[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 14, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1775-H1781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1515
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7, PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT, AND 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1195, WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION 
             FOR HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS ACT

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 303

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House 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. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
     printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     Labor or their respective designees; (2) the further 
     amendments described in section 2 of this resolution; (3) the 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution; 
     and (4) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only 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, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the 
     chair of the Committee on Education and Labor or his designee 
     to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
     respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question.
       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1195) to direct 
     the Secretary of Labor to issue an occupational safety and 
     health standard that requires covered employers within the 
     health care and social service industries to develop and 
     implement a comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and Labor now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
     respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in 
     section 5 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc 
     described in section 6 of this resolution; and (4) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 5.  After debate pursuant to section 4 of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part C of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 6 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only 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, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 6.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to section 4 of this resolution for the chair of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
     respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question.
       Sec. 7.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in parts B and C of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution or amendments en bloc 
     described in sections 3 and 6 of this resolution are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield

[[Page H1776]]

the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met 
and reported a rule, House Resolution 303, providing for consideration 
of H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, under a structured rule. It 
provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. It 
self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Scott and makes in 
order six amendments to H.R. 7. It also provides for one motion to 
recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1195, the Workplace 
Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, 
under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor and makes in order six amendments to 
H.R. 1195. It also provides for one motion to recommit. Finally, the 
rule provides for an en bloc authority to Chairman Scott or his 
designee for both bills.
  Madam Speaker, before I begin, I just wanted to take a moment--this 
is the first time I have been on the floor since we lost Congressman 
Hastings--to say for myself, personally, how much gratitude I have for 
having known him and been able to serve with him. I regret that I won't 
see his smiling face, at least in this body, again.
  Madam Speaker, the two bills we are talking about today have the 
potential to drastically improve the working lives of millions of 
Americans.
  In 2019, nearly 1 in 9 women in the United States lived in poverty, 
with even higher rates for women of color. More than 1 in 3 families, 
headed by unmarried mothers, lived in poverty. And 60 percent of all 
poor children lived in families headed by unmarried mothers.
  The coronavirus pandemic has only deepened the divides that already 
existed in this country. Women are especially likely to be on the front 
lines of the pandemic. At the same time, they are also being paid less 
than their male counterparts.
  Madam Speaker, 93 percent of childcare workers, 66 percent of grocery 
store cashiers, 70 percent of food servers, and 77 percent of clothing, 
shoe stores, and retail salespeople are women. Women--
disproportionately Black women and Latinas--make up more than 8 in 10 
of those working as home health aides, personal care aides, and nursing 
assistants. They are also at great risk for contracting COVID-19.
  Madam Speaker, 6 months ago, deep into the pandemic, 1 in 6 Latinas 
and 1 in 5 Black women reported not having enough food in the previous 
week, and many reported being behind on rent or mortgage payments. Even 
before the pandemic, women typically lost more than $10,000 every year 
to the gender wage gap, with even higher losses for women of color.
  More than five decades after the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 
1963, a woman in America still makes only 82 cents on average for every 
dollar earned by her male counterpart. Compared to White men, Black 
women are paid 63 cents. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander women are 
paid 63 cents, American Indian or Alaska Native women are paid 60 cents 
and Hispanic women are paid 55 cents.
  Based on today's wage gap, a woman who works full time year-round 
stands to lose over $400,000 over a 40-year career because of this 
disparity. This is not the United States that Frances Perkins, the 
first woman Secretary, envisioned, and we have an opportunity today to 
make a real change.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to have joined with my very dear friend, 
Chairwoman DeLauro, to introduce the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is an 
important step towards ending gender-based wage discrimination and 
ensuring that all women receive equal pay for equal work. It is time to 
make equal pay for equal work more than just a slogan and turn it into 
a reality.
  Madam Speaker, we are also here to talk about the epidemic of 
violence against healthcare and social service workers. Last year, 
Department of Labor statistics show that they were nearly five times as 
likely to suffer a serious workplace violence injury than workers in 
other industries.
  The General Accounting Office found that rates of violence against 
healthcare workers in hospitals, nursing homes, and residential care 
facilities is 5 to 12 times higher than the estimated rates for workers 
overall. Between 2011 and 2016, 58 hospital workers died as a result of 
workplace violence.
  Madam Speaker, for me, this matter strikes close to home. In 2010, 
Napa State Hospital technician Donna K. Gross was killed outside of 
Napa State Hospital by a patient under psychiatric care. Donna was a 
constituent. She entered the profession to honor her mother, who 
battled mental illness and was a patient at this very same hospital. 
She was the mother of three grown children and was raising her 
granddaughter. Her colleagues described her by saying: ``First and 
foremost, Donna was a human service-type person and loved being with 
people and working with people.''
  Donna's life was cut short when a patient brutally murdered her to 
steal jewelry and cash. This story is just one of thousands, and 
incidents are on the rise. Sadly, violence has become so commonplace 
for healthcare workers that they think it is part of their job, 
resulting in only 30 percent of violent incidents actually being 
reported.
  Some States have stepped up to enact laws to require employers to 
establish a plan to protect against workplace violence. Donna's story, 
for example, inspired action in California that I was proud to be part 
of. That action in California served as the basis for the bill before 
us tomorrow.
  These workers deserve national action, and they deserve it now. At 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, these workers are 
not receiving the urgent attention they need.
  OSHA takes at least 7 years to put out a standard. But in some 
instances, it can take more than 20 years. People like Donna Kay Gross 
cannot wait any longer.
  To protect the people who dedicate their lives to caring for us, we 
need to move now. In truth, we needed to move years ago. The longer we 
wait, the more people are suffering. The longer we wait, the more 
people like Donna will die.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. DeSaulnier from 
California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I first want to acknowledge, along with Mr. 
DeSaulnier, the poignant loss that we all feel here in the House with 
the departure of our friend, Alcee Hastings. He was a fixture in the 
Rules Committee for all the years I have been on the committee. 
Certainly, while yesterday we acknowledged that we feel his absence, we 
also feel his presence. He was truly larger than life on the committee.
  Today's rule provides for consideration of two bills that are meant 
to improve working conditions and compensation. The House actually 
considered these same bills last Congress. They did not receive 
consideration in the Senate, and I do not believe any substance has 
changed in the underlying bills.
  The first bill, H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, seeks to prevent 
wage discrimination on the basis of sex, a fact that is already 
prohibited under current law. This legislation will help trial lawyers 
but offers no new protections against pay discrimination.
  The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits all discrimination in pay based 
upon sex or any other non-job-performance-related issue. Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination based on race, 
color, national origin, religion, and sex. Sex-based wage disparity is 
in direct violation of not one but two Federal laws.
  It is important to acknowledge that bad actors engage in gender pay 
discrimination. Their actions are illegal,

