[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 65 (Thursday, April 15, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1799-H1825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 303, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 7) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in 
the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Education and Labor printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
printed in part A of House Report 117-15, is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                 H.R. 7

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(z) `Sex' includes--
       ``(1) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical 
     condition;
       ``(2) sexual orientation or gender identity; and
       ``(3) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.
       ``(aa) `Sexual orientation' includes homosexuality, 
     heterosexuality, and bisexuality.
       ``(bb) `Gender identity' means the gender-related identity, 
     appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related 
     characteristics of an individual, regardless of the 
     individual's designated sex at birth.''.
       (b) Bona Fide Factor Defense and Modification of Same 
     Establishment Requirement.--Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No employer having'' and inserting ``(A) 
     No employer having'';
       (2) by striking ``the opposite'' and inserting ``another'';
       (3) by striking ``any other factor other than sex'' and 
     inserting ``a bona fide factor other than sex, such as 
     education, training, or experience''; and
       (4) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(B) The bona fide factor defense described in 
     subparagraph (A)(iv) shall apply only if the employer 
     demonstrates that such factor (i) is not based upon or 
     derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii) 
     is job-related with respect to the position in question; 
     (iii) is consistent with business necessity; and (iv) 
     accounts for the entire differential in compensation at 
     issue. Such defense shall not apply where the employee 
     demonstrates that an alternative employment practice exists 
     that would serve the same business purpose without producing 
     such differential and that the employer has refused to adopt 
     such alternative practice.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), employees shall be 
     deemed to work in the same establishment if the employees 
     work for the same employer at workplaces located in the same 
     county or similar political subdivision of a State. The 
     preceding sentence shall not be construed as limiting broader 
     applications of the term `establishment' consistent with 
     rules prescribed or guidance issued by the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission.''.
       (c) Nonretaliation Provision.--Section 15 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``employee has filed'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``employee--
       ``(A) has made a charge or filed any complaint or 
     instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation, 
     proceeding, hearing, or action under or related to this Act, 
     including an investigation conducted by the employer, or has 
     testified or is planning to testify or has assisted or 
     participated in any manner in any such investigation, 
     proceeding, hearing or action, or has served or is planning 
     to serve on an industry committee;
       ``(B) has opposed any practice made unlawful by this Act; 
     or
       ``(C) has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed the wages 
     of the employee or another employee (such as by inquiring or 
     discussing with the employer why the wages of the employee 
     are set at a certain rate or salary);'';
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) to require an employee to sign a contract or waiver 
     that would prohibit the employee from disclosing information 
     about the employee's wages.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Subsection (a)(3)(C) shall not apply to instances in 
     which an employee who has access to the wage information of 
     other employees as a part of such employee's essential job 
     functions discloses the wages of such other employees to 
     individuals who do not otherwise have access to such 
     information, unless such disclosure is in response to a 
     complaint or charge or in furtherance of an investigation, 
     proceeding, hearing, or action under section 6(d), including 
     an investigation conducted by the employer. Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to limit the rights of an 
     employee provided under any other provision of law.''.
       (d) Enhanced Penalties.--Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``Any employer who violates section 6(d), or who violates the 
     provisions of section 15(a)(3) in relation to section 6(d), 
     shall additionally be liable for such compensatory damages, 
     or, where the employee demonstrates that the employer acted 
     with malice or reckless indifference, punitive damages as may 
     be appropriate, except that the United States shall not be 
     liable for punitive damages.'';
       (2) in the sentence beginning ``An action to'', by striking 
     ``the preceding sentences'' and inserting ``any of the 
     preceding sentences of this subsection'';
       (3) in the sentence beginning ``No employees shall'', by 
     striking ``No employees'' and inserting ``Except with respect 
     to class actions brought to enforce section 6(d), no 
     employee'';
       (4) by inserting after the sentence referred to in 
     paragraph (3), the following: ``Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of Federal law, any action brought to enforce 
     section 6(d) may be maintained as a class action as provided 
     by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''; and
       (5) in the sentence beginning ``The court in''--
       (A) by striking ``in such action'' and inserting ``in any 
     action brought to recover the liability prescribed in any of 
     the preceding sentences of this subsection''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, 
     including expert fees''.
       (e) Action by the Secretary.--Section 16(c) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``or, in the case of a violation of 
     section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as 
     described in subsection (b),'' before ``and the agreement''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
     such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``and, in the case of a violation of section 
     6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as 
     described in subsection (b)''; and
       (3) in the third sentence, by striking ``the first 
     sentence'' and inserting ``the first or second sentence''.
       (f) Enforcement Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The Equal Opportunity Employment 
     Commission shall carry out the functions and authorities 
     described in section 1 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978 
     (92 Stat. 3781; 5 U.S.C. App.) to enforce and administer the 
     provisions of section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)), except that the Secretary of Labor, 
     through the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 
     may also enforce this provision with respect to Federal 
     contractors, Federal subcontractors, and federally-assisted 
     construction contractors, within the jurisdiction of the 
     Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs under 
     Executive Order 11246 (42 U.S.C. 2000e note; relating to 
     equal employment opportunity) or a successor Executive Order.
       (2) Coordination.--The Equal Opportunity Employment 
     Commission shall issue such regulations as may be necessary 
     to explain and implement the standards of such section 6(d). 
     The Secretary of Labor may issue regulations to govern 
     procedures for enforcement of section 6(d) by the Office of 
     Federal Contract Compliance Programs. The Secretary of Labor 
     and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall 
     establish other coordinating mechanisms as may be necessary.

     SEC. 3. TRAINING.

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

     SEC. 4. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING.

       (a) Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of Education, is authorized to establish 
     and carry out a grant program.

[[Page H1800]]

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

     SEC. 5. RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and periodically thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Labor shall conduct studies and provide 
     information to employers, labor organizations, and the 
     general public concerning the means available to eliminate 
     pay disparities between men and women (including women who 
     are Asian American, Black or African-American, Hispanic 
     American or Latino, Native American or Alaska Native, Native 
     Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and White American), 
     including--
       (1) conducting and promoting research to develop the means 
     to correct expeditiously the conditions leading to the pay 
     disparities, with specific attention paid to women and girls 
     from historically underrepresented and minority groups;
       (2) publishing and otherwise making available to employers, 
     labor organizations, professional associations, educational 
     institutions, the media, and the general public the findings 
     resulting from studies and other materials, relating to 
     eliminating the pay disparities;
       (3) sponsoring and assisting State, local, and community 
     informational and educational programs;
       (4) providing information to employers, labor 
     organizations, professional associations, and other 
     interested persons on the means of eliminating the pay 
     disparities; and
       (5) recognizing and promoting the achievements of 
     employers, labor organizations, and professional associations 
     that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities.
       (b) Report on Gender Pay Gap in Teenage Labor Force.--
       (1) Report required.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor, 
     acting through the Director of the Women's Bureau and in 
     coordination with the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, 
     shall--
       (A) submit to Congress a report on the gender pay gap in 
     the teenage labor force; and
       (B) make the report available on a publicly accessible 
     website of the Department of Labor.
       (2) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) An examination of trends and potential solutions 
     relating to the teenage gender pay gap.
       (B) An examination of how the teenage gender pay gap 
     potentially translates into greater wage gaps in the overall 
     labor force.
       (C) An examination of overall lifetime earnings and losses 
     for informal and formal jobs for women, including women of 
     color.
       (D) An examination of the teenage gender pay gap, including 
     a comparison of the average amount earned by males and 
     females, respectively, in informal jobs, such as babysitting 
     and other freelance jobs, as well as formal jobs, such as 
     retail, restaurant, and customer service.
       (E) A comparison of--
       (i) the types of tasks typically performed by women from 
     the teenage years through adulthood within certain informal 
     jobs, such as babysitting and other freelance jobs, and 
     formal jobs, such as retail, restaurant, and customer 
     service; and
       (ii) the types of tasks performed by younger males in such 
     positions.
       (F) Interviews and surveys with workers and employers 
     relating to early gender-based pay discrepancies.
       (G) Recommendations for--
       (i) addressing pay inequality for women from the teenage 
     years through adulthood, including such women of color;
       (ii) addressing any disadvantages experienced by young 
     women with respect to work experience and professional 
     development;
       (iii) the development of standards and best practices for 
     workers and employees to ensure better pay for young women 
     and the prevention of early inequalities in the workplace; 
     and
       (iv) expanding awareness for teenage girls on pay rates and 
     employment rights in order to reduce greater inequalities in 
     the overall labor force.

     SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL AWARD FOR PAY EQUITY IN 
                   THE WORKPLACE.

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

     SEC. 7. COLLECTION OF PAY INFORMATION BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
                   OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

       Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e-8) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall provide 
     for the collection from employers of compensation data and 
     other employment-related data (including hiring, termination, 
     and promotion data) disaggregated by the sex, race, and 
     national origin of employees.
       ``(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Commission shall 
     have as its primary consideration the most effective and 
     efficient means for enhancing the enforcement of Federal laws 
     prohibiting pay discrimination. For this purpose, the 
     Commission shall consider factors including the imposition of 
     burdens on employers, the frequency of required reports 
     (including the size of employers required to prepare 
     reports), appropriate protections for maintaining data 
     confidentiality, and the most effective format to report such 
     data.
       ``(3)(A) For each 12-month reporting period for an 
     employer, the compensation data collected under paragraph (1) 
     shall include, for each range of taxable compensation 
     described in subparagraph (B), disaggregated by the 
     categories described in subparagraph (E)--
       ``(i) the number of employees of the employer who earn 
     taxable compensation in an amount that falls within such 
     taxable compensation range; and
       ``(ii) the total number of hours worked by such employees.
       ``(B) Subject to adjustment under subparagraph (C), the 
     taxable compensation ranges described in this subparagraph 
     are as follows:
       ``(i) Not more than $19,239.
       ``(ii) Not less than $19,240 and not more than $24,439.
       ``(iii) Not less than $24,440 and not more than $30,679.
       ``(iv) Not less than $30,680 and not more than $38,999.
       ``(v) Not less than $39,000 and not more than $49,919.
       ``(vi) Not less than $49,920 and not more than $62,919.
       ``(vii) Not less than $62,920 and not more than $80,079.
       ``(viii) Not less than $80,080 and not more than $101,919.
       ``(ix) Not less than $101,920 and not more than $128,959.
       ``(x) Not less than $128,960 and not more than $163,799.
       ``(xi) Not less than $163,800 and not more than $207,999.
       ``(xii) Not less than $208,000.
       ``(C) The Commission may adjust the taxable compensation 
     ranges under subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) if the Commission determines that such adjustment is 
     necessary to enhance enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting 
     pay discrimination; or
       ``(ii) for inflation, in consultation with the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics.
       ``(D) In collecting data described in subparagraph (A)(ii), 
     the Commission shall provide that, with respect to an 
     employee who the employer is not required to compensate for 
     overtime employment under section 7 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207), an employer may 
     report--
       ``(i) in the case of a full-time employee, that such 
     employee works 40 hours per week, and in the case of a part-
     time employee, that such employee works 20 hours per week; or

[[Page H1801]]

       ``(ii) the actual number of hours worked by such employee.
       ``(E) The categories described in this subparagraph shall 
     be determined by the Commission and shall include--
       ``(i) race;
       ``(ii) national origin;
       ``(iii) sex; and
       ``(iv) job categories, including the job categories 
     described in the instructions for the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Employer Information Report EEO-1, as in effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(F) The Commission shall use the compensation data 
     collected under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) to enhance--
       ``(I) the investigation of charges filed under section 706 
     or section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 206(d)); and
       ``(II) the allocation of resources to investigate such 
     charges; and
       ``(ii) for any other purpose that the Commission determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(G) The Commission shall annually make publicly available 
     aggregate compensation data collected under paragraph (1) for 
     the categories described in subparagraph (E), disaggregated 
     by industry, occupation, and core based statistical area (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget).
       ``(4) The compensation data under paragraph (1) shall be 
     collected from each employer that--
       ``(A) is a private employer that has 100 or more employees, 
     including such an employer that is a contractor with the 
     Federal Government, or a subcontractor at any tier thereof; 
     or
       ``(B) the Commission determines appropriate.''.

     SEC. 8. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY EQUITY PROGRAMS AND PAY EQUITY 
                   DATA COLLECTION.

       (a) Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Collection.--The 
     Commissioner of Labor Statistics shall continue to collect 
     data on women workers in the Current Employment Statistics 
     survey.
       (b) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 
     Initiatives.--The Director of the Office of Federal Contract 
     Compliance Programs shall collect compensation data and other 
     employment-related data (including, hiring, termination, and 
     promotion data) by demographics and designate not less than 
     half of all nonconstruction contractors each year to prepare 
     and file such data, and shall review and utilize the 
     responses to such data to identify contractors for further 
     evaluation and for other enforcement purposes as appropriate.
       (c) Department of Labor Distribution of Wage Discrimination 
     Information.--The Secretary of Labor shall make readily 
     available (in print, on the Department of Labor website, and 
     through any other forum that the Department may use to 
     distribute compensation discrimination information), accurate 
     information on compensation discrimination, including 
     statistics, explanations of employee rights, historical 
     analyses of such discrimination, instructions for employers 
     on compliance, and any other information that will assist the 
     public in understanding and addressing such discrimination.

     SEC. 9. PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES' 
                   SALARY AND BENEFIT HISTORY.

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

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

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

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

     SEC. 11. SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE.

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

     SEC. 12. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

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

     SEC. 13. SEVERABILITY.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous materials on H.R. 7, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, our country 
codified the basic idea that all workers should earn equal pay for 
equal work, regardless of sex. Regrettably, more than five decades 
later and after the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, that 
promise remains unfulfilled.
  Today, women continue to be paid, on average, 82 cents on the dollar 
compared to men. This wage disparity is far worse for women of color, 
who make less than White men and White women. It exists across every 
sector, regardless of education, experience, occupation, industry or 
job title. A recent Census Bureau study found that 38 to 70 percent of 
the gender wage gap is unexplained and likely due to discrimination.
  Drawn out over a lifetime, the persistent wage gap could cost a woman 
anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million. This impacts both workers and 
their families, often meaning the difference between financial 
stability and perpetual hardship.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act offers an opportunity to finally secure 
equal pay for equal work. The bill strengthens the Equal Pay Act by 
bolstering workers' rights to discuss their wages with coworkers and 
making it easier for workers to join class action lawsuits; enhancing 
the enforcement tools available to the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission and the Labor Department; and, more importantly, by

[[Page H1802]]

closing loopholes for employer defenses and requiring employers to 
prove pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons.
  The Biden administration has issued a Statement of Administration 
Policy in support of this bill. It states: ``Ensuring equal pay is 
essential to advancing American values of fairness and equity.''
  Then it adds: ``The Paycheck Fairness Act is commonsense legislation 
that would strengthen the Equal Pay Act and give workers more tools to 
fight sex-based pay discrimination.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration 
Policy of H.R. 7.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 7--Paycheck Fairness Act--Rep. DeLauro, D-CT, and 225 cosponsors

