0.57 to every dollar, and Latina women earn 
$0.54. Meanwhile, white women and Asian women earn $0.79 and $0.87, 
respectively. This wage gap has not improved for years and continues to 
squeeze women's pocketbooks, erode their earning potential, and deprive 
them of the means to improve their own lives and support their 
families.
  It is long past time to update the Equal Pay Act to give working 
women the legal tools they need to challenge sex-based pay 
discrimination and to encourage employers to comply with the law. The 
Paycheck Fairness Act sets forth a path toward achieving those goals.
  I urge members of the House to pass this critical legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 
7, the Paycheck Fairness Act--a modest, common-sense solution to the 
problem of pay inequity.
  Equal pay for equal work is not only a core value of mine and 
others--it's the law. Full implementation of that principle, however, 
remains elusive.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act, which was first introduced in 1997 and 
passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support in 2009, is 
a serious initiative to realize the noble goal of true equality.
  Among its provisions, this legislation would:
  Encourage businesses to rely on information about the market value of 
a position, industry standards, the duties of the job, and their

[[Page H2860]]

budgets in order to set salaries, by prohibiting reliance on the prior 
salary history of prospective employees.
  Allow workers to share their personal salary information free from 
retaliation, with commonsense exceptions for FIR professionals.
  Improve research on the gender pay gap by instructing Department of 
Labor (DOL) to conduct studies and review available research and data 
to provide information on how to identify, correct, and eliminate 
illegal wage disparities.
  Assist the DOL in uncovering wage discrimination by requiring the 
collection of wage data from federal contractors, and direct the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to conduct a survey of 
available wage information and create a system of wage data collection.
  Support small businesses with technical assistance by providing 
support to all businesses to help them with their equal pay practices.
  Momentum has continued to build, with more than 260 diverse 
organizations signing a letter in support of the bill, including the 
U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, which represents business 
associations and groups across the country, and the Main Street 
Alliance, a national network of small business owners.
  Madam Chair, according to the National Partnership for Women and 
Families, if the disparity in median annual earnings for women and men 
working full-time, year-round were closed, women would have over 
$10,000 more in earnings each year. For millennial women, closing this 
gender wage gap could add up to more than $1,000,000 in lost income 
over a career.
  This not only impacts these women immensely, but also directly 
impacts those with families. Over 62 percent of two-parent, married 
households with children, have both parents employed, which means these 
families would add $10,000 more to their family's total earnings per 
year.
  Madam Chair, this bill makes good economic sense. Companies are 
recognizing the benefits and the power of women's increased economic 
participation, and some have already enacted policies similar to those 
outlined in the Paycheck Fairness Act. Companies like Staples and 
Amazon have ended inquiries into job applicants' salary histories to 
avoid importing prior pay discrimination into their wage setting 
process. These moves are directly aligned with the Paycheck Fairness 
Act's provision banning reliance on salary history in determining 
future pay, so that prior pay discrimination doesn't follow workers 
from job to job.
  We have also seen a movement, spearheaded by investors, to motivate 
companies to disclose their pay data. After a gender pay shareholder 
proposal from the investment management firm Arjuna Capital, Citigroup 
publicly released the results of its pay equity review in 2018 covering 
a third of its global workforce, and another, more comprehensive 
review, in 2019. This data release went even further than the Paycheck 
Fairness Act's provisions, which would only require that companies give 
this summary information to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC), not the public.
  According to a 2017 report from the Institute for Women's Policy 
Research, the poverty rate for all working women would be cut in half 
if women were paid the same as men. The same study indicates the U.S. 
economy would have produced an additional $512.6 billion in income if 
women had received equal pay for equal work. With 64 percent of mothers 
being the primary, sole, or co-breadwinners of their families, equal 
pay for women means America's families are better off.
  Ensuring women have equal pay would have a significant positive 
impact on our families and our economy and I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Education and Labor, printed in the bill, it shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-8 modified by the 
amendment printed in part A of House Report 116-19. That amendment in 
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                 H.R. 7

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Paycheck Fairness Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over 
     the past 50 years.
       (2) Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 
     many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men 
     for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the 
     private and governmental sectors.
       (3) In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due 
     to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering 
     effects of past discrimination. After controlling for 
     educational attainment, occupation, industry, union status, 
     race, ethnicity, and labor force experience roughly 40 
     percent of the pay gap remains unexplained.
       (4) The existence of such pay disparities--
       (A) depresses the wages of working families who rely on the 
     wages of all members of the family to make ends meet;
       (B) undermines women's retirement security, which is often 
     based on earnings while in the workforce;
       (C) prevents women from realizing their full economic 
     potential, particularly in terms of labor force participation 
     and attachment;
       (D) has been spread and perpetuated, through commerce and 
     the channels and instrumentalities of commerce, among the 
     workers of the several States;
       (E) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in 
     commerce;
       (F) constitutes an unfair method of competition in 
     commerce;
       (G) tends to cause labor disputes, as evidenced by the tens 
     of thousands of charges filed with the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission against employers between 2010 and 
     2016;
       (H) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods 
     in commerce; and
       (I) in many instances, may deprive workers of equal 
     protection on the basis of sex in violation of the 5th and 
     14th Amendments to the Constitution.
       (5)(A) Artificial barriers to the elimination of 
     discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex 
     continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.).
       (B) These barriers have resulted, in significant part, 
     because the Equal Pay Act of 1963 has not worked as Congress 
     originally intended. Improvements and modifications to the 
     law are necessary to ensure that the Act provides effective 
     protection to those subject to pay discrimination on the 
     basis of their sex.
       (C) Elimination of such barriers would have positive 
     effects, including--
       (i) providing a solution to problems in the economy created 
     by unfair pay disparities;
       (ii) substantially reducing the number of working women 
     earning unfairly low wages, thereby reducing the dependence 
     on public assistance;
       (iii) promoting stable families by enabling all family 
     members to earn a fair rate of pay;
       (iv) remedying the effects of past discrimination on the 
     basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are 
     afforded equal protection on the basis of sex; and
       (v) ensuring equal protection pursuant to Congress' power 
     to enforce the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
       (6) The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission carry out functions to help ensure 
     that women receive equal pay for equal work.
       (7) The Department of Labor is responsible for--
       (A) collecting and making publicly available information 
     about women's pay;
       (B) ensuring that companies receiving Federal contracts 
     comply with anti-discrimination affirmative action 
     requirements of Executive Order 11246 (relating to equal 
     employment opportunity);
       (C) disseminating information about women's rights in the 
     workplace;
       (D) helping women who have been victims of pay 
     discrimination obtain a remedy; and
       (E) investigating and prosecuting systemic gender based pay 
     discrimination involving government contractors.
       (8) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the 
     primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal 
     Pay Act of 1963, and issues regulations and guidance on 
     appropriate interpretations of the law.
       (9) Vigorous implementation by the Department of Labor and 
     the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, increased 
     information as a result of the amendments made by this Act, 
     wage data, and more effective remedies, will ensure that 
     women are better able to recognize and enforce their rights.
       (10) Certain employers have already made great strides in 
     eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their 
     achievements should be recognized.

     SEC. 3. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Bona Fide Factor Defense and Modification of Same 
     Establishment Requirement.--Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No employer having'' and inserting ``(A) 
     No employer having'';
       (2) by striking ``any other factor other than sex'' and 
     inserting ``a bona fide factor other than sex, such as 
     education, training, or experience''; and
       (3) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(B) The bona fide factor defense described in 
     subparagraph (A)(iv) shall apply only if the employer 
     demonstrates that such factor (i) is not based upon or 
     derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii) 
     is job-related with respect to the position in question; 
     (iii) is consistent with business necessity; and (iv) 
     accounts for the entire differential in compensation at 
     issue. Such defense shall not apply

[[Page H2861]]

     where the employee demonstrates that an alternative 
     employment practice exists that would serve the same business 
     purpose without producing such differential and that the 
     employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), employees shall be 
     deemed to work in the same establishment if the employees 
     work for the same employer at workplaces located in the same 
     county or similar political subdivision of a State. The 
     preceding sentence shall not be construed as limiting broader 
     applications of the term `establishment' consistent with 
     rules prescribed or guidance issued by the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission.''.
       (b) Nonretaliation Provision.--Section 15 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``employee has filed'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``employee--
       ``(A) has made a charge or filed any complaint or 
     instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation, 
     proceeding, hearing, or action under or related to this Act, 
     including an investigation conducted by the employer, or has 
     testified or is planning to testify or has assisted or 
     participated in any manner in any such investigation, 
     proceeding, hearing or action, or has served or is planning 
     to serve on an industry committee; or
       ``(B) has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed the wages 
     of the employee or another employee;'';
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) to require an employee to sign a contract or waiver 
     that would prohibit the employee from disclosing information 
     about the employee's wages.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply to instances in 
     which an employee who has access to the wage information of 
     other employees as a part of such employee's essential job 
     functions discloses the wages of such other employees to 
     individuals who do not otherwise have access to such 
     information, unless such disclosure is in response to a 
     complaint or charge or in furtherance of an investigation, 
     proceeding, hearing, or action under section 6(d), including 
     an investigation conducted by the employer. Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to limit the rights of an 
     employee provided under any other provision of law.''.
       (c) Enhanced Penalties.--Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``Any employer who violates section 6(d) shall additionally 
     be liable for such compensatory damages, or, where the 
     employee demonstrates that the employer acted with malice or 
     reckless indifference, punitive damages as may be 
     appropriate, except that the United States shall not be 
     liable for punitive damages.'';
       (2) in the sentence beginning ``An action to'', by striking 
     ``the preceding sentences'' and inserting ``any of the 
     preceding sentences of this subsection'';
       (3) in the sentence beginning ``No employees shall'', by 
     striking ``No employees'' and inserting ``Except with respect 
     to class actions brought to enforce section 6(d), no 
     employee'';
       (4) by inserting after the sentence referred to in 
     paragraph (3), the following: ``Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of Federal law, any action brought to enforce 
     section 6(d) may be maintained as a class action as provided 
     by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''; and
       (5) in the sentence beginning ``The court in''--
       (A) by striking ``in such action'' and inserting ``in any 
     action brought to recover the liability prescribed in any of 
     the preceding sentences of this subsection''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, 
     including expert fees''.
       (d) Action by Secretary.--Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``or, in the case of a violation of 
     section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as 
     described in subsection (b),'' before ``and the agreement''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
     such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``and, in the case of a violation of section 
     6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as 
     described in subsection (b)'';
       (3) in the third sentence, by striking ``the first 
     sentence'' and inserting ``the first or second sentence''; 
     and
       (4) in the sixth sentence--
       (A) by striking ``commenced in the case'' and inserting 
     ``commenced--
       ``(1) in the case'';
       (B) by striking the period and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) in the case of a class action brought to enforce 
     section 6(d), on the date on which the individual becomes a 
     party plaintiff to the class action.''.