[[Page H1777]]

and they leave employers vulnerable to burdensome lawsuits and heavy 
fines.
  I could not agree more that such discrimination has no place in any 
business or in society in general. However, those who perpetrate these 
illegal acts are the exception and not the rule.
  Congress must not forget the positive economic trends that this 
Nation enjoyed before the arrival of the novel coronavirus in the 
United States. The Trump administration made great strides reining in 
Federal overreach, which quickly improved opportunities for all 
Americans. Unemployment was at the lowest level in nearly half a 
century, and median wages across all demographic groups rose faster 
than at any other time in American history.
  Unfortunately, the majority has crafted legislation that would place 
greater burdens on employers, reduce the privacy of employees, and 
increase Federal spending. H.R. 7 does little to protect the wages of 
American workers who are experiencing gender pay discrimination. In 
fact, it makes it harder for employers to defend legitimate 
differentials in pay based on factors other than sex.
  Currently, employers may pay differential wages due to factors other 
than sex, like education, training, or experience. This means that all 
other things being equal, a woman cannot be paid differently than a 
man. When an employee brings different qualifications to the job, such 
as she has an advanced degree or more experience, the factors used to 
evaluate employee pay are no longer equal. This preserves the 
flexibility for employers to make the best decision for their 
businesses, including hiring the most qualified individuals, regardless 
of sex.
  H.R. 7 would now require that non-sex reasons for any wage disparity 
have a business necessity, a term which is not defined in the bill. 
Providing a gender-based business necessity that accounts for the 
entire differential in pay is nearly an impossible standard to defend 
against.
  This change to a bona fide factor defense does not consider the 
reality of the labor market. Employees are often willing to accept 
lower pay for greater control over their work location, schedule, and 
vacation time. Studies have shown that this is particularly true for 
women.
  With the threat of lawsuits hanging over the heads of employers, they 
are less likely to allow for flexibility in the workplace. Instead of 
allowing employees to negotiate their own pay and work arrangements, 
employers will be incentivized to transform jobs that were once 
negotiable and flexible into jobs that are much more rigid.
  H.R. 7 also limits an employer's ability to pay its employees based 
on performance. If a woman were to earn a performance-based bonus or 
salary increase that her male coworker did not receive, then that man 
could file suit against the employer on the basis that the bonus is not 
a business necessity due to the vagueness in terms in H.R. 7. With this 
threat in mind, employers are much less likely to use performance-based 
pay and bonuses, despite studies showing that such pay models actually 
do increase employee productivity.
  While legitimate claims do exist, and I hope that all employees who 
have experienced discrimination do seek legal remedy, the changes in 
H.R. 7 would significantly increase the size and profitability of 
lawsuits, making nonmeritorious claims even more likely for trial 
lawyers looking for new cash flows. That is the inherent danger.
  H.R. 7 also requires employers to provide disaggregated employee 
information to the Department of Labor without delineating mechanisms 
to keep that information safe. Have we ever heard that the Federal 
Government has lost employee data or that the Federal Government may 
not be the best steward of citizens' private information? Maybe we 
should limit the data received until those capabilities are, in fact, 
improved and verified.