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. Ensuring equal pay is essential 
     to advancing American values of fairness and equity. Women 
     lose thousands of dollars each year, and hundreds of 
     thousands over a lifetime, because of the gender and racial 
     wage gap. Women working full-time, year-round in 2019 earned 
     82 cents for every dollar earned by men working full-time; 
     year-round, and these disparities are greater for women of 
     color. Pay inequity also impacts individuals who face 
     intersecting forms of discrimination based on sexual 
     orientation and gender identity, including LGBTQ+ 
     individuals.
       Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of women have 
     dropped out of the labor force, partly reflecting the 
     increased domestic labor demands on women. Caregiving demands 
     often fall disproportionately on women, which leads to many 
     women having to reduce their hours, resulting in lower 
     earnings. As more and more American families rely on women's 
     income, the pay gap hurts not only women, but also the 
     families who depend on them. The cumulative impact of wage 
     gaps adds up to financial insecurity over the course of a 
     career for women and their families and for generations who 
     follow.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act is commonsense legislation that 
     would strengthen the Equal Pay Act and give workers more 
     tools to fight sex-based pay discrimination. It would also 
     take major steps toward increasing pay transparency, an 
     essential provision to advance equality in the workplace, by 
     explicitly protecting workers from retaliation for simply 
     discussing their compensation with their colleagues. The bill 
     would also expand opportunities for workers to receive 
     training on effective negotiation skills. The bill would also 
     limit an employer's ability to rely on salary history during 
     the hiring process to set pay, or when determining wages for 
     a promotion. H.R. 7 would hold employers accountable by 
     closing judicially created loopholes for employer defenses 
     and by adding a class action option under the Federal Rules 
     of Civil Procedure. The bill would require the collection of 
     pay data to enable better enforcement of laws prohibiting pay 
     discrimination.
       The Administration looks forward to continuing to work with 
     the Congress to address pay equity and urges quick action on 
     this landmark bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me 
in voting for this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7, the Democrats' 
conveniently titled, but painfully misguided, Paycheck Fairness Act, 
which should be called the paychecks for trial lawyers act.
  We all agree on the fundamental principle of this bill: women should 
not be paid less than men for the same work.
  That is not up for debate; and, for me, it has never been up for 
debate; and, for our country, it hasn't been since 1963, when the Equal 
Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act, making equal pay the law 
of the land.
  Moreover, in 1964, title VII of the Civil Rights Act codified 
nondiscrimination rules for employment, making it illegal to 
discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, 
and sex.
  The question before us today is whether the Democrats' Paycheck 
Fairness Act provides any additional protections to women in the 
workplace. The answer is a resounding no.
  The United States has some of the most varied and complex workplaces 
in the world. Before the onslaught of COVID-19, women were earning 
merited paychecks in record numbers. According to a Harvard University 
analysis and numerous other studies, the difference in earning between 
men and women comes down to choices made regarding careers and 
parenting. Many working women take advantage of flexible work schedules 
to meet their diverse needs. A survey by Pew found 70 percent of 
working mothers say that a flexible schedule is extremely important.
  Democrats aren't giving the full story when they talk about pay 
differences. Women are making career choices that are best for 
themselves and their families. Limiting their freedom to do so is 
wrong. Congress has no place in telling women their career choices are 
wrong, yet Democrats are hellbent on telling all Americans how to live 
their lives, how to spend their money, and now how to make career 
decisions.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is not a win for women in the slightest. It 
is a false promise that creates opportunities and advantages only for 
trial lawyers looking for easy payouts while causing irreparable harm 
to employers. By making it much easier to bring lawsuits of 
questionable validity against employers, trial lawyers will be able to 
force employers into settlements or try for unlimited paydays from jury 
awards, lining their own pockets and dragging women through tedious, 
never-ending legal proceedings.
  In the United States, we believe in innocence until proven guilty, 
but this bill assumes otherwise. Under current law, business owners can 
defend themselves from a claim of pay discrimination by proving that a 
pay differential is based on legitimate, business-related factors other 
than sex.
  H.R. 7 would radically alter this law, requiring a business owner to 
convince a judge or jury that the pay differential was required by 
``business necessity.'' This is a nearly impossible burden of proof to 
meet that will lead to unfair judgments against business owners because 
the plain meaning of the term ``business necessity'' is that the pay 
differential must be absolutely essential to the business.
  H.R. 7 would also result in a flood of litigation in front of judges 
and juries, who will delve into employer compensation decisions even 
when the employer can demonstrate that those decisions are based on 
legitimate, business-related reasons having nothing to do with the sex 
of the employee.
  Fearing Big Government and liability risks that could leave them 
bankrupt, many business owners will likely implement rigid pay bands--a 
model used by government and unionized businesses. This means workers 
will not be compensated on the basis of merit.
  This is the opposite of the American Dream. As one columnist wrote: 
``equality of opportunity--not outcomes--is the American ideal.''
  On top of the legal jeopardy this bill creates for employers, H.R. 7 
also mandates that business owners submit mountains of worker pay data 
to the Federal Government. This will pose significant threats to the 
confidentiality and privacy of workers' pay data, create a data stash 
that would be impossible to protect or interpret, and cost business 
owners more than $600 million annually.
  This bill purports to champion equality for women, yet it disregards 
the 40 percent of small businesses owned by women that will be forced 
to implement pay policies found in government-run workplaces and be 
stuck paying through the nose in compliance costs if this bill passes.
  Even worse, H.R. 7 will severely limit workplace flexibility for 
women. Many working women take advantage of flexible work schedules to 
meet their diverse needs, yet this harmful legislation completely 
ignores this reality and threatens to take away the choices and freedom 
necessary for them to retain employment.
  We know employees prefer workable and flexible schedules, and now is 
not the time to limit these options for women who have been hit 
particularly hard by the COVID-19 pandemic.
  Should my Democrat colleagues wish to discuss additional policies 
which will foster the advancement of women in the workplace, we can 
consider legislation that safely reopens our schools and businesses, 
provides the flexibility and support to expand work-based learning 
programs and create viable pathways that enable more individuals to 
reskill and build fulfilling careers on their own terms, and promotes 
career and technical education, to name a few.
  Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues would rather impose radical

[[Page H1803]]

and unworkable policy under the guise of progress than find bipartisan 
solutions which foster environments where individuals are empowered to 
succeed and make the decisions that are best for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), who is the Assistant 
Speaker of the House.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in December, American women 
lost 156,000 jobs, accounting for 100 percent of jobs lost; and since 
the start of this pandemic, nearly 3 million women have been pushed out 
of the workforce.
  Women have borne the brunt of the economic crisis brought on by this 
pandemic, and gender pay inequality is at the root of the problem. More 
than five decades after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women still 
only make 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, and that gap is even 
wider for women of color.
  By passing the Paycheck Fairness Act today, we are correcting this 
injustice and ensuring that all people receive equal pay for equal 
work.
  Let's be clear: this isn't a women's issue. Pay inequity hurts 
children, families, and our entire economy. It is fundamental to our 
recovery and our ability to not just rebuild to status quo, but to 
rebuild a just and inclusive America for all.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Foxx for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone supports equal pay for equal performance, and 
everyone is against gender-based wage discrimination. This has been the 
law for nearly 60 years.
  When I entered the workforce 30 years ago after college, wage 
discrimination was basically nonexistent, thanks to the law and a 
simple recognition of the value of a diverse workforce. Companies then, 
as now, simply assigned a starting salary based upon the position, and 
paid that wage to everyone they hired; thereafter providing merit 
increases based upon performance, unlike what happens in union shops 
and with government positions.
  But do my Democrat friends across the aisle base their staff salaries 
on gender? Or do they pay women less than men? Or do they set salaries 
based on market conditions, qualifications, and experience?