     SEC. 4. TRAINING.

       The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office 
     of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, subject to the 
     availability of funds appropriated under section 11, shall 
     provide training to Commission employees and affected 
     individuals and entities on matters involving discrimination 
     in the payment of wages.

     SEC. 5. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING.

       (a) Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of Education, is authorized to establish 
     and carry out a grant program.
       (2) Grants.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary of 
     Labor may make grants on a competitive basis to eligible 
     entities to carry out negotiation skills training programs 
     for the purposes of addressing pay disparities, including 
     through outreach to women and girls.
       (3) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection, an entity shall be a public agency, 
     such as a State, a local government in a metropolitan 
     statistical area (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget), a State educational agency, or a local educational 
     agency, a private nonprofit organization, or a community-
     based organization.
       (4) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subsection, an entity shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary of Labor may 
     require.
       (5) Use of funds.--An entity that receives a grant under 
     this subsection shall use the funds made available through 
     the grant to carry out an effective negotiation skills 
     training program for the purposes described in paragraph (2).
       (b) Incorporating Training Into Existing Programs.--The 
     Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall issue 
     regulations or policy guidance that provides for integrating 
     the negotiation skills training, to the extent practicable, 
     into programs authorized under--
       (1) in the case of the Secretary of Education, the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6301 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
     Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), and other 
     programs carried out by the Department of Education that the 
     Secretary of Education determines to be appropriate; and
       (2) in the case of the Secretary of Labor, the Workforce 
     Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.), and 
     other programs carried out by the Department of Labor that 
     the Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, 
     shall prepare and submit to Congress a report describing the 
     activities conducted under this section and evaluating the 
     effectiveness of such activities in achieving the purposes of 
     this section.

     SEC. 6. RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH.

       Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and periodically thereafter, the Secretary of Labor 
     shall conduct studies and provide information to employers, 
     labor organizations, and the general public concerning the 
     means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and 
     women, including--
       (1) conducting and promoting research to develop the means 
     to correct expeditiously the conditions leading to the pay 
     disparities;
       (2) publishing and otherwise making available to employers, 
     labor organizations, professional associations, educational 
     institutions, the media, and the general public the findings 
     resulting from studies and other materials, relating to 
     eliminating the pay disparities;
       (3) sponsoring and assisting State, local, and community 
     informational and educational programs;
       (4) providing information to employers, labor 
     organizations, professional associations, and other 
     interested persons on the means of eliminating the pay 
     disparities; and
       (5) recognizing and promoting the achievements of 
     employers, labor organizations, and professional associations 
     that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities.

     SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL AWARD FOR PAY EQUITY IN 
                   THE WORKPLACE.

       (a) In General.--There is established the Secretary of 
     Labor's National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace, which 
     shall be awarded, on an annual basis, to an employer to 
     encourage proactive efforts to comply with section 6(d) of 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)), as 
     amended by this Act.
       (b) Criteria for Qualification.--The Secretary of Labor 
     shall set criteria for receipt of the award, including a 
     requirement that an employer has made substantial effort to 
     eliminate pay disparities between men and women, and deserves 
     special recognition as a consequence of such effort. The 
     Secretary shall establish procedures for the application and 
     presentation of the award.
       (c) Business.--In this section, the term ``employer'' 
     includes--
       (1)(A) a corporation, including a nonprofit corporation;
       (B) a partnership;
       (C) a professional association;
       (D) a labor organization; and
       (E) a business entity similar to an entity described in any 
     of subparagraphs (A) through (D);
       (2) an entity carrying out an education referral program, a 
     training program, such as an apprenticeship or management 
     training program, or a similar program; and
       (3) an entity carrying out a joint program, formed by a 
     combination of any entities described in paragraph (1) or 
     (2).

     SEC. 8. COLLECTION OF PAY INFORMATION BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
                   OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

       Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e-8) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall provide 
     for the collection from employers of compensation data and 
     other employment-related data (including hiring, termination, 
     and promotion data) disaggregated by the sex, race, and 
     ethnic identity of employees.

[[Page H2862]]

       ``(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Commission shall 
     have as its primary consideration the most effective and 
     efficient means for enhancing the enforcement of Federal laws 
     prohibiting pay discrimination. For this purpose, the 
     Commission shall consider factors including the imposition of 
     burdens on employers, the frequency of required reports 
     (including the size of employers required to prepare 
     reports), appropriate protections for maintaining data 
     confidentiality, and the most effective format to report such 
     data.
       ``(3)(A) For each 12-month reporting period for an 
     employer, the compensation data collected under paragraph (1) 
     shall include, for each range of taxable compensation 
     described in subparagraph (B), disaggregated by the 
     categories described in subparagraph (E)--
       ``(i) the number of employees of the employer who earn 
     taxable compensation in an amount that falls within such 
     taxable compensation range; and
       ``(ii) the total number of hours worked by such employees.
       ``(B) Subject to adjustment under subparagraph (C), the 
     taxable compensation ranges described in this subparagraph 
     are as follows:
       ``(i) Not more than $19,239.
       ``(ii) Not less than $19,240 and not more than $24,439.
       ``(iii) Not less than $24,440 and not more than $30,679.
       ``(iv) Not less than $30,680 and not more than $38,999.
       ``(v) Not less than $39,000 and not more than $49,919.
       ``(vi) Not less than $49,920 and not more than $62,919.
       ``(vii) Not less than $62,920 and not more than $80,079.
       ``(viii) Not less than $80,080 and not more than $101,919.
       ``(ix) Not less than $101,920 and not more than $128,959.
       ``(x) Not less than $128,960 and not more than $163,799.
       ``(xi) Not less than $163,800 and not more than $207,999.
       ``(xii) Not less than $208,000.
       ``(C) The Commission may adjust the taxable compensation 
     ranges under subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) if the Commission determines that such adjustment is 
     necessary to enhance enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting 
     pay discrimination; or
       ``(ii) for inflation, in consultation with the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics.
       ``(D) In collecting data described in subparagraph (A)(ii), 
     the Commission shall provide that, with respect to an 
     employee who the employer is not required to compensate for 
     overtime employment under section 7 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207), an employer may 
     report--
       ``(i) in the case of a full-time employee, that such 
     employee works 40 hours per week, and in the case of a part-
     time employee, that such employee works 20 hours per week; or
       ``(ii) the actual number of hours worked by such employee.
       ``(E) The categories described in this subparagraph shall 
     be determined by the Commission and shall include--
       ``(i) race;
       ``(ii) ethnic identity;
       ``(iii) sex; and
       ``(iv) job categories, including the job categories 
     described in the instructions for the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Employer Information Report EEO-1, as in effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(F) The Commission shall use the compensation data 
     collected under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) to enhance--
       ``(I) the investigation of charges filed under section 706 
     or section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 206(d)); and
       ``(II) the allocation of resources to investigate such 
     charges; and
       ``(ii) for any other purpose that the Commission determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(G) The Commission shall annually make publicly available 
     aggregate compensation data collected under paragraph (1) for 
     the categories described in subparagraph (E), disaggregated 
     by industry, occupation, and core based statistical area (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget).''.

     SEC. 9. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY EQUITY PROGRAMS AND PAY EQUITY 
                   DATA COLLECTION.

       (a) Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Collection.--The 
     Commissioner of Labor Statistics shall continue to collect 
     data on women workers in the Current Employment Statistics 
     survey.
       (b) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 
     Initiatives.--The Director of the Office of Federal Contract 
     Compliance Programs shall ensure that employees of the 
     Office--
       (1)(A) shall use the full range of investigatory tools at 
     the Office's disposal, including pay grade methodology;
       (B) in considering evidence of possible compensation 
     discrimination--
       (i) shall not limit its consideration to a small number of 
     types of evidence; and
       (ii) shall not limit its evaluation of the evidence to a 
     small number of methods of evaluating the evidence; and
       (C) shall not require a multiple regression analysis or 
     anecdotal evidence for a compensation discrimination case;
       (2) for purposes of its investigative, compliance, and 
     enforcement activities, shall define ``similarly situated 
     employees'' in a way that is consistent with and not more 
     stringent than the definition provided in item 1 of 
     subsection A of section 10-III of the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual (2000), and shall 
     consider only factors that the Office's investigation reveals 
     were used in making compensation decisions; and
       (3) shall implement a survey to collect compensation data 
     and other employment-related data (including hiring, 
     termination, and promotion data) and designate not less than 
     half of all nonconstruction contractor establishments each 
     year to prepare and file such survey, and shall review and 
     utilize the responses to such survey to identify contractor 
     establishments for further evaluation and for other 
     enforcement purposes as appropriate.
       (c) Department of Labor Distribution of Wage Discrimination 
     Information.--The Secretary of Labor shall make readily 
     available (in print, on the Department of Labor website, and 
     through any other forum that the Department may use to 
     distribute compensation discrimination information), accurate 
     information on compensation discrimination, including 
     statistics, explanations of employee rights, historical 
     analyses of such discrimination, instructions for employers 
     on compliance, and any other information that will assist the 
     public in understanding and addressing such discrimination.

     SEC. 10. PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES' 
                   SALARY AND BENEFIT HISTORY.

       (a) In General.--The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 7 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 8. REQUIREMENTS AND PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO WAGE, 
                   SALARY, AND BENEFIT HISTORY.