  The second bill included in this rule, H.R. 1195, requires that the 
Secretary of Labor issue a rule on workplace violence prevention in the 
healthcare and social service sectors. Some may be surprised to hear 
that acts of violence are the third leading cause of fatal occupational 
injuries. Of these incidents, approximately 8 percent were 
intentionally caused by another person.
  When Americans go to work each day, they do not expect to face 
violence or other harm. This risk is especially high for healthcare 
providers and social workers. These caregivers can be subject to 
patients who may not be in control when under the influence of 
medication or may have some other mental stress, upset family members, 
ongoing domestic disputes, and, unfortunately, even gang violence.
  The rate of workplace violence resulting in days away from work for 
healthcare providers is, on average, four times higher than for other 
professions. In addition, healthcare providers and social workers are 
less likely to report incidents. This may be partly due to the pledge 
to do no harm and the inclination to forgive patient-caused injuries as 
accidental. Regardless of the situation, all workers deserve a safe 
workplace.
  Currently, there is no mandatory standard on workplace violence 
prevention. However, in 2015, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration published guidelines for preventing workplace violence 
for healthcare and social service workers and is currently working on a 
rule for workplace violence prevention.
  H.R. 1195 would require the Secretary of Labor to issue a rule on 
workplace violence prevention based upon OSHA's 2015 guidelines. An 
interim standard is required within 1 year, and a final rule must be 
issued within 2 years.
  While the goal of this legislation is very important, the timeframe 
imposed on the Department of Labor and OSHA does exceed the norm. While 
no one believes that we should continue to delay worker protections, 
OSHA has already begun the rulemaking process and is gathering 
stakeholder input.
  Perhaps, rather than pass a bill to require the issuance of a rule, 
we should be considering reforms to the entire OSHA rulemaking process. 
In other words, let's improve the bureaucracy rather than simply 
flogging it.
  While an OSHA rulemaking would ensure enforcement of workplace 
violence prevention policies, according to a 2018 American Hospital 
Association survey, 97 percent of respondents reported they already 
have a workplace violence prevention policy in place. In 2019, the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that additional 
research was required to identify effective strategies to prevent 
violence, particularly in healthcare settings.
  We can all agree that there is a need for OSHA to do its work to 
issue a workplace violence prevention regulation to protect healthcare 
providers and social service workers. I hope we are able to accomplish 
this goal, but I do worry that we are placing another costly burden on 
entities through what is supposed to be an expedited process that may 
require modification in the future to ensure an effective and safe 
workplace for all Americans.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chair of the Rules 
Committee and representative of the beautiful city of Worcester, 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, a 
distinguished member of the Rules Committee and also a graduate of the 
College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, 
and I urge my colleagues on both sides to do the same. I hope they all 
will vote for the rule.
  The two bills that we are bringing to the floor are the product of 
regular order. They went through the committee process, hearings and 
markups.
  We, in the Rules Committee, made the Republican substitutes in order 
so they can try to defend their ideas, which I don't agree with. 
Nonetheless, other Republican amendments are made in order as well. But 
then again, I guess there is not much we can do to make some of my 
friends happy.
  Madam Speaker, I rise for a more somber purpose, and that is to honor 
my friend and colleague, Congressman Alcee Hastings, who we lost last 
week after a courageous battle with cancer. I am proud to have sat 
side-by-side with him in the Rules Committee for many years.
  I often say that the Rules Committee is like a family. To those 
outsiders who

[[Page H1778]]