                              {time}  1245

  Why do they assume less of private employers?
  We already have laws and protections that ensure fair pay, and 
companies must maintain documentation demonstrating nondiscrimination 
in wages, performance evaluations, and merit increases.
  In fact, we are in a much stronger position today than we were 30, 
let alone 60 years ago.
  This legislation from the Democrat Party is just another attempt to 
insert themselves further into the workplace with a purported cure for 
a disease that doesn't exist. Democrats are dependent upon the 
perception of discrimination and victimhood to expand their base of 
power as they continue to divide us as a Nation.
  Democrats also view employers, businesses, and job creators with 
disdain, believing that, left to their own devices, they would seek to 
harm and exploit their employees. Not to worry, Big Government to the 
rescue; or, more accurately, big Democrat government laying on more 
control, more regulations, more mandates, all designed to enrich their 
trial lawyer friends and increase liability for employers.
  The Democrats will disingenuously cite statistics that indicate that 
there are discrepancies in income based on gender, but they won't 
specify discrepancies in pay for the same positions in the same 
industries because they don't exist.
  This bill adds more layers of burdensome and costly reporting 
requirements for businesses, estimated to cost about $600 million a 
year, costs which will be passed on to consumers in higher prices with 
no real benefit.
  The bill doesn't do anything to help women in the workplace, but it 
hurts employers, exposing them to greater liability, and enriches the 
trial lawyer donors to the Democrat Party. It allows the lawyers to 
litigate every decision an employer makes, and to bankrupt small 
businesses by seeking unlimited monetary damages.
  It makes it impossible for employers to defend charges of gender-
based discrimination when experience, qualifications, or performance 
warrants higher pay. They would now need to prove that the 
determination is a business necessity.
  Leave it to politicians in Washington to think that they have the 
right to determine for employers what is a business necessity.
  Left to themselves, businesses and employers tend to get it right. 
But Big Government almost never gets it right, and this bill is no 
exception. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the sponsor of the bill, a 
champion for equal pay, and the chair of the House Appropriations 
Committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Paycheck 
Fairness Act, legislation that I have introduced in every Congress 
since 1997.
  Since then, we have pushed and battled to strengthen the Equal Pay 
Act of 1963. We launched, side by side, into the fray to elevate pay 
discrimination, to emphasize how central its impact is to working 
families.
  I cannot tell you how difficult it has been to break through on 
something so simple; so simple. Men and women in the same job deserve 
the same pay. It is a principle that we adhere to in this Congress, and 
I don't believe anyone would challenge it. The same is true of the U.S. 
military.
  Last month, we recognized Equal Pay Day on March 24, which is the day 
into the current year that women must work to meet the wages earned by 
men in the previous year.
  The National Committee on Pay Equity tells us, at its lowest point in 
1973, full-time, working women earned a median of 56.6 cents to every 
dollar that full-time working men earned. Today, women who work full-
time, year-round are paid, on average, only 82 cents for every dollar 
paid to men.
  The gap exists in every State, regardless of geography, occupation, 
education, or work patterns. And it is worse for women of color. 
Latinas are typically paid 55 cents; Native American women 60 cents; 
Black women 63 cents; Asian American and Pacific Islander women are 
paid as little as 52 cents.
  This wage disparity costs the average American woman and her family 
an estimated $400,000 to $2 million, impacting Social Security benefits 
and pensions.
  Today, the issue and the environment have collided. This pandemic has 
brought out the depth of our problem, exposed existing inequalities, 
and threatened women's economic security at a disproportionate rate. 
Women have lost more than five million jobs; and as we seek to rebuild 
our economy, let us remember that the pay gap hurts not only women, but 
also the families who depend on them.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation, which 
has the support of every member of the Democratic Caucus, as well as 
three Republicans. It would toughen the remedies in the Equal Pay Act 
of 1963 to give America's working women the opportunity to fight wage 
discrimination and receive the paycheck they have rightfully earned.
  It would require employers to prove that pay disparities exist for 
legitimate, job-related reasons; ban retaliation against workers who 
discuss their wages; it facilitates a wronged worker's participation in 
a class action suit; and it prohibits employers from seeking the salary 
history of prospective employees.
  And by now, we are all familiar with the case of Lilly Ledbetter. Her 
bosses said: ``Their plant did not need women; that women did not help, 
and, in fact, they caused problems.''
  Well, a jury found that, yes, Lilly Ledbetter had been discriminated 
against, and awarded her $3.8 million in back pay and damages, which 
the Supreme Court eliminated. She received nothing, as it closed the 
courtroom door to all women.
  We, the Congress, reopened that door with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 
Pay Act. It reversed the Supreme Court's decision. It was a court 
access case, but it

[[Page H1804]]

did not address the underlying issue of pay discrimination.
  President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, in his State of the Union 
address, said: ``Legislation to apply the principle of equal pay for 
equal work without discrimination because of sex is a matter of simple 
justice. I earnestly urge the Congress to move swiftly to implement 
these needed labor measures.''
  When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law nearly 58 
years ago, he said: ``It is a first step. It affirms our determination 
that when women enter the labor force, they will find equality in their 
pay envelopes.''
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is the next step. It simply brings the 
Equal Pay Act into line with the remedies already available for those 
who are subject to other forms of employment discrimination. That is 
it, pure and simple.
  We have passed paycheck fairness through this House in 2008, 2009, 
2019. But, now, in the 117th Congress in which we welcomed the most 
women in our history, we must get it into law. We have the opportunity 
to make good on that promise that Presidents of both parties have made. 
We need to seize that moment.
  It is time for us to say that the work that women do in our society 
today is valued and respected, and the contribution that we make, if it 
is good enough for the women in the House of Representatives, then it 
is good enough for women all over the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter supporting the Paycheck 
Fairness Act by a broad coalition of organizations that promote 
economic opportunity for women.
                                                 February 3, 2021.

   Co-Sponsor and Support Swift Passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act

       Dear Member of Congress: As members of a broad coalition of 
     organizations that promote economic opportunity for women and 
     vigorous enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, we strongly 
     urge you to co-sponsor and push for swift passage of the 
     Paycheck Fairness Act as a top priority of the 117th 
     Congress. 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. This legislation 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.
       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. Black 
     women, Latinas, and other women of color are especially 
     likely to be on the front lines of the crisis, risking their 
     lives in jobs in health care, child care, and grocery stores; 
     they are also being paid less than their male counterparts. 
     At the same time, women in this country lost more than 5 
     million jobs in 2020; indeed, women accounted for 100% of the 
     jobs lost in December 2020. The unemployment rate for Black 
     women and Latinas remains exceptionally high. These high 
     jobless numbers threaten to exacerbate gender wage gaps when 
     women regain employment. 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.
       There is no more fitting way to begin this session than by 
     making real, concrete progress in ensuring all women receive 
     fair pay. The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens 
     the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to ensure that it provides robust 
     protection against sex-based pay discrimination. Among other 
     provisions, this comprehensive bill bars retaliation against 
     workers who voluntarily discuss or disclose their wages. It 
     closes loopholes that have allowed employers to pay women 
     less than men for the same work without any important 
     business justification related to the job. It ensures women 
     can receive the same robust remedies for sex-based pay 
     discrimination that are currently available to those 
     subjected to discrimination based on race and ethnicity. It 
     prohibits employers from relying on salary history in 
     determining future pay, so that pay discrimination does not 
     follow women from job to job. And it also provides much 
     needed training and technical assistance, as well as data 
     collection and research.
       Women are increasingly the primary or co-breadwinner in 
     their families and cannot afford to be shortchanged any 
     longer. Women working full-time, year-round are typically 
     paid only 82 cents for every dollar paid to men. But for 
     every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic male 
     counterparts, Black women only make 63 cents, Native women 
     only 60 cents, and Latinas only 55 cents. While Asian 
     American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women make 87 cents for 
     every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, women in many 
     AAPI communities experience drastically wider pay gaps. 
     Furthermore, moms are paid less than dads. And even when 
     controlling for factors, such as education and experience, 
     the pay gaps persist and start early in women's careers and 
     contribute to a wealth gap that follows them throughout their 
     lifetimes. These pay gaps can be addressed only if workers 
     have the legal tools necessary to challenge discrimination 
     and employers are provided with effective incentives and 
     technical assistance to comply with the law.
       We recently commemorated the twelfth anniversary of the 
     enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. That vital law 
     rectified the Supreme Court's harmful decision in Ledbetter 
     v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. The law helps to ensure 
     that individuals subjected to unlawful compensation 
     discrimination are able to have their day in court and 
     effectively assert their rights under federal 
     antidiscrimination laws. But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 
     Act, critical as it is, is only one step on the path to 
     ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work. It's time to 
     take the next step toward achieving equal pay. We urge you to 
     prioritize the Paycheck Fairness Act in the 117th Congress by 
     co-sponsoring and urging swift passage of this legislation, 
     taking up the cause of Lilly Ledbetter and all those who have 
     fought for equal pay.
       If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to 
     contact Kate Nielson, Director of Public Policy & Legal 
     Advocacy at the American Association of University Women or 
     Emily Martin, Vice President for Education & Workplace 
     Justice at the National Women's Law Center.
           Sincerely,
       9to5; A Better Balance; AFCPE (Association for Financial 
     Counseling & Planning Education); All-Options; American 
     Association of University Women (AAUW): AAUW of Alabama, AAUW 
     of Alaska (AAUW Fairbanks (AK) Branch), AAUW of Arizona, AAUW 
     of Arkansas, AAUW of California, AAUW of Colorado, AAUW of 
     Connecticut, AAUW of Delaware, AAUW of District of Columbia 
     (AAUW Washington (DC) Branch, AAUW Capitol Hill (DC) Branch), 
     AAUW of Florida, AAUW of Georgia, AAUW of Hawaii, AAUW of 
     Idaho, AAUW of Illinois, AAUW of Indiana, AAUW of Iowa, AAUW 
     of Kansas, AAUW of Kentucky, AAUW of Louisiana, AAUW of 
     Maine, AAUW of Maryland, AAUW of Massachusetts, AAUW of 
     Michigan, AAUW of Minnesota, AAUW of Mississippi, AAUW of 
     Missouri, AAUW of Montana, AAUW of Nebraska, AAUW of Nevada, 
     AAUW of New Hampshire, AAUW of New Jersey, AAUW of New 
     Mexico, AAUW of New York, AAUW of North Carolina, AAUW of 
     North Dakota, AAUW of Ohio, AAUW of Oklahoma, AAUW of Oregon, 
     AAUW of Pennsylvania, AAUW of Puerto Rico, AAUW of Rhode 
     Island, AAUW of South Carolina, AAUW of South Dakota, AAUW 
     of Tennessee, AAUW of Texas, AAUW of Utah, AAUW of 
     Vermont, AAUW of Virginia, AAUW of Washington, AAUW of 
     West Virginia, AAUW of Wisconsin, AAUW of Wyoming.
       American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Unions 
     (AFL-CIO); American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees; American Federation of Teachers; AnitaB.org; 
     Association of Flight Attendants-CWA; Bend the Arc Jewish 
     Action; California Women's Law Center; Catalyst; Center for 
     American Progress; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); 
     Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research; 
     Clearinghouse on Women's Issues; Coalition of Labor Union 
     Women: Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union Women; Community 
     Health Councils; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the 
     Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; Connecticut Women's Education 
     and Legal Fund (CWEALF); Disciples Center for Public Witness.
       Equal Pay Today; Equal Rights Advocates; Every Texan; 
     Family Forward Oregon; Family Values@ Work; Feminist Majority 
     Foundation; Futures Without Violence; Gender Justice; Holy 
     Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIC; In Our Own Voice: 
     National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda; Indiana 
     Institute for Working Families; Institute for Women's Policy 
     Research; Justice for Migrant Women; KWH Law Center for 
     Social Justice and Change; Labor Council for Latin American 
     Advancement; Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; 
     League of Women Voters of the United States; Legal Aid at 
     Work; Legal Momentum, The Women's Legal Defense and Education 
     Fund; Legal Voice; MANA, A National Latina Organization; 
     Methodist Federation for Social Action; Mi Familila Vota.
       Michigan League for Public Policy; MomsRising; NAACP; 
     National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; 
     National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF); 
     National Association of Social Workers; National Center for 
     Law and Economic Justice; National Committee on Pay Equity; 
     National Council of Jewish Women; National Domestic Violence 
     Hotline; National Education Association; National Employment 
     Law Project: National Employment Lawyers Association National 
     Employment Lawyers Association--Eastern Pennsylvania, 
     National Employment Lawyers Association--Georgia; National 
     Network to End Domestic Violence; National Organization for 
     Women: Florida NOW, Illinois NOW, Indiana NOW, Jacksonville 
     NOW, Kanawha Valley NOW, Maryland NOW, Monroe County NOW, 
     Montana NOW, Northwest Indiana NOW, South Jersey NOW-Alice 
     Paul chapter.
       National Partnership for Women & Families; National WIC 
     Association; National