       ``(a) In General.--It shall be an unlawful practice for an 
     employer to--
       ``(1) rely on the wage history of a prospective employee in 
     considering the prospective employee for employment, 
     including requiring that a prospective employee's prior wages 
     satisfy minimum or maximum criteria as a condition of being 
     considered for employment;
       ``(2) rely on the wage history of a prospective employee in 
     determining the wages for such prospective employee, except 
     that an employer may rely on wage history if it is 
     voluntarily provided by a prospective employee, after the 
     employer makes an offer of employment with an offer of 
     compensation to the prospective employee, to support a wage 
     higher than the wage offered by the employer;
       ``(3) seek from a prospective employee or any current or 
     former employer the wage history of the prospective employee, 
     except that an employer may seek to confirm prior wage 
     information only after an offer of employment with 
     compensation has been made to the prospective employee and 
     the prospective employee responds to the offer by providing 
     prior wage information to support a wage higher than that 
     offered by the employer; or
       ``(4) discharge or in any other manner retaliate against 
     any employee or prospective employee because the employee or 
     prospective employee--
       ``(A) opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this 
     section; or
       ``(B) took an action for which discrimination is forbidden 
     under section 15(a)(3).
       ``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `wage history' 
     means the wages paid to the prospective employee by the 
     prospective employee's current employer or previous 
     employer.''.
       (b) Penalties.--Section 16 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 216) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f)(1) Any person who violates the provisions of section 
     8 shall--
       ``(A) be subject to a civil penalty of $5,000 for a first 
     offense, increased by an additional $1,000 for each 
     subsequent offense, not to exceed $10,000; and
       ``(B) be liable to each employee or prospective employee 
     who was the subject of the violation for special damages not 
     to exceed $10,000 plus attorneys' fees, and shall be subject 
     to such injunctive relief as may be appropriate.
       ``(2) An action to recover the liability described in 
     paragraph (1)(B) may be maintained against any employer 
     (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of 
     competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees or 
     prospective employees for and on behalf of--
       ``(A) the employees or prospective employees; and
       ``(B) other employees or prospective employees similarly 
     situated.''.

     SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this Act.
       (b) Prohibition on Earmarks.--None of the funds 
     appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) for purposes of the 
     grant program in section 5 of this Act may be used for a 
     congressional earmark as defined in clause 9(e) of rule XXI 
     of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 12. SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Technical Assistance Materials.--The Secretary of Labor 
     and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission shall jointly develop technical assistance 
     material to assist small enterprises in complying with the 
     requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
       (c) Small Businesses.--A small enterprise shall be exempt 
     from the provisions of this Act, and the amendments made by 
     this Act, to the same extent that such enterprise is exempt 
     from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
     (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii) of 
     section 3(s)(1)(A) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1)(A)).

     SEC. 13. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, 
     shall affect the obligation of employers and employees to 
     fully comply with all applicable immigration laws, including 
     being

[[Page H2863]]

     subject to any penalties, fines, or other sanctions.

     SEC. 14. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of that provision or amendment to 
     particular persons or circumstances is held invalid or found 
     to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the 
     amendments made by this Act, or the application of that 
     provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be 
     affected.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 116-19. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


         Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-19.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 8.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 252, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  In 2016, the Obama administration proposed adding employee pay data 
to the EEO-1 report, which is filed by certain employers specifying 
employee data by job category, ethnicity, race, and sex.
  After strong concerns were raised about this misguided proposal by 
congressional Republicans, the Office of Management and Budget stopped 
it from going forward in August 2017. A Federal district court recently 
overturned OMB's stay on the data collection, which the administration 
will likely appeal.
  The Obama administration scheme would have imposed an extremely 
costly and uniquely burdensome mandate on business owners, providing 
reams of proprietary data to the government for uses which were never 
adequately explained.
  The Obama EEO-1 mandate would have increased the data fields provided 
by employers in each EEO report twentyfold, from 180 to 3,660. It was 
also estimated that adding employee pay data to the EEO-1 form would 
have brought the overall cost to employers of submitting the report to 
approximately $700 million annually.
  It is appropriate to compare the pay data collection provisions in 
H.R. 7 to the 2016 Obama scheme because H.R. 7, as modified by the 
Scott amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, 
codifies much of the 2016 Obama administration mandate. In fact, H.R. 7 
now includes 12 pay bands, the same number as in the Obama mandate, at 
the exact dollar amounts that were part of the Obama mandate.
  Incredibly, H.R. 7's employee pay data mandate is even more extreme 
than the Obama proposal. In addition to collecting reams of employee 
pay data, the bill requires the EEOC to collect hiring, termination, 
and promotion data. How the EEOC would collect this kind of data and 
how business owners would comply is anyone's guess.
  As with the previous scheme to expand the EEO-1, H.R. 7's provision 
raises many concerns. For one, H.R. 7 would pose significant threats to 
the confidentiality and privacy of employee pay data. For instance, the 
EEOC shares the EEO-1 data with the Department of Labor, which, in 
certain situations, might release data even if the EEOC would not.
  Moreover, time and again we have seen massive and harmful data 
breaches of Federal agencies. Requiring the EEOC to collect pay data 
would create yet another valuable target, and H.R. 7 fails to 
adequately address the need for protection of employee data.
  As with the Obama EEO-1 scheme, I also have concern regarding the 
data's lack of usefulness and whether the EEOC would be able to 
appropriately manage and interpret the massive amounts of employee pay 
data it would collect. I have already mentioned the burden of such a 
collection on employers.
  For all these reasons, this amendment strikes the invasive, risky, 
and burdensome provision requiring the EEOC to collect employee 
compensation data from employers broken down by race, sex, and 
ethnicity. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Chair, before addressing the pending amendment, I 
want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his 
leadership and also express my profound appreciation for my friend from 
Connecticut. She has been a tireless champion over the years for equal 
pay on behalf of those who have been discriminated against unfairly.
  Madam Chair, I imagine that most of us agree that unfair pay 
discrimination needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, despite the progress 
we have made in offering greater opportunities to more and more 
Americans, pay discrimination persists, and, at times, it occurs in 
stealth ways that cannot be easily detected. That, in fact, is a key 
reason why I oppose this amendment.
  Keeping this bill intact is necessary to prevent the kind of unfair 
discrimination that occurs when one employee is compensated less than 
another despite doing the same job just as well for just as long and 
with the same credentials.
  I worked in the private sector for 13 years before coming to 
Congress. I know firsthand that unfair pay disparities still occur.
  Across industries, I worked with employers to confront this 
inequality, to bring more women to the decisionmaking table and create 
work environments where people of any sex, gender, race, or ethnicity 
were truly empowered.
  Pay discrimination derails a workplace. It holds back talent and 
undermines trust, a toxic mix for any business.
  A key component of the Paycheck Fairness Act requires that the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission collect wage data, disaggregated by 
sex, race, and national origin. This provision is particularly 
necessary to respond to the administration's attempt to block the EEOC 
from collecting data.
  Earlier this month, the National Women's Law Center won an important 
case to reinstate the EEOC's ability to collect this data. 
Nevertheless, attacks on collecting data of this type continue. We 
should not make it easier to hide pay discrimination.
  This provision is necessary to ensure that equal work does, in fact, 
lead to equal pay. It will reveal trends in hiring, compensation, and 
advancement, and it will expose sex-segregated jobs, and unequal 
salaries, benefits, or bonuses.
  This provision is a critical component of the bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment and keep the bill intact.
  Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter 
from the International Federation of Professional and Technical 
Engineers in support of this legislation.

         International Federation of Professional & Technical 
           Engineers, AFL-CIO & CLC,
                                   Washington, DC, March 26, 2019.
       Dear Representative, On behalf of the 90,000 members 
     represented by the International Federation of Professional 
     and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), we are writing in support of 
     H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. Sponsored by Congresswoman 
     Rosa DeLauro, this legislation will amend the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to 
     victims of gender-based discrimination in the payment of 
     wages. With a floor vote scheduled this week, IFPTE urges you 
     to vote for H.R. 7.
       Today, women earn 80 cents to every one dollar earned by 
     their male counterparts. It is even worse for African-
     American women, who earn only 61 cents on the dollar compared 
     to white non-Hispanic men, while Hispanic and Latina women 
     earn only 53 cents

[[Page H2864]]

     on the dollar compared to white non-Hispanic men. While these 
     glaring differences should be unacceptable in any day and 
     age, the impact is even greater today with poverty rates 
     among women recently reaching their highest peak in nearly 
     two decades.
       The problem of unequal pay for equal work spans every 
     sector and all educational levels. According to a 2017 
     Department of Professional Employees (DPE, AFL-CIO) fact 
     sheet, Professional Women: A Gendered Look at Inequality in 
     the U.S. Workforce, women with a bachelor's degree or higher 
     earned $1,230 in median weekly wages in 2015, while men with 
     a comparable education earned $1,420. The DPE fact sheet also 
     looked at wage disparities per occupational category and 
     found that, without exception, women's wages lag far behind 
     men. Despite comprising 55 percent of workers in professional 
     and related occupations, women in those professions earn 28 
     percent less than men.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act is aimed at closing the pay 
     discrimination gap by strengthening the Equal Pay Act of 
     1963. This legislation will:
       Clarify acceptable reasons for differences in pay to ensure 
     that a wage gap is legitimate and truly a result of factors 
     other than gender;
       Allow for reasonable comparisons between employees to 
     determine fair wages;
       Prohibit employer retaliation against workers who inquire 
     about employee wages in general, or disclose their own wage;
       Provide women with the option to proceed in an opt-out 
     class action lawsuit and allow women to receive punitive and 
     compensatory damages for pay discrimination;
       Increase training for Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission (EEOC) staff to better identify and handle wage 
     disputes;
       Require EEOC to develop regulations directing employers to 
     collect wage data;
       Require the Department of Labor to reinstate activities 
     that promote equal pay (i.e. educational programs, technical 
     assistance to employers, promoting research about pay 
     disparities between men and women); and,
       Establish salary negotiation skills training for women and 
     girls.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act is a long overdue bill to help 
     close the pay gap suffered by women workers. IFPTE urges you 
     to support H.R. 7.
           Sincerely,
     Paul Shearon,
       President.
     Matthew Biggs,
       Secretary-Treasurer/Legislative Director.

  Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Chair, reporting this data allows the EEOC to see 
which employers have racial or gender pay gaps that differ 
significantly from the pay patterns of other employers in their 
industry and region.
  To be clear, this pay data will not conclusively establish that any 
employer is violating the law, and it isn't intended to. What it will 
do is aggregate millions of data points to establish gender and racial 
pay patterns within job categories, industries, and localities, 
allowing identification of firms that significantly depart from those 
benchmarks that may warrant further analysis.

                              {time}  1515

  Simply put, we cannot end unfair pay discrimination if we don't have 
the data.
  I join my colleague from North Carolina in celebrating a record 
number of women entering the workforce, but let's compensate them 
fairly for their work, and let's use data to inform our decisions.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support 
the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The amendment was rejected.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Torres of California

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-19.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 12, add at the end the following: ``Pay 
     disparities are especially severe for women and girls of 
     color.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 252, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Torres) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and I strongly support 
H.R. 7 and any effort to address the gender wage gap in this country.
  A terrible disparity exists in our country. Women on average make 80 
cents to every dollar made by their White male counterpart. What is 
worse is that it is not getting any better.
  Last year, the gender wage gap actually grew for women of color. For 
every dollar made by their non-Hispanic White male counterpart, an 
African American woman makes 61 cents, a Native American woman makes 58 
cents, and women who look like me, Latinas, make 53 cents on the dollar 
for similar work. That is less than the average woman in the 1960s.
  Do I not work just as hard as my male counterparts? Do I deserve to 
make 53 cents on the dollar? And do I not have to support my family 
just as much as any man?
  Because of the gender pay gap, Latinas lose an average of $28,386. 
That amounts to more than $1 million over her career.
  To earn the same amount as her White non-Hispanic male colleagues, a 
Black woman must work until she is 86 years old. You cannot get those 
hours back, those years back, or those decades back.
  The gender wage gap contributes to a wealth of disparity that makes 
it harder for people of color to get ahead.
  In 2013, the median White household had about $134,000 in total 
wealth. For the median Black household, it is $11,000. That is a 13-to-
1 ratio.
  Addressing the gender wage gap is the first step to addressing larger 
issues of pay parity among historically underserved groups.
  My first amendment changes the findings section of the Paycheck 
Fairness Act to recognize the devastating impacts the wage gap has on 
women of color. We must acknowledge that the wage gap is not color 
blind. By failing to recognize the specific effect the wage gap has on 
women and girls of color, these impacts might go unnoticed.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, my colleague just said that 
Latina women are being paid 53 cents for every dollar a White man earns 
for the same work. That is currently illegal and should be reported.
  My colleague may want to amend her statement on that, but I want to 
say again, paying a woman less than a man when they are both doing the 
same work is abhorrent and illegal.
  Women deserve equal pay for equal work. That is why two Federal laws 
prohibit pay discrimination based on sex.
  What Congress should be looking at are ways to expand opportunities 
for women in the workplace. H.R. 7, however, does nothing to help 
women. Instead, it is written to help trial lawyers.
  Rather than treating sex discrimination charges with the seriousness 
they deserve, H.R. 7 is designed to make it easier for trial lawyers to 
bring more suits of questionable validity, which will siphon off money 
from settlements and jury awards to line the pockets of trial lawyers.
  As we have said before, H.R. 7 offers no new or meaningful 
protections against pay discrimination.
  The findings section in H.R. 7 to which this amendment is added 
already discusses women in the workplace and implies that the gender 
pay gap is largely caused by discriminatory acts. However, economic 
studies conducted by government and private entities alike consistently 
show that women make more holistic and discerning choices than men 
about managing work-life demands, placing an equal and sometimes higher 
value on life factors besides their paycheck as they make decisions 
about hours worked, overtime pursued, and promotions sought.
  Those values and choices should be honored, Madam Chair. As such, the 
gender pay gap significantly shrinks when these choices and factors are 
taken into account.
  Pay discrimination is a serious issue, but I do not believe this 
amendment will improve the bill or help to address pay discrimination 
in the workplace.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.

[[Page H2865]]

  

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close.
  Madam Chair, my amendment shines a light on the plight of women and 
girls of color and sets the tone to take their struggle into account 
throughout the rest of the bill.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle might have never heard 
about retaliation, about blacklisting. When women have the courage to 
come forward and report these wage thefts and abuses, they are treated 
differently under current law. That is why this bill is important. That 
is why this amendment is important.
  Madam Chair, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) for introducing this bill, for her dedication to fair 
pay.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, again I say, Republicans 
abhor any type of discrimination, particularly pay discrimination 
against women.
  Madam Chair, if H.R. 7 would help with the situation that my 
colleague described, we would be in favor of it. No woman should be 
discriminated against because she reports the fact that she is 
receiving unequal pay for work, but, again, H.R. 7 does nothing to help 
those situations. That is why we oppose it.
  Madam Chair, H.R. 7 is not helping women; it is helping trial 
lawyers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Torres of California

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-19.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 14, line 3, insert ``, with specific attention paid to 
     women and girls from historically underrepresented and 
     minority groups'' after ``disparities''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 252, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Torres) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a 
second amendment to H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  This amendment ensures that women and girls of color are included in 
the research, education, and outreach done by the Secretary of Labor.
  The sad truth is that women, especially women of color, are still 
paid less than their male counterparts for the same type of work. I 
know this because it happened to me.
  One of my very first jobs was in a male-dominated industry, selling 
steel. It didn't matter that I performed as well, if not better, than 
my male colleagues. It didn't matter that I sold steel in three 
languages while they sold in just one. I would do my own data entry to 
get the job done, while they relied on an assistant. And when I needed 
to rush a shipment, I was not afraid to walk into the warehouse, pick 
the material, pack it, and send it to my customer. I was still paid 
less.
  I had to leave that job that I loved because I wasn't getting my fair 
share. It was a shame then and it is a shame today.
  On average, Latinas still get paid 53 cents to every dollar made by 
their White male colleagues for the same type of work.
  Today, we can act to change this. By passing the Paycheck Fairness 
Act with my amendment, maybe young Latinas and other women of color 
will not have to suffer and share my experience.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, women deserve equal pay for 
equal work. In America, it is law codified in the Equal Pay Act and the 
Civil Rights Act.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 7 is a false promise that creates opportunities 
and advantages for trial lawyers, not for working women, and the bill 
already requires new government studies.

                              {time}  1530

  H.R. 7 allows for undocumented compensatory and punitive damages, 
expands class actions, and makes it impossible to defend against a 
claim, when the pay difference at issue is legitimate. But the bill 
does not offer new protections for workers against pay discrimination.
  Both government and nongovernment studies have shown that the gender 
pay gap significantly shrinks when certain choices and factors are 
included, such as choices made in managing work-life demands.
  For example, a recent Harvard University study found that the gap in 
pay between female and male bus and train operators working for the 
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority was explained by the 
workplace choices that women and men make, rather than other factors 
such as discrimination. The Harvard study is noteworthy because the 
workplace characteristics of the female operators are entirely 
comparable to their male operators. All of the operators are 
represented by the same union, and all are covered by the same 
collective bargaining agreement.
  We want to ensure the laws prohibiting pay discrimination are 
effective. However, this amendment, and the underlying provision in 
H.R. 7, are not going to be helpful in this regard.
  We should strive to provide women and all workers more freedom, 
flexibility, and opportunities. I do not believe this amendment will 
help us achieve that goal.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Chair, my amendment will expand the 
Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure the Secretary of Labor is paying 
attention to specific issues and researching the wage gap; educating 
employers, the media, and labor organizations on these findings, 
specifically highlighting the impact on underrepresented groups; 
ensuring minorities are included in informational and educational 
outreach programs; and celebrating the accomplishments of employers who 
are leading the way to specifically address the gender gap issue for 
women of color.
  By paying specific attention to women of color in their research, 
maybe, one day, we can fill that gap to recognize that diversity of 
perspective can be an asset.
  I wonder how different my experience would have been if the Paycheck 
Fairness Act would have been in place at the time. Would I still have 
become a homeowner? Maybe. Would I still have been a successful mother 
of three sons? Maybe. Would I have been able to afford to pay for 
childcare? Maybe. These are the things that women in business and the 
workforce are having to deal with every single day.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I want to say, again: no one 
in the workplace should be discriminated against. No woman of color, no 
woman, should be discriminated against. Republicans are opposed to any 
discrimination, in pay or otherwise, but H.R. 7 is not going to fix 
that. If it were, we would be on board.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Byrne

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-19.
  Mr. BYRNE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amend section 3(a)(2) to read as follows:
       (2) by striking ``any other factor other than sex'' and 
     inserting ``a bona fide business-related reason other than 
     sex''; and
       Page 6, strike lines 9 through 20.
       Page 6, line 21, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.