are observing the Rules Committee, we can sometimes look a little bit 
like a dysfunctional family, but nonetheless, we are a family. Today, 
our family is in mourning.
  This House is already a little less joyful and a little less purpose-
driven without him here. That was the thing about Alcee Hastings. 
Whether he was in the majority or the minority, or whether he liked 
what we were considering on this floor or not, he relished his service 
in this institution. He used every day here to wage worthy fights on 
behalf of justice.
  His election marked the first time an African American was elected 
from Florida since the Civil War era. He went on to become the first 
Black chairman of the Helsinki Commission, a respected voice on the 
world stage.
  There was not a barrier he was afraid to break. He was steadfast in 
providing a voice to all those who needed an ally, including 
minorities, children, immigrants, and people struggling in poverty.
  Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that he 
could do more with the simple turn of a phrase than many of us could do 
with 100 words or more. As he was yielding back his time in the 
committee or here on the floor, especially if he felt that we were 
considering a bill that somehow was disadvantaging vulnerable people in 
this country, he would get up and give a stern and passionate and 
succinct lecture to this body. Then he would conclude by saying: That 
is my story, and I am sticking to it. And if I offended any of you by 
what I said, that was intentional.
  It was pure Alcee Hastings. He chose his words carefully, and he 
meant every one of them. Now I have lost a dear friend, this Congress 
has lost a giant, and those who all too often go unseen in America have 
lost a champion.
  We send our prayers and our condolences to his family, to his 
dedicated and wonderful staff, and to his constituents, knowing that 
these Halls will never see someone quite like him again.
  May he rest in peace.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will 
amend the rule immediately to consider H.R. 2430, the Temporary 
Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl 
Analogues Act. This critical bill would extend the Drug Enforcement 
Administration's authority to temporarily schedule fentanyl analogues 
for another year.
  Unfortunately, President Biden's open border policy is encouraging 
drug trafficking of substances like fentanyl. So it is imperative that 
the Drug Enforcement Administration retain this authority to keep those 
dangerous substances out of our communities.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, this is a critical reauthorization and it 
is imperative to maintaining our Nation's efforts to address the opiate 
epidemic.
  In February of 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration used its 
authority to place nonscheduled fentanyl-like substances temporarily 
into schedule I for a period of 2 years. It is important that we do not 
let this authorization lapse, as it listed fentanyl is still an eminent 
threat to Americans.
  The Drug Enforcement Administration testified that the positive 
impacts since implementing this temporary schedule are significant, 
stating that prior to this action, the DEA observed a rapid and 
continuous emergence of a new fentanyl-like substance each time it is 
scheduled to remove a fentanyl-like substance. In other words, you take 
one out and one would pop up.
  We simply cannot return to that reality because of the deadly nature 
of this substance.
  Just last month, two north Texas teenagers died from counterfeit 
pills containing fentanyl. Last year, the Dallas DEA found over 16 
kilograms of fentanyl targeting the region. It contained over 8 million 
lethal doses--one for every north Texas resident.
  Unfortunately, throughout this pandemic, the opiate crisis has 
continued, and it has gotten worse. Exacerbating this problem is the 
ease with which fentanyl is being smuggled across our southern border. 
The changes in border security enforcement that have occurred have sent 
a message to the cartels and the drug smugglers that securing our 
sovereignty is no longer an administration priority. What is worse is 
that some adults and children are forced to carry these drugs into the 
United States by smugglers. Sometimes innocent individuals traffic 
drugs into the United States in their vehicles without even knowing 
that the cartels have placed it there without their knowledge.
  The only way to limit the exploitation of innocent individuals and to 
protect our American communities is to limit the market for these vile 
products.
  During the past year, this country has suffered over half a million 
deaths to an unforeseen disease. We should do everything we can to 
trample the market of a known killer: fentanyl. We must equip our 
communities to address this issue at its very source.
  The temporary emergency rescheduling of fentanyl analogues to 
schedule I is a necessary tool for the Drug Enforcement Administration 
to work with other agencies and law enforcement officials to address 
the threat of illicit fentanyl.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support this bill, and I strongly urge 
fellow Members to defeat the previous question and support H.R. 2430.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Carter) to speak on the amendment.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am here today to ask my 
colleagues across the aisle to support the efforts outlined in H.R. 
2430 to extend the emergency scheduling of fentanyl analogues.
  This is an opportunity for us to work together to help stem the flow 
of deadly fentanyl and its analogues into our country. This is also an 
issue that impacts every one of us and the communities that we call 
home.
  We all know someone who has been the victim of an addictive or 
illegal opioid. Just last week in my home State of Georgia, the Georgia 
attorney general announced that he is investigating fatal drug 
overdoses blamed on counterfeit medications--medications laced with 
fentanyl. Those individuals bought illegal products they believed to be 
Xanax, Percocet, and Roxicodone. These clusters of overdoses were 
spread across my State, and I know we are not alone. It continues to 
take the lives of our fellow Americans, and more must be done to fight 
this.
  Fentanyl is an extremely dangerous substance. Three milligrams is 
enough to be fatal. It is 50 times more potent than heroin. First 
responders just touching or accidentally inhaling the substance can 
experience severe complications and possible death.
  So where is this coming from?
  Across the border with Mexico.
  The GAO even reports that seizures of fentanyl from Mexico increased 
by more than 200 percent from 2018 to 2020.
  Every year, U.S. Border Patrol agents intercept enough fentanyl to 
kill every single American several times over. In fact, the CBP 
announced in 2019 that they had enough seized fentanyl to kill 800 
million people.
  I visited the border last week to see this crisis firsthand. I was 
surprised. It wasn't a crisis. It was a disaster. It is a disaster on 
the border. Border Patrol agents are so overwhelmed with a 20-year 
record high number of illegal immigrants that smugglers and cartels are 
using this as an opportunity to traffic more fentanyl.