[[Page H1805]]

     Women's Law Center; National Women's Political Caucus; Native 
     Women Lead; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; New 
     Jersey Citizen Action; NewsGuild-CWA; New York Women's 
     Foundation; North Carolina Justice Center; People For the 
     American Way; PowHer New York; Prosperity Now; Reinventure 
     Capital; Restaurant Opportunities Centers (ROC) United; 
     Service Employees International Union; Shriver Center on 
     Poverty Law; TIME'S UP Now; U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce; 
     Union for Reform Judaism; United State of Women; WNY Women's 
     Foundation; Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest 
     Pennsylvania; Women Employed; Women of Reform Judaism; 
     Women's Fund of Rhode Island; Women's Fund of the Greater 
     Cincinnati Foundation.
       Women's Law Project; Women's Media Center; Women's Rights 
     and Empowerment Network; YWCA USA: YWCA Allentown, YWCA 
     Arizona Metropolitan Phoenix, YWCA Billings, YWCA Butler, 
     YWCA Central Alabama, YWCA Central Indiana, YWCA Central 
     Maine, YWCA Central Virginia, YWCA Dayton, YWCA Duluth, YWCA 
     Elgin, YWCA Genesee County, YWCA Greater Austin, YWCA Greater 
     Baton Rouge, YWCA Greater Cincinnati, YWCA Greater Cleveland, 
     YWCA Greater Portland, YWCA Greenwich, YWCA Hartford Region, 
     YWCA Kalamazoo, YWCA Kauai, YWCA Kitsap County, YWCA 
     Knoxville and the Tennessee Valley, YWCA Lower Cape Fear, 
     YWCA McLean County, YWCA Metro Detroit--Interim House, YWCA 
     National Capital Area, YWCA New Hampshire, YWCA North Central 
     Indiana, YWCA Northern New Jersey, YWCA Oahu, YWCA Pierce 
     County, YWCA Princeton, YWCA QUINCY, YWCA Sauk Valley, YWCA 
     Seattle king Snohomish, YWCA South Hampton Roads, YWCA 
     Southeastern Massachusetts, YWCA Southern Arizona, YWCA 
     University of Illinois, YWCA Utah, YWCA Western New York, 
     YWCA Wheeling, YWCA Yakima; Zonta USA Caucus.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. McClain).
  Mrs. McCLAIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 7, the 
Paycheck Fairness Act.
  We don't need the government telling business how much they can pay 
their employees. Let's not forget that it is business that has lifted 
us out of poverty, not the government.
  As a former businesswoman who has actually signed the front of 
paychecks, not just the backs, what you do as an employee and what you 
produce as an employee matters, and what you produce should be 
reflected in your outcome, not your gender.
  Do not--please, do not insult me as a woman by lowering the bar for 
me. And please, do not insult me as a business owner for forcing me to 
lower the bar for my employees. Outcomes and hard work are what leads 
to success, not your gender.
  Gender discrimination is already against the law thanks to the Equal 
Pay Act.
  At a time when businesses are shutting their doors due to the 
pandemic, we should be creating jobs and incentivizing people to work.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), chair of the Subcommittee 
on Workforce Protections.
  Ms. ADAMS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his support, 
and for his leadership on the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as I have done for my entire career, from 
the North Carolina House to the U.S. House, in support of equal pay for 
equal work.
  It is 2021, and women are still subject to unequal, unfair 
compensation in the workplace. This truth, this wage gap is at its 
worst for women of color. Black women, for example, earn an average of 
63 cents on the dollar compared to men.
  This issue persists in nearly every line of work, regardless of 
education, experience, occupation, industry, or job title. And if you 
don't believe that data, take it from me. I have lived it.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is an opportunity for Congress to 
strengthen the Equal Pay Act, to bolster the rights of working women, 
and to put an end to the gender-based wage disparity once and for all.
  We cannot continue to rob nearly half of our Nation's workforce of 
the wages they deserve, nor can we continue to force women to work far 
more just to be paid fairly.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National 
Partnership for Women and Families in support of H.R. 7, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act.

