Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 53 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)

[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''.

{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.

____________________