  If the President and Vice President would visit the border like I 
did, then they would be able to talk to the agents firsthand and see 
for themselves how serious this issue is. Instead, they have elected to 
leave our border wide open.
  We are inviting drug traffickers to bring fentanyl into the country 
and distribute it into our streets--my streets and your streets, Madam 
Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, if we don't look at long-term scheduling options for 
all

[[Page H1779]]

fentanyl products, then we remove the last line of defense to provide a 
deterrent to illegal distribution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Our communities are at risk, Madam Speaker, 
your community and my community--all of our communities. They don't 
care if it is a Democratic community or a Republican community. They 
are at risk.
  It is time for us to work together as a Congress to pass good 
legislation. We started to address the opioid epidemic in a bipartisan 
fashion when Republicans were in the majority with the passage of the 
SUPPORT Act--a bipartisan product--and the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act. We should get back to working together, and this is a 
great opportunity to do so.
  Madam Speaker, as you know, professionally I am a pharmacist. I have 
witnessed this. It does not discriminate. Opioid addiction doesn't care 
if you are a Republican, a Democrat, a male, a female, African 
American, Caucasian, or Hispanic. It does not care. It is an addiction 
that is paralyzing our country.
  Madam Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question so that we can 
immediately consider H.R. 2430.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, just to follow Chairman 
McGovern, I thank him for his very kind words on my friend and 
neighbor, Alcee Hastings, who was a brilliant and forceful advocate for 
justice and the great senior leader of the Florida delegation. We miss 
him dearly.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National 
Urban League in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

                                        National Urban League,

                                                   April 14, 2021.
     Re Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7) and vote no on 
         harmful amendments.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Urban 
     League, with 90 local affiliates in 36 states and the 
     District of Columbia, I strongly urge you to pass the 
     Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7, without amendments that limit 
     its scope or undermine its critical protections.
       The National Urban League is a civil rights organization 
     dedicated to the economic empowerment of African Americans 
     and other underserved populations. The National Urban League 
     and our affiliate movement have a strong interest in ensuring 
     equity in the workplace, including payment.
       Despite federal and state equal pay laws, gender pay gaps 
     persist, and earnings lost to these gaps are exacerbating the 
     financial effects of COVID-19, falling particularly heavily 
     on women of color and the families who depend on their 
     income. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which has been passed 
     three previous times by the House of Representatives, mostly 
     recently in the 116th Congress, offers a much-needed update 
     to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by providing new tools to battle 
     pervasive pay gaps and to challenge discrimination.
       Women are increasingly the primary or co-breadwinner in 
     their families and cannot afford to be shortchanged any 
     longer. Women working full-time, year-round are typically 
     paid only 82 cents for every dollar paid to men, adding up to 
     a loss of more than $400,000 over a lifetime. This wage gap 
     varies by race and is often larger for women of color: Black 
     women working full time, year-round typically make only 63 
     cents, Native American women only 60 cents, and Latinas only 
     55 cents, for every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic 
     male counterparts. Over the course of a 40-year career, Black 
     women lose nearly $1 million in earnings and Latinas lose 
     more than $1 million. While Asian American and Pacific 
     Islander (AAPI) women make 85 cents for every dollar paid to 
     white, non-Hispanic men, many AAPI communities experience 
     drastically wider pay gaps. Moms are paid less than dads. And 
     even when controlling for factors like education and 
     experience, pay gaps persist and start early in women's 
     careers and contribute to a wealth gap that follows them 
     throughout their lifetimes. Persistent pay discrimination, 
     often cloaked by employer-imposed pay secrecy policies, is 
     one factor driving these wage gaps.
       These pay gaps can be addressed only if workers have the 
     legal tools necessary to challenge discrimination and 
     employers are provided with effective incentives and 
     technical assistance to comply with the law.
       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:
       ends secrecy around pay by barring retaliation against 
     workers who voluntarily discuss or disclose their wages, and 
     requiring employers to report pay data to the EEOC;
       prohibits employers from relying on salary history in 
     determining future pay, so that pay discrimination does not 
     follow women from job to job;
       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;
       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; and provides much needed training and technical 
     assistance, as well as data collection and research.
       The COVID-19 pandemic and systemic racism have exposed how 
     the work performed primarily by women, and particularly Black 
     and brown women, has long been and continues to be 
     undervalued and underpaid, even as the rest of the country is 
     newly recognizing the essential nature of this work. We 
     cannot build back an economy that works for everyone without 
     ensuring that all women can work with equality, safety, and 
     dignity, starting with pay equity. Passing the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act would mark a vitally important step toward 
     ensuring this becomes reality.
       We urge you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act without 
     harmful amendments that weaken its critical protections. If 
     you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Joi 
     Chaney at the National Urban League.
           Thank you for your consideration,
                                                   Marc H. Morial,
                                                  President & CEO.