                                          National Partnership for


                                             Women & Families,

                                                   April 13, 2021.
       Dear Member of Congress: The National Partnership for Women 
     & Families is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy 
     organization committed to improving the lives of women and 
     families by achieving equity for all women. Since our 
     creation as the Women's Legal Defense Fund in 1971, we have 
     fought for every significant federal advance for equal 
     opportunity in the workplace, including the Lilly Ledbetter 
     Fair Pay Act of 2009. We write in strong support of H.R. 7, 
     the Paycheck Fairness Act, and urge you to vote for passage 
     while opposing any harmful amendments. This critical bill 
     will help our nation build back an economy that works for 
     everyone by ensuring that all women can work with equality 
     and dignity.
       As the Paycheck Fairness Act recognizes, women and workers 
     from communities of color continue to face significant pay 
     disparities in the United States. On average, women working 
     full time and year-round are paid only 82 cents for every 
     dollar paid to men, and the wage gap is widest for women of 
     color. Among women who hold full-time, year-round jobs in the 
     United States, Black women are typically paid 63 cents, 
     Native American women 60 cents and Latinas just 55 cents for 
     every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. White, non-
     Hispanic women are paid 79 cents. Asian American and Pacific 
     Islander (AAPI) women who work full time, year-round are paid 
     as little as 52 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-
     Hispanic men, as Burmese women are. Asian American women 
     overall are paid just 87 cents for every dollar paid to 
     white, non-Hispanic men. The wage gap persists across 
     different industries, occupations and education levels and 
     exists in nearly every congressional district.
       These troubling statistics underscore the need to update 
     our nation's equal pay laws. The Paycheck Fairness Act would 
     make it safe for workers to discuss their wages with each 
     other. Employers can currently mask compensation 
     discrimination with pay secrecy policies that forbid 
     employees from discussing pay and benefits. Secrecy and the 
     threat of retaliation leave workers unable to learn about and 
     challenge pay disparities. In a survey of private-sector 
     workers, over 62 percent of women and 60 percent of men 
     reported that their employers discourage or prohibit 
     discussing wage and salary information. The Paycheck Fairness 
     Act would make pay secrecy policies illegal.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act would also prohibit employers 
     from screening job applicants based on their salary history 
     or requiring salary history during the interview process. 
     Women are typically paid lower wages than men even in their 
     first jobs. Salary disparities that begin early in a woman's 
     career can follow her from job to job when employers are 
     permitted to base a new hire's salary on her prior earnings. 
     People should be paid fairly for the job they are being hired 
     to do.
       The bill would also make it more difficult for employers to 
     justify pay discrimination. Workers in the same company who 
     do the same job and have the same amount of experience, 
     education and training should be paid the same. Currently, 
     however, employers are able to explain away differences in 
     pay too easily by relying on a catch-all defense in the Equal 
     Pay Act. The Paycheck Fairness Act would close that loophole 
     and require employers to prove that any differences in pay 
     are not sex-based, are job-related concerning the position in 
     question, and are consistent with business necessity and 
     account for the entire difference in compensation. Employees 
     claiming pay discrimination would also have new opportunities 
     to prove that the employer's defense is the pretext.
       In addition to these critical provisions, the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act would also allow workers alleging pay 
     discrimination within the same company to file class-action 
     suits; would change the remedies of the Equal Pay Act to 
     treat gender-based pay discrimination claims the same as 
     other civil rights violations that result in unfair pay; 
     would recognize companies that want to do better; and would 
     improve fair pay enforcement, data collection and disclosure.
       Closing the gender and racial wage gap is a crucial measure 
     to take in response to COVID-19. Throughout the pandemic, 
     women and people of color have disproportionately experienced 
     the adverse effects of the public health and economic crisis. 
     Women and people of color have been on the front lines 
     working in our most essential occupations, but forces like 
     wage inequality have kept them underpaid and undervalued. The 
     Paycheck Fairness Act would ensure that workers are given the 
     support needed to ensure pay equity during this time of 
     crisis.
       Updating our nation's equal pay laws is also crucial to 
     reducing negative impacts resulting from the mass exodus of 
     women from the labor force during the pandemic. Women's labor 
     force participation is at a 33-year record low, with nearly a 
     million moms having left the workforce, largely due to the 
     difficulties of balancing full-time work and care 
     responsibilities. Increases in women's labor force 
     participation rates drove the significant narrowing of the 
     gender wage gap during the 1970s and 1980s, a narrowing which 
     stagnated in the late 1990s, around the time women's labor 
     force participation peaked. Without the Paycheck Fairness 
     Act, progress on closing the gender wage gap could be set 
     back decades, especially since women face financial penalties 
     for taking time out of the workforce, with one study finding 
     that women who took just one year out of the workforce had 
     annual earnings 39 percent lower than women who did not.

[[Page H1806]]

       The Paycheck Fairness Act would strengthen existing federal 
     protections, ensure more equitable workplaces and allow women 
     to remain in the workforce and maintain their economic 
     stability at all phases of life. At the current rate of 
     progress, projections are that the gender wage gap will close 
     in 2041 for Asian women, 2069 for white women, 2369 for Black 
     women, and 2451 for Latina women. Women cannot--and should 
     not--wait that long for pay equity. It is time to clarify and 
     strengthen existing federal protections for women in the 
     workforce by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act. We urge you 
     to vote in support and opposed harmful amendments.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem, and it does nothing 
to help employees. In reality, the bill would only boost paychecks for 
trial lawyers and not workers.
  H.R. 7 places unworkable, burdensome restrictions on employers, and 
also poses a threat to worker privacy.
  Even more, this bill would kill the Christmas bonus by effectively 
prohibiting employers from paying end-of-the-year bonuses to their 
employees. This hardly seems fair to an employee, despite the title of 
the bill.
  Republicans tried to strengthen the bill during the committee markup. 
My colleague, Ms. Stefanik, offered an amendment that would have made 
commonsense improvements to the text, but that amendment was rejected 
by the Democrats.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill. We should not allow trial lawyers 
and burdensome restrictions to kill the Christmas bonus under the false 
guise of fairness.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this bill will prohibit paying 
all the men a bonus and none of the women a bonus, although they have 
produced equally for the business.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a 
distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Paycheck 
Fairness Act.
  I want to commend Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro for her extraordinary 
efforts and commend Chairman Scott for bringing this timely policy to 
fruition.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. 
I think most of us can agree that every American should earn equal pay 
for equal work.
  This legislation takes meaningful steps toward ensuring that every 
American, regardless of gender, receives fair compensation for their 
work.
  We have seen over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic that essential 
workers are the lifeblood of our society. We have seen women on the 
frontlines in the hospital, in the classroom, and at our essential 
retail stores, and it is time that all of these ``sheroes'' are 
compensated at the same rate as their male counterparts.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters urging passage of this legislation and 
highlighting the persistent wage gaps between genders.

                                         International Brotherhood


                                                 of Teamsters,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 2021.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 1.4 million 
     members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I urge 
     you to support fundamental fairness by combating wage 
     discrimination on the basis of sex by passing H.R. 7, the 
     Paycheck Fairness Act. I urge you to vote yes on H.R. 7 and 
     to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act without any weakening 
     amendments.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act would address the persistent wage 
     gap based on sex by eliminating loopholes that hinder the 
     effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. H.R. 7 would 
     update and strengthen the Equal Pay Act in important ways. 
     The bill closes loopholes that have allowed employers to pay 
     women less than men for the same work without any important 
     business purpose related to the job. It would require 
     employers to demonstrate that wage gaps are truly the result 
     of factors other than gender. Importantly, it would prohibit 
     retaliation against workers who share salary information or 
     inquire about their employer's wage practices. H.R. 7 would 
     also bring the remedies and procedures of the Equal Pay Act 
     into conformance with those available for other civil rights 
     claims. The Paycheck Fairness Act holds employers accountable 
     for pay discrepancies between their male and female employees 
     while strengthening incentives to prevent pay discrimination. 
     And, it would preclude pay discrimination from following 
     women from job to job.
       While some progress has been made since the passage of the 
     Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the wage gap still 
     persists, and disparities are evident at every educational 
     level. Nationally, women still earn only 82 cents for every 
     dollar earned by their male colleagues. For women of color, 
     the wage gaps are even larger.
       Passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act will provide women and 
     all other workers the tools necessary to challenge 
     discrimination against them. It is an important step in 
     making real progress in the fight to eliminate the gender 
     wage gap and to provide economic, and retirement, security to 
     women and their families.
       It is well past the time to end pay discrimination in the 
     workplace. The Teamsters Union urges you to reject weakening 
     amendments and to vote yes on final passage of the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James P. Hoffa,
                                                General President.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, the gender gap is clear, and the Paycheck 
Fairness Act will address this disparity. Not only will this 
legislation help women in Georgia, but it will help families across the 
Nation.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 7 claim that despite current 
prohibitions against pay discrimination, female workers are still paid, 
on average, considerably less than male workers and, as a result, a 
pernicious wage gap exists. However, many studies demonstrate that the 
gap is not necessarily the product of workplace discrimination.
  In fact, this gap nearly disappears when factors such as hours worked 
per week, rate of leaving the workforce, and industry and occupation 
are considered.
  A 2020 study by compensation software company PayScale found that 
when controlling for job title, years of experience, industry, 
location, and other compensable factors, women earned 98 percent as 
much as men.
  A 2009 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor found a 
gender wage gap of between 4.8 and 7.1 percent when controlling for 
economic variables between men and women.
  A 2018 Harvard study found that the gap in pay between female and 
male bus and train operators working for the Massachusetts Bay 
Transportation Authority, MBTA, can be explained by the workplace 
choices that women and men make rather than other factors, such as 
discrimination. The study found that the earnings gap for MBTA bus and 
train operators is explained by the fact that the male operators took 
48 percent fewer unpaid hours off and worked 83 percent more overtime 
hours per year than the female operators.
  I want to point out that I am giving you facts here, Mr. Speaker, 
facts.
  These differences are not due to any different work options faced by 
female and male operators. Rather, the study found that the female 
operators had a greater demand for workplace flexibility and a lower 
demand for overtime work hours than the male operators.
  Pay discrimination is wrong and already illegal. We probably cannot 
say that enough. Any new legislation to combat pay discrimination 
should be based on facts, not supposition, not projection. The facts 
seem to be sorely missing from this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Espaillat), a distinguished member of the Committee 
on Education and Labor.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I include in the Record a 
letter from the Equal Rights Advocates in support of H.R. 7.