[[Page H2866]]


  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 252, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, this amendment adds the language ``a bona fide business-
related reason'' to make clear to the courts that the factor other than 
sex defense in the Equal Pay Act cannot be used as a loophole or excuse 
for using sex as a factor.
  This amendment additionally strikes the remaining provisions of the 
underlying bill relating to applications of the factor other than sex 
defense.
  These unnecessary provisions require that, even when an employer 
already shows the factor is other than sex, it must meet additional 
illogical and insurmountable burdens, effectively paving an unimpeded 
path to the promise of unlimited punitive and compensatory damages for 
trial lawyers.
  In sum, this amendment strengthens current law and eliminates the new 
and untested concepts the underlying bill imposes on employers. It 
would make it impossible for an employer to defend any difference in 
pay, even when based on any number of legitimate job-related factors.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WILD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Byrne amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WILD. Madam Chair, don't be mistaken. This amendment is a clear 
attempt to undermine the fundamental objectives of the Paycheck 
Fairness Act, which are to engender pay disparity by, in part, further 
clarifying congressional intent so that courts can no longer dismiss 
meritorious claims.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act fixes current employment discrimination and 
pay discrimination laws, laws that have proven insufficient, given that 
women still earn 80 cents on the dollar compared to similarly situated 
White men. And, of course, the disparity for women of color is even 
greater.
  Under the current Equal Pay Act, an employer is not liable for gender 
pay disparity if the disparity is due to merit, seniority, quality of 
production or ``a factor other than sex.'' Some courts have interpreted 
the ``factor other than sex'' criteria so broadly that it frustrates 
the codified intent of the Equal Pay Act.
  For instance, some courts have found that the ``factor other than 
sex'' need not be business related or even related to the particular 
job in question. Some courts have interpreted the ``factor other than 
sex'' defense to include ``market forces,'' or worse, accepted the 
argument that pay disparity can be explained by an employer's ``random 
decision.''
  Those interpretations are nothing more than a lifesaver for 
pretextual discrimination. This amendment does the same thing.
  My Republican colleagues' suggestion that the Paycheck Fairness Act 
eliminates the ``factor other than sex'' defense is contradicted by the 
text of this bill. An employer may still raise a ``factor other than 
sex'' defense provided that the ``factor other than sex'' be bona fide, 
job related, and required by business necessity.
  This amendment's attempt to strike section (3)(a)(3), which explains 
what constitutes a bona fide factor, is an attempt to create ambiguity 
so that courts continue to interpret the act's protection in a narrow 
way.
  This bill provides necessary clarity that this bona fide factor 
defense is only available when there is a real business necessity. This 
bill ensures that there is a connection between the pay disparity and 
the specific job in question. This amendment is contrary to the 
congressional intent of the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chair, I was listening to the gentlewoman talk and I 
don't know that she has read my amendment, because my amendment 
actually solves the problem that she poses. There are some circuits 
that have given opinions just exactly as she said. What my amendment 
does is substitute for those decisions the bona fide business-related 
reason, which has been decided by a number of circuits. It is very 
clear. There is nothing amorphous about it. Practitioners in this area, 
like myself, understand exactly what it means. It actually solves the 
problem posed by the gentlewoman and makes it a lot better than what is 
in the underlying bill.
  The problem with the underlying bill is that it injects amorphous new 
things that we don't have any idea what they would mean. What my 
amendment does is it actually makes it clear and solves the very 
problem that she stated in her presentation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WILD. Mr. Chairman, this bill clarifies that the ``factor other 
than sex'' is only available on a bona fide job-related and business 
necessary reason.
  It clarifies that this defense is not available where the employee 
demonstrates that a reasonable alternative employment practice would 
serve the same business purpose without producing a pay disparity and 
that the employer refused to adopt such an alternative practice.
  Carefully consider those words. This is a burden-shifting provision 
that would simply allow an employee to show a reasonable alternative. 
It adds nothing to an employer's existing burden. It only allows an 
employee to rebut that defense with evidence.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentlewoman had to 
say. I was listening very carefully to her. I think she does have it 
confused, however, because it does inject an additional burden for 
employers that is not in the law right now and it does provide a ton of 
unclarity with regard to what they are going to have to do to comply 
with it. And I think my use of the bona fide business-related reason is 
going to inject the clarity we need and actually protect plaintiffs 
more than what is in the bill.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WILD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, given that we are 
having a discussion here over who understands the text of the bill, to 
read it directly into the Record.
  ``The bona fide factor defense, described in subparagraph (A)(iv) 
shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor (i) is 
not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in 
compensation; (ii) is job related with respect to the position in 
question; (iii) is consistent with business necessity; and, (iv) 
accounts for the entire differential in compensation at issue.''
  It is very clearly set forth in the text.
  Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, continue to urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the Byrne amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentlewoman. I 
don't think she understands what that language actually means, how it 
has actually been interpreted by the courts, and how it may be totally 
misinterpreted against plaintiffs in these types of lawsuits.
  What my amendment does is actually strengthen the hand of parties 
that have a clear understanding of what they are trying to accomplish 
there, either the plaintiffs or the defendants. It is an improvement in 
the bill for plaintiffs and defendants. We should all be for this, not 
against it. I don't want to go tit for tat with her on everything, but 
I do think she misunderstands both the amendment and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WILD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is my colleague from Alabama who 
is confused about the wording of this text. His amendment would 
specifically eliminate the wording that I just read into the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gonzalez of Texas). The gentleman from Alabama 
has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, once again, I heard what she read into the 
Record. I already read that. I understand exactly what it says. I think 
maybe I haven't made myself clear:

[[Page H2867]]

The underlying bill injects clarity into the law, which hurts 
plaintiffs in their cases. This will hurt women in bringing their 
cases. It will take years to try to get clarity through the court 
system, if we ever get clarity. That hurts plaintiffs in these 
lawsuits.
  Defendants like to throw up unclarity. So I guess, perhaps, if you 
wanted to argue from that point of view, let's have a confusing bill. I 
am going to get clarity into the bill that actually helps women. And it 
is the irony of this whole proceeding that the bill that is supposed to 
help women, that they say is going to help women, hurts them. I am 
trying to help women with my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

  Ms. WILD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates clarity. It simply 
replaces it with the words ``bona fide,'' with no additional definition 
or guidance, thereby ensuring that this defense will continue to be 
misunderstood, misused, and incorrectly applied by the courts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, this language is consistent with how nearly 
all circuit courts of appeal have interpreted this factor.
  ``Bona fide business-related reason'' is not an empty phrase. For 
example, in one case where the employer alleged that the difference in 
pay was based on the higher paid person's participation in a bona fide 
skills development program, the court carefully examined the program to 
determine whether it was legitimate and, in fact, found that it was 
not.
  This amendment helps women. If you want to help women in the 
workforce, this amendment does it. Their bill doesn't.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jayapal

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 116-19.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee for Congresswoman 
Waters to offer her amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 13, line 23, insert after ``women'' the following: 
     ``(including women who are Asian American, Black or African-
     American, Hispanic American or Latino, Native American or 
     Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and White 
     American)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 252, the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, what a moment of tremendous pride it is to 
be here in the 116th Congress under a Democratic majority as we finally 
pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  I rise in strong support of this bill, and I thank Chairman Scott for 
his tremendous leadership in shepherding this bill to the floor.
  I also thank the author of H.R. 7, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who 
has been a champion for women's rights her entire career. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act is a testament to her tireless dedication to the 
eradication of the gender pay gap, and it is by her leadership that we 
are here today on the verge of obtaining a more equitable workforce.
  I also thank Congresswoman Waters, who has long advocated for and 
fought for pay equity and been a beacon of courage for women across 
this country.
  We passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, which made it illegal to 
discriminate based on sex when men and women are performing jobs that 
require substantially equal effort, skill, and responsibility. We 
followed that up with title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, which, among 
other things, made it illegal to discriminate based on sex. And then 10 
years ago, we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which made it clear that 
every single inadequate paycheck a woman receives is a new act of 
discrimination. And yet, inequality persisted.
  Today, women are paid, on average, only 80 cents for every dollar 
paid to men, resulting in a gap of $10,169 per woman, per year. And 
that pay gap doesn't discriminate. It exists in all occupations, 
locales, and regardless of education or work history.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act seeks to eliminate this gap by picking up 
where the Equal Pay Act of 1963 left off and strengthening protections 
for women in the workplace against retaliation, discriminatory 
screening, and legal obstacles to justice. This amendment to H.R. 7 
will ensure that the data collected on behalf of the legislation will 
be inclusive of all races and ethnicities.
  Pursuant to section 6 of H.R. 7, the Secretary of Labor must conduct 
studies as well as provide information to employers and the general 
public concerning the means by which gender pay disparities can be 
eliminated. These studies are a critical step forward towards closing 
the pay gap.
  This amendment would clarify that these Department of Labor studies 
mandated by section 6 of the underlying bill must include not just 
information regarding pay disparities between men and women generally, 
but specifically for women of every racial and ethnic background.
  Mr. Chairman, in order to empower all women, we must continue to 
highlight the specific barriers faced by and the needs of women of 
color in the workforce.
  In 2017, the gender wage gap widened for women of color. While 
research found that women made 80 cents for every dollar paid to White, 
non-Hispanic men, women of color fared much worse than average: Black 
women were paid only 61 cents for every dollar paid to White men; 
Native American women were paid 58 cents; and Latina women were paid 
only 53 cents.
  That means that this year, Equal Pay Day, the date that marks how 
long women have to work into the year to earn what their White male 
counterparts earned in the previous calendar year, falls on April 2. 
But for Black women, Equal Pay Day isn't until August 22. Native 
American women's Equal Pay Day falls on September 23, and Latinas have 
to work nearly 11 full months into 2019 before they will see their 
Equal Pay Day on November 20. That is true economic injustice.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, once again, it is wrong to 
discriminate, including with respect to pay, based on sex. It is also 
illegal to do so under both the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.
  Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, supports equal pay for 
equal work because, when workers thrive, America thrives, but H.R. 7 
does not further this goal.
  Democrats claim H.R. 7 will improve upon these existing and 
bipartisan laws to create new avenues for women to fight pay 
discrimination. What H.R. 7 actually does is create new avenues for 
trial lawyers to earn higher paychecks--while dragging countless women 
into unwanted lawsuits.
  Of the 2.8 million jobs created in the past year, more than 58 
percent have gone to women.
  Today, there are 74.9 million working women in the United States, 
more than ever before; and one in five employer businesses, nationwide, 
is owned by women.
  We celebrate workers who choose to give priority to professional 
success and promotion, but it is equally important to show that we 
value freedom and diversity of choice in the workplace.
  It is not the job of Federal lawmakers to tell American workers of 
either sex what their priorities should be. A number of economic 
studies conducted by government and private entities alike consistently 
show that women make more holistic and discerning choices than men 
about managing work-life demands.
  The new government studies mandated by H.R. 7 will likely tell us 
what we already know and that our colleagues will not acknowledge: that

[[Page H2868]]

work patterns and life decisions are key to explaining the wage gap, 
and that the wage gap shrinks considerably when factors such as hours 
worked per week, industry, occupation, work experience, job tenure, and 
preferences for nonwage benefits are considered.
  In addition to opening countless avenues for trial lawyer payouts 
while limiting employer defenses, H.R. 7 mandates intrusive and 
elaborate data collection from employers, breaking down compensation, 
hiring, termination, and promotion data by sex, race, and national 
origin of employees--that will cost about $700 million a year.