  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the 
passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  I have some important questions and simple answers.
  First, do rent and food cost less for women than men?
  The answer is no.
  Do women work less hard than men?
  Absolutely not.
  Do children depend on the financial support of their mothers?
  That answer is yes.
  So should women make less money than men for doing equal work?
  Obviously not.
  Yet, for many reasons, women are paid an average of just 82 cents for 
every dollar paid to men--it is even lower for women of color--causing 
struggling families and eventually lower Social Security benefits and 
retirement savings for our grandmothers.
  No wonder it is women and their children who are the majority of poor 
in this country.
  As we emerge from a pandemic that has hit women workers the hardest, 
isn't it time for an economy that compensates women fairly for their 
work?
  Of course it is.
  This requires numerous actions, including making sure that women and 
girls have full access to healthcare, education, and financial 
resources; family-friendly workplaces; combating on-the-job sexual 
harassment and violence; making child and adult care more affordable; 
and raising the pay for minimum wage workers, two-thirds of whom are 
women.
  Today, we can take a giant step toward this moral and legal 
imperative of closing the gender wage gap by passing the Paycheck 
Fairness Act and giving workers the tools to enforce the Equal Pay Act 
of 1963, that requires pay equity.
  Isn't it time, Madam Speaker, that our mothers, daughters, and 
sisters get paid fairly for their hard day's work?
  Of course.
  That is my final question and final answer for today.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Meijer) to speak on the amendment.
  Mr. MEIJER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2430 to extend 
the DEA's temporary authority to schedule fentanyl-related substances 
for 1 year.
  Fentanyl is a deadly opioid that kills thousands of Americans 
annually. When the chemical formula of fentanyl is even slightly 
modified, creating a fentanyl analogue, these substances can become 
exponentially more lethal. These analogues have been a driving force 
behind the opioid epidemic that continues to plague our local 
communities.
  The authority for the DEA to classify these analogues as schedule I 
substances is critical to law enforcement's ability to keep these drugs 
off our streets.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I recently joined my 
colleagues on a trip to assess the ongoing crisis on our southern 
border.

[[Page H1780]]

Fentanyl has continued to move into our country through our ports of 
entry, mainly through our border with Mexico. On the trip, we spoke 
with law enforcement officials who detailed the challenges posed by 
transnational criminal organizations, including drug traffickers, who 
are attempting to take advantage of the current crisis.
  With already limited border security resources being diverted to deal 
with the humanitarian crisis, drug smugglers are continuing their 
attempts to push dangerous substances, including fentanyl, into the 
United States. In the first quarter of 2021, the seizure of fentanyl at 
our southwestern border by CBP has increased by a staggering 233 
percent from the first quarter of 2020.
  At a time when our country is experiencing a border crisis and an 
opioid crisis, we need to be enacting policies that strengthen law 
enforcement and enhance public safety instead of empowering bad actors 
who are continuing to put our communities at risk.
  If we fail to act on this commonsense extension before the upcoming 
May 6 deadline, we will be taking away a major tool that law 
enforcement needs to keep our communities safe.
  With fentanyl analogues no longer properly scheduled, drug smugglers 
will continue and remain emboldened and even expand their attempts to 
move fentanyl into the United States. This would exacerbate two already 
unsustainable crises: the ongoing surge at our southern border and the 
opioid epidemic that has devastated lives of Americans across the 
country.
  Madam Speaker, for that reason, I urge defeat of the previous 
question.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, so I am 
prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  And just to speak a little further on the amendment that has been 
offered if the previous question is defeated, H.R. 2430; like so many 
Members, I too have traveled down to the border. The difference is I 
have done that many times over the last 12 years.
  It has never been this bad; and I need to emphasize that. I encourage 
the President and the Vice President to visit the southern border, come 
to the Lower Rio Grande Valley and see for themselves, firsthand, just 
how bad this crisis is.
  And then back to the business at hand. I want to be very clear about 
the two bills included in today's rule. Wage discrimination has no 
place in any society, and it is currently illegal in the United States 
of America.
  The path Congress must take is to not increase opportunities for 
trial lawyers, but to continue its focus on strong economic policy that 
actually expands opportunities for all Americans.
  Prior to the pandemic, nearly 75 million women participated in the 
workforce, more than at any other time in history. A robust and 
resilient economy will provide the jobs, provide the wages and the wage 
gains that Americans expect and deserve.
  Also, workplace violence is a threat that no American should have to 
face. The threat is particularly high for healthcare workers and social 
service workers. These workers dedicate their lives to taking care of 
others, and they deserve to be taken care of in return.
  While I support the goal of H.R. 1195, I believe it would benefit 
from further discussion to ensure that the timeline for issuing a rule 
and developing workplace violence prevention will produce the most 
effective and safe outcome for American workers.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, ``no'' 
on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I include in the Record a March 25 New York Times article 
entitled `` In 25 Years, the Pay Gap Has Shrunk by Just 8 Cents.''