                                       Equal Rights Advocates,

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

       Dear Representative: As the House votes on the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act (H.R. 7), Equal Rights Advocates strongly urges 
     you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7, without 
     amendments that limit its scope or undermine its critical 
     protections.
       Equal Rights Advocates (ERA) is a national, non-profit 
     legal organization based in San Francisco, California, whose 
     mission is to protect and expand economic and educational 
     access and opportunities for women and girls. We have a long 
     history of working

[[Page H1807]]

     to address pay discrimination and to close the gender wage 
     gap. We have litigated numerous cases relating to pay 
     discrimination and regularly provide information and 
     resources to employees who contact our free legal information 
     hotline regarding unlawful gender and race-based pay 
     disparities.
       We also advocate for various bills at the state-level to 
     ensure economic and gender justice for women and families. 
     Most recently, ERA has co-sponsored SB 973 (Jackson, 2020) 
     which requires California employers with 100 employees or 
     more to submit an annual pay data report to the Department of 
     Industrial Relations outlining the compensation and hours 
     worked of its employees by gender, race, ethnicity, and job 
     category. This allows state agencies to more efficiently 
     identify patterns of wage disparities and encourages 
     employers to analyze their own pay practices to ensure they 
     are fair and lawful. Additionally, ERA co-sponsored the 
     California Fair Pay Act, SB 358, (Jackson, 2016) which 
     amended and strengthened our state's Equal Pay Act to 
     prohibit employer secrecy rules, clarify that workers must be 
     paid equally to coworkers of another sex who perform 
     substantially similar work, unless the employer proves that 
     the disparity was due to a legitimate, job-related, bona fide 
     factor not based on or derived from sex. We also cosponsored 
     AB 168 (Eggman, 2017) which prohibits California employers 
     from inquiring about prior salary and requires them to 
     provide the pay Scale for a position in question upon 
     reasonable request and AB 2282 (Eggman, 2018) which clarified 
     that prior salary cannot be used on its own, or in 
     combination with a lawful factor, to justify a wage 
     differential under the California Equal Pay Act. Finally, ERA 
     also chairs Equal Pay Today, a national collaboration of 
     organizations working at the local, regional, and federal 
     level to close the gender wage gap.
       Today in the United States, despite the passage of previous 
     equal pay legislation, including the critically important 
     Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the gender pay gap remains 
     pervasive. Women, even those who work full-time and year 
     round, still only earn 80 cents to a man's dollar. This gives 
     rise to a nationwide pay gap of $900 billion every year. For 
     women of color, the pay gap is even larger. For every dollar 
     earned by a non-Hispanic white man, Latina women earn only 53 
     cents, Native American women only 58 cents, and Black women 
     only 61 cents. These large pay gaps, although of varying 
     sizes across demographics of women, prove harmful to the 
     economic security of women and families across the country. 
     The negative economic consequences of these gender pay gaps 
     are especially pronounced as ``mothers are primary or sole 
     breadwinners in half of U.S. households with children.'' Of 
     these female-headed households, one-quarter of them fall 
     below the poverty line.
       As it stands, the gender and race pay gaps are closing at a 
     glacial pace. At current rates, the gender wage gap will not 
     close until 2059. For women of color, the picture is even 
     bleaker. It will not be until 2124 that Black women receive 
     equal pay to white men and not until 2233 that Latinas 
     receive the same. Now is the time for action.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act is an important step in 
     accelerating the closing of the gender pay gap. Among many 
     provisions, the Paycheck Fairness Act would bar retaliation 
     for discussing or disclosing wages. According to the 
     Institute for Women's Policy Research, across the country, 
     about half of workers were prohibited or strongly discouraged 
     from disclosing their wages to other employees. Yet, when an 
     individual is unable to discuss wages with other employees, 
     it becomes exceedingly difficult to determine if one is 
     making less than one's colleagues. By ending the practice of 
     pay secrecy, the Paycheck Fairness Act would make it harder 
     for employers to keep pervasive practices of pay 
     discrimination hidden.
       In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act would also prohibit 
     employers from relying on salary history when setting the 
     wages of their employees. This provision is critical as the 
     practice of relying on prior salary can lead to a single act 
     of pay discrimination following a woman throughout her 
     career. One year out of college, women are already earning 7 
     percent less than their male colleagues, even after 
     controlling for factors such as college major, occupation, or 
     hours worked. If a woman's prior salary is used by future 
     employers, the gender pay gap will continue to persist as a 
     depressed past salary continues to be used to determine 
     future wages. Prohibiting employer reliance on salary history 
     will help stop the perpetuation of unequal pay.
       Another crucial provision in this version of the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act is the commitment to pay data collection. As 
     mentioned above, ERA fought for pay data collection at the 
     California state-level and secured this via SB 973 (Jackson, 
     2020). The need to ensure equal pay is now more apparent than 
     ever during the current COVID-19 health and economic crisis, 
     which has exposed the lasting harm of unequal pay and other 
     contributors to economic security on women, and in 
     particular, women of color. Pay data collection helps uncover 
     pay discrimination, which is a major contributor to the 
     overall gender and race-based wage gaps.
       Recognizing that pay discrimination is difficult to detect 
     and address, the Obama Administration announced a proposed 
     revision to the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) to 
     include the reporting of pay data by gender, race and 
     ethnicity beginning in 2018. For more than 50 years, large 
     companies have been submitting these EEO-1 reports with 
     demographic information to the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission (EEOC). This data has helped the agency to 
     identify patterns of occupational segregation and 
     discrimination and enforce federal equal pay and anti-
     discrimination law. However, the Trump Administration put a 
     halt to the implementation of this new rule, dealing a 
     significant blow to the fight for equal pay.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act would also close loopholes that 
     allow employers to pay women less without a legitimate 
     business justification and would provide the same robust 
     remedies for sex-based pay discrimination as race and 
     ethnicity based discrimination. It would also require wage 
     data collection and support salary negotiation skills 
     training programs to give women the tools to advocate for 
     higher wages. Salary negotiation workshops have been shown to 
     be highly effective. For example, in a study conducted 
     following the free salary negotiation workshops put on by the 
     city of Boston, the Center for Women in Politics and Public 
     Policy at the University of Massachusetts Boston found that 
     nearly half of the women who were interviewed had either 
     successfully negotiated a pay raise or starting salary that 
     brought them either to or above the market rate following the 
     training.
       As the bill states, these continuing pay disparities have 
     devastating impacts on women, especially women of color. Over 
     the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have found 
     this to be even more true. Since last February, 2.4 million 
     women have exited the workforce, or, been pushed out of the 
     workforce, highlighting a dramatic regress for gender equity. 
     More and more women are forced to stay home in order to care 
     for children and loved ones while men continue to work. 
     Before the pandemic, ``women did, on average, three times 
     more unpaid care work than men, and this responsibility has 
     heightened since the pandemic given school and childcare 
     closures, and increased care needs for elderly relatives.'' 
     Women who are able to remain in the workforce, however, are 
     still paid less than their male colleagues, especially Black 
     women and women of color. COVID-19 has exacerbated these 
     long-standing gender and racial inequities. Now, more than 
     ever, elected officials must recognize these disparate 
     impacts and deliver solutions to American women.
       Without continued efforts to provide women with the tools 
     to challenge and unearth pay discrimination and provisions to 
     keep employers from perpetuating persistent inequalities, the 
     gender pay gap will not close. The Paycheck Fairness Act is 
     an important step on the path towards a future where women 
     can stand on equal economic footing to their male 
     counterparts.
       For these reasons, we are proud to support the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act and urge you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.