  Rather than expending taxpayer dollars on expanding studies, Federal 
lawmakers should promote a continued focus on strong economic policy, 
education, and innovation that will create opportunities and expand 
options for all American workers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, better information allows us to develop 
better policy solutions, and that is all this amendment does: collects 
more information to address an unacceptable inequality. By mandating 
that the studies conducted by the Department of Labor explicitly 
address and include women of color in particular, we can ensure that no 
one is left behind.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the gathering of this valuable 
information and vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been a long road to get here, but today, women 
across the country of every race and ethnicity can stand tall and know 
that we value their work equally.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we believe women should not 
be discriminated against. We don't want women discriminated against, 
women of any category in this country, and this amendment is not 
necessary and neither is H.R. 7.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment 
and ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that the amendment No. 6 will 
not be offered.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Beyer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 116-19.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In subsection (f) of section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-8), as proposed to be added by section 
     8, add at the end the following:
       ``(3) The compensation data under paragraph (1) shall be 
     collected from each employer that--
       ``(A) is a private employer that has 100 or more employees, 
     including such an employer that is a contractor with the 
     Federal Government, or a subcontractor at any tier thereof; 
     or
       ``(B) the Commission determines appropriate.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 252, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as a small business owner and employer, I understand 
the value of data because you can't improve what you don't measure. So 
my amendment, which I offer with Representative Ilhan Omar, exempts 
employers with fewer than 100 employees from reporting compensation 
data and only requires those with more than 100 to do so.
  Employers already report workforce data by race, sex, and ethnicity 
across 10 different job categories in their annual EEO-1 submission to 
the EEOC. So collecting this data simply ensures equal pay for equal 
work. If employers value the standard, this is an easy start.
  I am very grateful to Chairman Scott and the leadership on the 
amendments to strengthen pay data collection and to Congresswoman Rosa 
DeLauro for her years and years of effort on this.
  Persistent pay gaps exist in the U.S. workforce to correlate with 
sex, race, and ethnicity. The Congress has found that 64.6 percent of 
the wage gap can be explained by three factors: experience, industry, 
and occupation, the things my good friend from North Carolina pointed 
out. But the remaining 35 percent can't be explained by these 
differences.
  Federal law specifically prohibits men and women from being paid 
differently for work, but enforcement of this mandate is impeded by a 
lack of knowledge--no data, not reliable data, especially data by sex 
and by race. This is a barrier to closing the persistent pay gap for 
women and minorities.
  All we are really asking here is to be able to provide the data so 
that business leaders can make the good decisions and so that employees 
can discover if they are being unfairly paid. They have a right, then, 
to ask.
  For over 50 years, companies have used the EEO-1 form to report. 
Earlier today, we have heard that this will represent an unfair burden 
on businesses.
  While virtually every business I know--even those with two, three, 
and four employees--find ways to outsource paycheck preparation, almost 
all of this has been digitized. But to be extra cautious and make sure 
that we are not providing any burden on small business, this amendment 
would exempt those with 100 employees or less.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I reserve the right to change 
my mind based on what I hear from my colleague from Virginia.
  Mr. Chair, I do have great respect for my colleague from Virginia, 
and I appreciate the fact that this amendment recognizes the very 
serious problem with H.R. 7 by applying the expansive government data 
collection mandate only to business owners with 100 or more employees. 
However, the forced data collection scheme in the underlying bill, even 
with this amendment, is still extremely misguided.
  H.R. 7 requires business owners to, for the first time ever, submit 
reams of pay data to the EEOC, broken down by job category, race, sex, 
and ethnicity. Moreover, the collection must also include hiring, 
termination, and promotion data, which even the Obama administration's 
2016 pay data collection scheme did not include.
  This data collection mandate raises several concerns.
  First, it puts at risk volumes of highly confidential pay data 
involving millions of individual workers. We all know the widespread 
data breaches the Federal Government has suffered.
  Second, the EEOC will not be able to manage or properly use this 
data. It has never been explained what exactly the EEOC will do with 
this data.
  Third, this mandate is overly burdensome. The data cells required 
from business owners when they file an employer information report, 
EEO-1, with the EEOC will expand from 180 cells to 3,660. It has been 
estimated that the new reams of pay data added to the EEO-1 will cost 
business owners $700 million annually.
  Although this amendment would spare some business owners from the 
mandate, the serious flaws in this data collection mandate make the 
provision in the underlying bill not worth saving.
  If the pay data collection mandate is not worth applying to smaller 
firms, then perhaps it should be reconsidered entirely. What is good 
for the goose is good for the gander.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted 
to speak during general debate, but I will take this time to speak on 
behalf of this legislation and also to rise in support of the 
gentleman's amendment.

[[Page H2869]]

  Mr. Chairman, the American people entrusted Democrats with the 
majority in part because we pledged to work hard on the issues they 
care about most, issues affecting their everyday lives.
  I am the father of three daughters. They are all extraordinary 
people. I want them all treated based upon the content of their 
character, their performance, and the duties that they perform, not on 
the fact that they happen to be daughters and not sons.
  One of the issues we pledged to address was raising wages, and that 
includes addressing the gender pay gap, which keeps women from earning 
their fair share and hurts families, children, and all people.
  The last time I was the majority leader, which was from 2007 to 2011, 
we enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to make it easier for women 
who have faced discriminatory pay and benefits to seek justice.
  Lilly Ledbetter had worked hard, and she did not know that she was 
being paid less than her counterparts doing exactly the same thing she 
was doing, with exactly the same responsibility and exactly the same 
expectations. There was no justice in that, but she didn't know it. The 
Supreme Court said, well, you didn't raise the issue quickly enough.
  We also passed the Paycheck Fairness Act in that same Congress, but, 
unfortunately, the Senate failed to enact it as well.
  Now we return to this important work of ensuring equal pay for equal 
work. Who, intellectually, can oppose that concept? Who, with any sense 
of fairness and fair play, could oppose that concept and precept?
  It is shameful, Mr. Chairman, that, in 2019, 56 years after President 
Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, we are here fighting for equal pay. A 
half century later, women still earn, on average, 80 cents to a man's 
dollar, and, very frankly, minority women earn less than that. That gap 
is even worse for minorities. Two-thirds of women are now either the 
primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in their households.
  Make no mistake, this is an economic concern for families across our 
country. This is not a woman's issue. It is a fairness issue. It is an 
every family, every person issue.
  Democrats ran on a platform of raising wages, as I said. We are 
focused on making sure that more working families can make it in 
America. That is what this bill will help achieve.
  I am proud that every member of the Democratic Caucus--let me repeat 
that, every member--234 members of the Democratic Caucus have signed on 
as cosponsors of this bill because we believe it is fair; because we 
believe it is right; because we believe it is good for families; and, 
yes, because we believe it is good for the American economy.
  Rosa DeLauro is on the floor, and I want to thank the gentlewoman. We 
hear the phrase, ``Keep the faith.'' Rosa DeLauro has kept the faith 
year after year, not only with women of America, but with the families 
and children of America who rely on women's wages for the quality of 
their lives, and their partners', and their spouses'.
  I thank the gentlewoman, Rosa DeLauro, for all that she has done for 
our country in keeping the faith.
  I also thank my dear friend and my colleague from my neighboring 
State of Virginia, Chairman  Bobby Scott, for his faithfulness, for his 
focus, and for his bringing this bill to the floor so early in our 
session.

  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to observe April 2, which is Equal 
Pay Day. It is a day symbolizing how far into the year women must work 
to earn what men earned in the previous year--essentially, 3 months of 
free labor. Not in this body, because we are all paid the same in this 
body. We comply with this bill. That is the good news.
  The bad news is, women, on average, have to work not 12 months but 15 
months to earn what men earn in 12 months. That is what that language 
meant.
  I urge my colleagues to vote today to make this the last Equal Pay 
Day and pass this bill to ensure the promise of economic equality for 
all.
  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all--drop the ``men''--
that all are created equal. That view maybe self-evident, but it is not 
self-executing. Let us act upon it today.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how 
much time I have remaining, and how much time the gentleman from 
Virginia has remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have said it I don't know 
how many times today. I will say it one more time. Republicans are 
opposed to pay discrimination. We have always been opposed to pay 
discrimination. We have always been for the rights of others.
  The first Republican President in this country was the leader that 
ended slavery in this country. Republicans have been for civil rights. 
We have been for equal pay. We support the rights of all citizens to be 
treated equally. We have all said that, every Republican who has spoken 
here.
  This bill does not do that. I believe that the gentleman from 
Virginia's amendment proves that this is a damaging bill, because he 
wants to spare smaller companies from the very damaging impacts of the 
pay data collection mandate.
  That, in a way, is discriminatory in itself because there is a 
feeling that it is okay for big businesses to pay the cost of this, but 
it is not okay for small businesses to pay the cost of this. In a way, 
this amendment itself damns the bill.
  As our colleague from Maryland says, I hope that every business owner 
in America will note that every Democrat is a cosponsor of this bill. I 
hope that word gets out loud and clear across the country, particularly 
among business owners.
  I will say that this amendment to spare smaller companies makes the 
teeniest, tiniest improvement to this bill, and, therefore, I will 
support it, although I don't believe the bill will go anywhere in the 
Senate.
  It is my hope that, again, that points out the discriminatory nature 
and the terrible aspects of this bill to all business and industry in 
the country. It doesn't help the underlying bill in terms of the other 
businesses and industries.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from North Carolina for 
supporting this amendment, and I thank my friend from North Carolina 
for clearly stating a number of times today that Democrats and 
Republicans are both committed to equal pay for men and for women.
  I think our differences just come down to how we accomplish that, 
because 50 years after the Equal Pay Act was signed, there are still 
significant differences, despite our joint commitment to equal pay.
  If unequal pay continues to persist, how do we address it? We simply 
say that the collection of data to the EEO-1 is the best way to move 
forward. The employers with less than 100 have been exempted from the 
very beginning of the EEO-1 report, so this is simply consistent with 
that and recognizes that, to get meaningful data, sometimes you need 
more than a handful of people. That is, 6 or 10 or 12 people don't 
necessarily give you an apples-to-apples comparison. When you get more 
than 100, you can do it.
  The government already collects the sensitive data. It has done it 
for years without privacy concerns. My friend pointed out there may be 
3,200 or 3,600 categories. Right now, with deep learning and machine 
learning, this is something that takes a microsecond to do. This is 
very easy. We are now in an intellectual and digital world where we can 
have the EEO discover which companies have persistent patterns of pay 
inequity, and it really works.
  All our offices have pay transparency. When I am trying to figure out 
how much to pay a legislative correspondent or legislative director or 
front office, I know that everyone can go online and figure out what 
everyone else is making. That is a powerful incentive for us to make 
sure that people are paid fairly and paid equally. All we are trying to 
do is bring the same transparency to American businesses across the 
country.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my friend for her support of this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2870]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1615