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

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

                 (By Francesca Donner and Emma Goldberg

       Megan Rapinoe is a two-time World Cup champion who has 
     played to sold-out stadiums around the globe; what she has in 
     common with nearly every American woman is that she's 
     underpaid.
       On Wednesday, Ms. Rapinoe testified during a hearing held 
     by Representative Carolyn B. Maloney to examine economic harm 
     caused by gender inequalities, particularly for women of 
     color.
       Today is All Women's Equal Pay Day, Ms. Maloney said. But 
     it's not Equal Pay Day for all women.
       Black women would have to work until Aug. 3, 2021, to earn 
     what men made in 2020. For Latina women, the date doesn't 
     come until Oct. 21.
       ``This is a disgrace,'' Ms. Maloney said. ``And it has 
     long-term consequences for women and families.''
       Wage discrimination isn't limited to any one sector or 
     income level.
       Take Ms. Rapinoe, whose fight for equal pay has become 
     something of a calling card for the U.S. women's team, and 
     who played a central role in the team's lawsuit on unequal 
     pay filed in 2019.
       ``One cannot simply outperform inequality,'' she said. ``Or 
     be excellent enough to escape discrimination.''
       If it can happen to me, she said, ``it can--and it does--
     happen to every person marginalized by gender.''
       In Her Words looked at the history of Equal Pay Day, the 
     reasons for the wage gap and what can be done to close it.
       It's a symbolic day that illustrates how far into the 
     current year American women would need to work to earn what 
     their male counterparts earned last year. Put another way, 
     because there is a disparity in what women and men are paid, 
     women would need to work around 448 days to earn what men 
     earn in just 365 days.
       Race plays a part, too: For Black and Hispanic women, the 
     numbers are worse. For Asian women, the numbers skew a bit 
     better.
       Estimates vary on how much the wage gap will cost an 
     American woman over the course of her career. The National 
     Women's Law Center puts it at $406,280 in lost income on 
     average, but that number can top $1 million for Hispanic 
     women and is just shy of $1 million for Black and Native 
     American women.
       How did it become a thing?
       Equal Pay Day was established in 1996 by the National 
     Committee on Pay Equity. Today marks the 25th. But debates 
     around pay equity date back much further than that.
       Carolyn York, secretary-treasurer of the National Committee 
     on Pay Equity, pointed out in an email that in 1942, as huge 
     numbers of women began replacing men in the work force, the 
     National War Labor Board urged employers to make 
     ``adjustments which equalize wage or salary rates paid to 
     females with the rates paid to males for comparable quality 
     and quantity of work on the same or similar operations.'' But 
     two decades on, in the 1960s, women were still earning only 
     around 59 cents for every dollar a man made.
       Do other countries have a gender wage gap?
       Of course they do. According to this O.E.C.D. study, the 
     United States falls behind Canada and ahead of Mexico. In 
     addition to Canada, other countries that have a smaller pay 
     gap than the United States are Romania, Colombia, Belgium, 
     Costa Rica, Denmark, Norway . . . the list goes on. And on.
       Has the pay gap narrowed over time?
       Yes, but not by much. We're talking pennies. This year, 
     it's estimated that American women will earn around 82 cents 
     for every dollar that a man earns. A decade ago in 2011, it 
     was 77 cents. In 1996, the first ``official'' Equal Pay Day, 
     it was around 74 cents. And this top-line number doesn't 
     account for differences in earnings among different racial 
     groups.
       How is the wage gap number calculated?
       The pay gap refers to the ratio of female to male median 
     annual earnings for full-time workers. Think of it as a 
     fraction: The numerator is the difference between male and 
     female median earnings, and the denominator is male median 
     earnings. The actual number might look different depending on 
     the source it's coming from, because some sources factor in 
     characteristics like age, family size, education level and 
     industry.
       ``We treat this issue as if you could summarize it in one 
     number,'' said Claudia Goldin, an economics professor at 
     Harvard University. ``It's the headline,'' not really the 
     full picture.
       Are there jobs where women are better paid than men?
       Not according to C. Nicole Mason, president of the 
     Institute for Women's Policy Research. When men enter female-
     dominated sectors like nursing or education, the job begins 
     paying more, she explained. But the inverse is not true: 
     ``When women enter male-dominated spaces, they don't get paid 
     more than men.''
       How long will it take to close the pay gap if we do nothing 
     about it?
       Mark your calendars for 2059; if current trends continue, 
     the gender wage gap is expected to close in a mere 38 years. 
     For Black and Hispanic women, the deadline is a whole century 
     away. If we do nothing, ``my daughter, and daughter's 
     daughter, will not see pay equity in their lives,'' Dr. Mason 
     said.
       So what exactly explains the gap?
       There are many factors at play, according to the American 
     Association of University Women. One of them is that the 
     fields in which women dominate tend to pay less than fields 
     dominated by men. This is irrespective of education or skill 
     required.
       The ``motherhood penalty'' also complicates the wage gap. 
     Moms are less likely

[[Page H1781]]

