[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controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn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.
____________________