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 116-19.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 6, strike ``Not later than'' and insert ``(a) In 
     General.--Not later than''.
       In section 6, add at the end the following:
       (b) Report on Gender Pay Gap in Teenage Labor Force.--
       (1) Report required.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor, 
     acting through the Director of the Women's Bureau and in 
     coordination with the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, 
     shall--
       (A) submit to Congress a report on the gender pay gap in 
     the teenage labor force; and
       (B) make the report available on a publicly accessible 
     website of the Department of Labor.
       (2) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) An examination of trends and potential solutions 
     relating to the teenage gender pay gap.
       (B) An examination of how the teenage gender pay gap 
     potentially translates into greater wage gaps in the overall 
     labor force.
       (C) An examination of overall lifetime earnings and losses 
     for informal and formal jobs for women, including women of 
     color.
       (D) An examination of the teenage gender pay gap, including 
     a comparison of the average amount earned by males and 
     females, respectively, in informal jobs, such as babysitting 
     and other freelance jobs, as well as formal jobs, such as 
     retail, restaurant, and customer service.
       (E) A comparison of --
       (i) the types of tasks typically performed by women from 
     the teenage years through adulthood within certain informal 
     jobs, such as babysitting and other freelance jobs, and 
     formal jobs, such as retail, restaurant, and customer 
     service; and
       (ii) the types of tasks performed by younger males in such 
     positions.
       (F) Interviews and surveys with workers and employers 
     relating to early gender-based pay discrepancies.
       (G) Recommendations for--
       (i) addressing pay inequality for women from the teenage 
     years through adulthood, including such women of color;
       (ii) addressing any disadvantages experienced by young 
     women with respect to work experience and professional 
     development;
       (iii) the development of standards and best practices for 
     workers and employees to ensure better pay for young women 
     and the prevention of early inequalities in the workplace; 
     and
       (iv) expanding awareness for teenage girls on pay rates and 
     employment rights in order to reduce greater inequalities in 
     the overall labor force.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 252, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank Representative Rosa DeLauro 
for her hard work on H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. This 
longstanding legislation which would ensure equal pay for equal work 
has been introduced in every single Congress since 1997.
  As the chair of the Bipartisan Women's Caucus, I am proud to support 
H.R. 7, meaningful legislation that would at a minimum ensure that 
workers are protected against gender-based pay discrimination, prevent 
retaliation against those who voluntarily discuss wages, eliminate 
loopholes which would allow institutional discrimination in pay; 
equalize remedies for gender-based discrimination; and prohibit salary 
history from dictating future pay.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple. While we debate the gender pay gap 
in the professional workplace, it is imperative that we understand how 
and when the pay gap begins. For women, the gender-based wage gap 
typically emerges in the teenage years and only increases with time. My 
amendment will require the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of 
Labor Statistics to submit a report to Congress that studies the 
teenage pay gap and provide recommendations to address it.
  A 2018 study cited in The Washington Post reported that the gender-
based wage gap emerges well before adulthood, leading to long-term 
effects on lifetime earnings and economic mobility. The economic 
impacts of the gender-based wage gap are even greater for women of 
color.
  Teenagers are a substantial but often understudied part of our 
workforce. Many teenagers, not out of just wanting something to do, but 
out of necessity or because of their financial situation, work part-
time while in school and sometimes enter the workforce, unfortunately, 
as early as 12 years old. To truly address the wage gap, we need to 
have a better way to identify the root of these gaps.
  This report would provide the statistics necessary to uncover why 
this pay gap exists and the best ways to remedy the inconsistency. If 
women are raised in a culture where they believe they are not equal to 
men, the disparity that exists will never be broken. We must work to 
end that mindset now.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, in America, discriminating 
in pay based on sex is illegal as codified in the Equal Pay Act and the 
Civil Rights Act.
  Democrats claim H.R. 7 will improve upon these bipartisan laws to 
create new opportunities for women to fight pay discrimination. What 
H.R. 7 actually does is create new opportunities for trial lawyers to 
earn higher paychecks. Similarly, while this amendment appears to be 
marketed as assisting young women, this paternalistic approach 
undermines young women's abilities and pigeonholes them into 
stereotypical roles.
  This amendment directs the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study on 
the gender pay gap in the teenage labor force and then to report 
recommendations to Congress, including recommendations to expand 
awareness, specifically for teenage girls, on pay grades and employment 
rights. I am tempted to call this the babysitting amendment because it 
additionally asks the Department of Labor to spend taxpayer dollars to 
compare amounts earned by men and women in informal jobs such as 
babysitting.
  This amendment could also be called the in loco parentis amendment, 
because it is parents who should be teaching their children about the 
benefits of hard work and education and the importance of a first job, 
which is often a minimum wage job. We don't need the government coming 
in and telling children and parents what their children should be 
doing. These initial jobs help to teach teenagers important skills that 
will stay with them their entire lives.
  American women of all ages are skilled, they are smart, and today 
they are driving the American economy. Of the 2.8 million jobs created 
in the last year, more than 58 percent have gone to women. One in five 
employer businesses is owned by women; and we are seeing more young 
women than men earning college degrees.
  I support equal pay for equal work, which is rightfully required 
under two Federal statutes. Congress should focus on policies that will 
continue to increase economic opportunity and expand options for all 
workers. This amendment and the underlying bill fails in this regard.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I would really feel challenged to think 
that my colleague is unaware that there are young girls who are 
teenagers who work in restaurants and in other capacities, not because 
their parents want them to have activities but because they are 
literally trying to survive and feed themselves and sometimes their 
brothers and sisters, and to say that it is not necessary for us to 
have data and not just stand at a mike as an elected official and make 
assumptions based on your own privilege of life.

[[Page H2871]]

  I think it is imperative that we look at the data, and here I am 
saying that--before I can say and validate the status of teenage 
girls--I would want statistics and reports so that we can truly address 
the inequality that girls often get, and the mindset that a little boy 
who is out working, he needs the pay and often is given a larger amount 
of money versus a girl--and every girl is not a babysitter, but if we 
want to call this the babysitter amendment, I will accept it.
  As we work to address the pay gap, it is important that we do not 
forget our new generation of leaders, and it is about breaking a cycle, 
about having a young girl who is working, and she understands that I 
have value and that I too should be paid an equal pay.

  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I know that my colleague 
was not on the floor earlier when I spoke and told of my need to work 
even before I was a teenager, and I worked for survival. So I know that 
she did not know that and did not know that I do not take lightly the 
fact that many young people in this country are like I was and working 
to help support their families so that they have food and they are able 
to survive.
  I do not take lightly anyone's work in this country, not anyone. I 
worked hard all my life, and I have always wanted to be paid equally 
with men, and I know there were times I was not. So I understand that. 
I never want to see anyone discriminated against in this country. I 
particularly never want to see a woman discriminated against for equal 
pay when she is doing the job that a man is doing.
  I wish with all my heart that we were improving on the Equal Pay Act 
and the Civil Rights Act and helping to make things better for women 
with H.R. 7. We are not. We are lining the pockets of trial lawyers and 
in many cases will be harming women. This amendment stereotypes young 
women because it mentions babysitting. That is where the stereotypes 
come in, in this amendment, and that is unfortunate.
  We do have a younger generation, and we have women who can do any job 
that any man can do, and she should be paid equally for it. But neither 
this study nor this bill is going to guarantee that.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 116-19.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, line 23, insert after ``employee'' the following: 
     ``(such as by inquiring or discussing with the employer why 
     the wages of the employee are set at a certain rate or 
     salary)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 252, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me start by saying it is a privilege to be able to stand on the 
floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in this year, in this term, 
and in this session of Congress to participate in the debate and the 
discussion and to offer an amendment on this historic bill, the 
Paycheck Fairness Act.
  I would like to first thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of 
the committee,  Bobby Scott from Virginia, for his leadership on this 
issue and this bill. I want to recognize the decades' long work of my 
colleague from Connecticut, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, on the 
underlying bill and her efforts, along with many other women, including 
Maryland's former Senator Barbara Mikulski to finally ensure that women 
are paid and treated fairly in the workplace.
  My amendment would enhance pay transparency protections in this bill. 
This amendment would make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate 
against an employee for simply discussing or inquiring why they are 
being paid a certain wage or salary.
  Mr. Chairman, if you found out that you were being paid less than 
your colleagues for the same work, you would probably demand to be paid 
more. But for too long, it has been considered taboo to discuss your 
salary with your coworkers let alone confront your boss if you were 
being paid unfairly.
  When pay is transparent, organizations must be able to justify each 
employee's salary, thus reducing or eliminating any type of bias.
  That is why the Paycheck Fairness Act puts transparency front and 
center and why my amendment goes a little further and gives every 
employee the right to negotiate the higher pay.
  Since Congress has not been able to act over the past several years, 
States have led the way in promoting pay transparency, including 
California, Illinois, Louisiana, and my State of Maryland. In Maryland 
we added very broad pay transparency protections to ensure employees 
the ability to discover and discuss disparities in pay, and we even 
expanded prohibitions against discriminatory pay practices to include 
gender identity, an item that I would hope that this Congress may take 
up later this session.
  But my amendment today reiterates the importance of transparency in 
the workplace. Every employee should be able to advocate and negotiate 
for themselves without fear of reprisal. According to the Carnegie 
Mellon study, men are four times more likely than women to ask for a 
raise, and when women do ask, they typically request 30 percent less 
than men do.
  We should be encouraging employees, regardless of their gender, to 
inquire and discuss disparities in pay with their employers and 
advocate for themselves if they aren't being paid fairly or if it is 
simply time they received a well-deserved raise.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Chairman, at a time when wages are not rising fast enough, 
Congress must ensure every working American is paid equally and fairly 
and is empowered throughout their salary negotiation process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Pay discrimination on the basis of sex is 
wrong, and it also, importantly, violates two Federal statutes.
  Retaliation by an employer against an employee for pursuing 
reasonable discussion or inquiry regarding potentially discriminating 
compensation is wrong, and it, too, is illegal.
  However, like the rest of this bill, the expanded nonretaliation 
provision in H.R. 7 goes too far, and this amendment takes it even 
further.
  Under current law, those who inquire about, discuss, or disclose 
compensation information in a reasonable manner and with a good faith 
belief that an unlawful pay disparity may exist are protected from 
retaliation. However, the underlying provision in H.R. 7 regarding pay 
disclosures and discussion has no limits at all.
  The inquiry, discussion, and disclosure allowed under this bill is 
not required to be reasonable nor related to any perceived pay 
disparity and raises serious privacy concerns for all employees, 
especially in the age of social media.
  H.R. 7 takes away an employee's ability to control disclosure of 
information about their own pay. It also limits an employer's ability 
to protect what should be confidential information about employees.
  Congress should focus on policies that promote opportunity and 
options for all workers. This amendment does not further this purpose.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to protect workers' privacy rights by 
opposing this amendment and the underlying bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chair, unfortunately, historically, the 
cloak of confidentiality has often been the shield used by employers to 
discriminate against women when it comes to paycheck fairness.