     to be hired, they receive lower salaries when they are, and 
     are less likely to be tapped on the shoulder for promotion. 
     (Ironic given research suggests moms are some of the most 
     productive employees.)
       And women work around two-thirds of the low-paying jobs in 
     the United States; jobs that not only put workers at an 
     economic disadvantage, but also tend to be more unstable.
       There is also ``invisible labor''--things like caregiving 
     responsibilities and household chores--that women do in 
     addition to their full-time work. ``Women perform up to 30 
     percent more unpaid labor,'' Dr. Mason said. Not to put too 
     fine a point upon it, but ``unpaid labor is unpaid.'' And 
     it's very hard--if not impossible--to do both your job and 
     take care of the household at the same time.
       There's also good old-fashioned sexism at play: Even when 
     men and women are performing the exact same jobs, women tend 
     to receive less compensation thanks to overt or unconscious 
     biases, as well as stereotypes that make it more difficult 
     for women to negotiate.
       The pay gap is caused by a ``layering effect'' of all of 
     these things, said Kimberly Churches, the CEO of the American 
     Association of University Women. Ultimately, ``this really is 
     how we value women and how we value women of color in our 
     society,'' she said.
       Did Covid make it worse?
       In a year of devastating job loss, especially for women--
     hence the talk of a ``she-cession''--the Institute for 
     Women's Policy Research released a piece of research that 
     seemed, on its face, like good news. In 2020, it found the 
     weekly gender wage gap for full-time workers shrunk to 17.7 
     percent from 18.5 percent. Seems positive, right? Not so 
     fast.
       As Ms. Goldin of Harvard explained, if the female labor 
     force is reduced, but most of those reductions are from the 
     bottom part of distribution (restaurant servers and retail 
     workers, for instance), then women's wages relative to men's 
     will rise.
       This manifests as an overall rise in women's wages. And 
     that's what happened here.
       But underneath the top-line number, Dr. Mason pointed out, 
     many, many lower-paid female workers are struggling.
       What should companies do about it?
       Closing the wage gap demands an investment of time and 
     resources.
       First, companies can audit workers' pay and collect data to 
     determine the levels of disparity between their male and 
     female workers, said Serena Fong, a vice president at 
     Catalyst. Salesforce, for example, committed to reviewing all 
     its workers' salaries in 2015, and over the following years 
     spent more than $9 million on adjustments to give women equal 
     pay.
       Salary bands, which give the range of pay for a given role, 
     can also help level the playing field between male and female 
     workers in salary negotiations. (Though broadly speaking, a 
     wide salary band can provide ``too much range to pay people 
     unequally,'' Dr. Mason said.)
       And governments?
       The Equal Pay Act, passed nearly 60 years ago, made it 
     illegal to discriminate by sex in setting wages. But in 
     practice, it can be hard for women to know whether they're 
     actually being paid equally. It's not common to ask your 
     colleagues what they make while you're chatting by the water 
     cooler.
       In the last decade, more than a dozen states and the 
     District of Columbia have adopted legislation prohibiting pay 
     secrecy in the workplace. Still, a 2017-18 survey found that 
     nearly half of fulltime workers were discouraged or 
     prohibited from talking about their pay, meaning more 
     legislation and enforcement is needed.
       Ms. Churches also supports passing the Paycheck Fairness 
     Act at a federal level, ``so we can ban the use of salary 
     history questions in the hiring process.'' Such questions 
     ``just compound women's lack of earnings going forward as 
     they negotiate their salaries.''
       And individuals?
       Ask your colleagues how much they make, as awkward as that 
     may sound.
       Negotiation is also key. Research shows that women who 
     consistently negotiate their salaries make more than $1 
     million more over the course of their lifetimes, compared 
     with those who don't. But of course, Covid hasn't helped: A 
     new survey from Ann Elizabeth Konkel of Indeed suggests women 
     feel even more uncomfortable asking for a raise or promotion 
     than they did prepandemic.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, on the anniversary of Women's Equal Pay 
Day, U.S. women's soccer player Megan Rapinoe, in a congressional 
hearing said: ``One cannot simply outperform inequality.''
  Wage discrimination isn't limited to any one sector or income level, 
and Congress must act to stop it.
  Mr. Speaker, the importance of this issue is really about the proper 
enforcement of a bill that was first enacted in 1963. We generally 
agree on the importance of that legislation.
  Where we disagree is enforcement. And we have had years to see what 
the proper disincentives are and incentives for proper behavior when it 
comes to protecting women in the workforce, and on the second bill--
predominantly women--but people who work in vulnerable positions where 
they are subject to greater violence.
  On pay equity, we look at States like California where I am from, and 
we can see that our laws, our aggressive laws have worked, at least to 
help with the pay equity situation. Who can deny, in our lifetimes, the 
benefit to the U.S. economy, to all of us, for having women in the 
workforce? We should be able to compensate that benefit that we have 
all gotten.
  As a survivor of cancer, I have been taken by how many young women 
went into the medical profession, and they helped to develop the 
medicine that has saved my life, a disease that, 15 years ago, at stage 
IV, when I was diagnosed, there was little that could be done to extend 
people's lives. That research came from brilliant people, many of them 
women. Why would I want to inhibit or disincentivize any young person, 
any woman, any young woman from going into that field?
  I know that my friend from Texas knows this, we want the best and the 
brightest to help with our medical challenges, irrespective of what 
their background is or what their sex is.
  Mr. Speaker, every day we wait to pass these bills, healthcare 
workers are being harmed and families are going deeper and deeper into 
poverty. Our inequality issues get worse, not better. We should not 
waste another moment.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 303

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 2430) to amend the Temporary Reauthorization and 
     Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act 
     to extend for one year the temporary order for fentanyl-
     related substances. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy & Commerce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2430.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________