[[Page H2872]]

  I encourage all my colleagues to support my amendment and the 
underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, once again, I reiterate my 
opposition to the underlying bill and to this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Beyer

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 7 printed 
in part B of House Report 116-19 offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Beyer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 406, 
noes 24, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 132]

                               AYES--406

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Estes
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Fulcher
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gottheimer
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Green (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norton
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Olson
     Omar
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watkins
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                                NOES--24

     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Biggs
     Burchett
     Carter (TX)
     Crawford
     Ferguson
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Hern, Kevin
     King (IA)
     Mooney (WV)
     Norman
     Palmer
     Ratcliffe
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Schweikert
     Walker
     Waters
     Wenstrup

                             NOT VOTING--7

     DesJarlais
     Granger
     Plaskett
     Radewagen
     San Nicolas
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman

                              {time}  1702

  Messrs. SCHWEIKERT, MOONEY of West Virginia, FERGUSON, RIGGLEMAN, and 
PALMER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. COLE, BUCSHON, GIBBS, BISHOP of Utah, GAETZ, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, 
Messrs. BROOKS of Alabama, WEBER of Texas, LAMBORN, and CLOUD changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained due to illness. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``YEA'' on rollcall No. 132.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Jackson Lee) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 7) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more 
effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages 
on the basis of sex, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 252, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, in its present form, I am.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on 
the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

[[Page H2873]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Foxx of North Carolina moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     7 to the Committee on Education and Labor with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       In section 3(c)(5)--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (2) redesignate subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); and
       (3) insert after subparagraph (A), the following:
       (B) by inserting after ``defendant'' the following: 
     ``(except that any contingent attorney's fees shall not 
     exceed 49 percent of any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or 
     plaintiffs)''; and

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am here to offer a 
motion to recommit that is about honesty.
  It is about making sure this bill does what my Democrat colleagues 
say it will do, and that is help victims of wage discrimination on the 
basis of sex.
  It is about making sure that any woman who experiences unfair and 
illegal wage discrimination just because she is a woman doesn't go 
through all the hardship of a legal battle only to see her lawyer walk 
away with even more of her money.
  With this motion to recommit, if a plaintiff has entered into a 
contingency fee arrangement in Equal Pay Act litigation, the attorney's 
contingency fee, including costs, will not exceed 49 percent of the 
judgment awarded to the plaintiff.
  If adopted, it will ensure that the individual who has brought the 
claim actually receives a majority of the judgment and that the 
attorney doesn't collect the lion's share.
  The authors of H.R. 7 failed to include in the text any new legal 
protections for workers against discrimination. Instead, the bill 
alters the Equal Pay Act to allow unlimited compensatory damages even 
when there is no intentional discrimination, and unlimited punitive 
damages. It also expands class action lawsuits.
  H.R. 7 makes it impossible in many cases for employers to defend 
against Equal Pay Act claims even when there is a legitimate business 
reason for a pay differential.
  H.R. 7 creates special incentives and awards for trial lawyers.
  For working women who have been taken advantage of by their bosses, 
it sets them up to lose out again.
  H.R. 7 encourages trial lawyers to file more lawsuits of questionable 
validity and to drive workers into the suits without their knowledge 
for the purpose of siphoning off the new pool of unlimited compensatory 
and punitive damages created by H.R. 7, lining their own pockets at the 
expense of plaintiffs.
  A similar amendment capping lawyers' contingency fees at 15 percent 
was offered by Mr. Byrne when H.R. 7 was considered in committee. Every 
Democrat on the Education and Labor Committee opposed this modest 
change.
  If this amendment is adopted, trial lawyers will have to somehow make 
due with 49 percent of the overall judgment, and we all know that trial 
lawyers siphon off more than this amount in many of their class action 
cases.
  Victims of true pay discrimination should be the true beneficiaries 
of any judgment in their favor. This amendment will help ensure this 
outcome in Equal Pay Act cases.
  Madam Speaker, supporters of H.R. 7 say the bill is about helping 
victims of pay discrimination. If that is true, then all Members should 
support this reasonable proposal.
  All we are asking is that if our colleagues are so intent on giving 
trial lawyers a bigger piece of the pie, then consider giving working 
women more than a few crumbs.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of my 
point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of a point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Ms. WILD. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WILD. Madam Speaker, I am opposed to all caps on attorney's fees 
in this type of case.
  The only criteria for the amount of attorney's fees charged should be 
reasonableness in the context of the case itself.
  I have spent more than 30 years in courtrooms, most of that time 
representing the defense in civil matters, almost always for companies; 
in other words, against the very trial lawyers we speak of.
  So I have no bias in favor of those lawyers, but let me tell you 
this: representing plaintiffs in employment cases is a very hard job. 
These lawyers work for every penny they earn. They take cases that put 
their own livelihood at risk.
  Many employment cases take years to resolve. Often they have to go to 
court over and over to litigate discovery and pretrial matters, and all 
the while, they are not collecting a paycheck from that case, because 
they have taken it on a contingent fee basis.
  Without an award at the end of the case, they receive nothing, and 
they advance out-of-pocket expenses.
  But even more important, without these lawyers, low-income female 
employees with legitimate grievances would have no recourse. Only with 
a competent lawyer's help can they proceed.
  This motion, if passed, would discourage lawyers from taking these 
cases. And if they don't take these cases, employees, workers, families 
lose out.
  The only test for attorney's fees should be reasonableness. Courts 
and judges are well equipped to determine whether a fee is reasonable, 
far better equipped than Congress is.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. 
Sherrill).

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the motion 
to recommit offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  There are few things that define us as a country more distinctly than 
the idea of the American Dream: the idea that anyone can make it here 
through hard work and dedication. That dream rests on giving people a 
fair shot.
  Right now, too many people in this country just aren't getting a fair 
shot, and women in this country face additional barriers because they 
simply are not paid equally for their work.
  Madam Speaker, this bill, H.R. 7, supports paycheck fairness because 
equal pay for equal work is about respect, and in New Jersey we know 
respect. I know what paycheck fairness looks like because we just 
passed it in New Jersey. It is high time that Congress ensures these 
commonsense values for the rest of the women across this country.
  I have listened to objections raised today that women already have 
protections for equal pay. Well, let me assure you that the protections 
in our laws are not adequate.
  I rise today, Madam Speaker, for women who are earning just 80 cents 
on every dollar. I rise for our African American women who are only 
earning 61 cents on the dollar. I rise today for Hispanic women who are 
only earning 53 cents on the dollar.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today for American women and for their families 
so we can give them a fair shot, like a woman in my district who, 
despite being a single mom helping to pay off her children's college 
debt, was passed over for a raise because her male coworker had a 
family to support, or another who found that she was being paid less 
than her male coworkers after years of performing the same job and with 
the same seniority. And, Madam Speaker, I am fighting today for my two 
daughters so they have the same opportunities and the same rights as my 
two sons.
  In the House, we know what our coworkers are making. We can look it 
up. We need our constituents to have that same opportunity.
  Madam Speaker, I have joined my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle in the past on their motions. I believe deeply in the need for 
this body to come together today to focus on issues that matter to our 
families. It is time for my colleagues to now join me, because 
supporting women, supporting families, and supporting the American 
Dream is a shared value.
  I know in New Jersey the equal pay bill passed with broad bipartisan 
support. In fact, in the entire State senate

[[Page H2874]]

and assembly, there were only two people who voted against it.
  If there were ever a moment, if there were ever a bill, if there were 
ever a time to put obstruction aside, it is now. The motion put forth 
has nothing to do with equal pay, and I urge my colleagues to reject 
it.
  Ms. WILD. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 236, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 133]

                               AYES--191

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--236

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     DesJarlais
     Granger
     Griffith
     Wilson (SC)

                              {time}  1727

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 187, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 134]

                               YEAS--242

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas

[[Page H2875]]


     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--187

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--3

     DesJarlais
     Granger
     Wilson (SC)

                              {time}  1735

  Mr. POSEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________