                                              Jessica Stender,

                                                   Senior Counsel,
                                Workplace Justice & Public Policy.

  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, it should offend every one of us that 
there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same work.
  Women of color, in particular--African-American women, Latina women, 
Native American women, AAPI women--are making as low as 52 cents, Mr. 
Speaker, for every dollar for the same job and work by a man.
  This is a travesty.
  Let's make our communities stronger. Let's make our economy stronger.
  In Harlem, East Harlem, northern Manhattan, and the northwest Bronx, 
women of color are the majority of workers. I can't go back home to my 
district and say that somehow they are working the same as men, or 
maybe more, in many cases, and are making less.
  I support H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, because we need to bring 
fairness into the discussion. Let's make our communities stronger. 
Let's make our economy stronger.
  Gender-based pay discrimination should not be something we are still 
discussing now in 2021.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will put everyone on the line to make sure 
that we are all doing our best to ensure fair and equitable pay.
  Closing the pay gap will make women and families financially 
stronger.
  Mr. Speaker, let's make our communities stronger. Let's make our 
economy stronger.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the co-chair of the 
Democratic Caucus.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter titled 
``Support the Paycheck Fairness Act'' written by The Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

                                         The Leadership Conference


                                    on Civil and Human Rights,

                                                   April 14, 2021.

     Support the Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7--Vote No on Harmful 
                               Amendments

       Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference 
     on Civil and Human

[[Page H1808]]

     Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more 
     than 220 organizations to promote and protect the rights of 
     all persons in the United States, we urge you to vote for the 
     Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7, without amendments that limit 
     its scope or undermine its critical protections. The Paycheck 
     Fairness Act is a priority of The Leadership Conference, and 
     we will include your vote on final passage in our Voting 
     Record for the 117th Congress.
       Gender-based pay discrimination compromises the economic 
     security of millions of women in the United States--and for 
     women of color, the harm is exacerbated by their experience 
     of both race- and gender-based wage disparities. Women 
     working full-time, year-round in the United States are 
     typically paid about 82 cents for every dollar paid to men, 
     adding up to a loss of more than $400,000 over a lifetime. 
     Black women are typically paid only 63 cents for every dollar 
     paid to non-Hispanic white men, while Native American women 
     are paid only 60 cents, Latinas are paid just 55 cents, and 
     women in certain Asian American and Pacific Islander 
     communities are paid as little as 52 cents. Research shows 
     that the gender pay gap occurs across almost all occupations 
     and industries, develops very early in women's careers, and 
     grows over time.
       Action to close the wage gap is long overdue, but in light 
     of the current economic crisis, it is even more critical that 
     Congress act now to strengthen protections against pay 
     discrimination, both as a matter of economic security and 
     fundamental fairness. The loss of income and savings from the 
     wage gap has exacerbated the harmful effects of the COVID-19 
     pandemic for women of color and their families. Black and 
     Brown women have been overrepresented in ``frontline'' jobs 
     during the pandemic--many in low-paid jobs at high risk of 
     exposure to COVID-19 and without benefits like paid leave and 
     employer-sponsored health insurance--but they are paid less 
     than non-Hispanic white men in the same jobs. Already 
     struggling to make ends meet, women of color in low-pay jobs 
     must also endure pay discrimination that artificially reduces 
     their overall earnings, making it even less likely for women 
     of color to amass the financial resources to withstand a 
     health emergency and putting entire families at risk of 
     economic insecurity. Almost 75 percent of Black mothers and 
     more than 45 percent of Latina mothers were breadwinners in 
     their families in 2018. At the same time, Black and Brown 
     women have faced staggering job losses during the pandemic. 
     The unemployment rate for Black women reached 17.4 percent in 
     May 2020, for example, and Latinas experienced the highest 
     unemployment rate of any group during the pandemic, at more 
     than 20 percent in April of last year. The unemployment rate 
     for Black women and Latinas remains exceptionally high.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act would update and strengthen the 
     Equal Pay Act of 1963 to provide more effective protection 
     against sex-based pay discrimination. The Paycheck Fairness 
     Act would:
       Prohibit retaliation against workers who discuss or 
     disclose wages;
       Prevent employers from relying on salary history to 
     determine future pay so that pay discrimination does not 
     extend from job to job;
       Close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act that have allowed 
     employers to pay women less than men for the same work 
     without any business necessity related to the job;
       Ensure that women can obtain the same remedies for sex-
     based pay discrimination as those available to people 
     subjected to discrimination based on race and ethnicity;
       Provide for much-needed training and technical assistance 
     and require wage data collection.
       Women and their families can no longer be shortchanged. 
     Given the importance of this bill, we urge representatives to 
     pass H.R. 7 without amendments that limit the bill's scope or 
     undermine its protections.
           Sincerely,
     Wade Henderson,
       Interim President and CEO.
     LaShawn Warren,
       Executive Vice President for Government Affairs.

  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, for a quarter of a century, Chairwoman 
DeLauro has been trying to get this bill passed. She is sick and tired, 
I am sick and tired, and American women are sick and tired of being 
treated like second-class citizens.
  Imagine if the women here in Congress were being paid 60, 70, or 80 
percent of what our male colleagues are making. Do you think we would 
put up with it? Of course not. Somehow, American women are expected to 
put up with that.
  Do you want facts? Ask about Ms. Rexroat, from the State of Arizona, 
who was paid less than her colleague because they decided that they 
would base her salary on what she was making before, as opposed to the 
job at hand.
  We have a problem, Mr. Speaker. This has been going on for way too 
long. It is time for us to fix it for all the women and children in 
this country who want to be paid equally for equal work so that they 
have money for childcare, rent, food, and education.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the previous 
head of the EEOC.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the 
American Bar Association supporting passage of the Paycheck Fairness 
Act.

                                     American Bar Association,

                                                   April 13, 2021.
     Re ABA Urges Passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Bar 
     Association (ABA), the largest voluntary association of 
     lawyers and legal professionals in the world. I am writing to 
     urge you to vote for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, 
     which would update the Equal Pay Act of 1963 enacted by 
     Congress almost 60 years ago to prohibit gender-based pay 
     inequality. This legislation, which is expected to come to 
     the floor this week, has the support of working men and women 
     across the country who want this nation to live up to its 
     expressed commitment to equal pay for equal work.
       The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits an employer from paying 
     unequal wages to male and female workers who perform jobs 
     under similar work conditions that require substantially 
     equal skill, effort, and responsibility unless there is a 
     legitimate reason for a pay differential.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act does not alter the basic scheme 
     of this statute or impose unreasonable burdens on employers; 
     indeed, the majority of its proposed changes are borrowed 
     from other civil rights statutes that have proved more 
     effective in eradicating workplace discrimination.
       We would like to respond to some persistent misperceptions 
     regarding this important legislation:
       Enactment of this bill will not compel businesses to pay 
     their female workforce substantially more money to eliminate 
     the existing wage gap. The purpose of this bill is to update 
     the Equal Pay Act, which only applies in situations where 
     women or men are receiving unequal pay for equal work. It 
     does not create a new mandate. Employers already have a legal 
     obligation to pay men and women equal wages for equal work 
     unless there is a legitimate reason for the differential.
       Enactment of this bill will not interject the government 
     into the pay decisions of businesses. The Paycheck Fairness 
     Act does not tell employers what factors to use to set pay; 
     it only requires that pay decisions are job- and business-
     related.
       Enactment of this bill will not make employers liable for 
     any and every wage differential. An employer will still have 
     four affirmative defenses and will not be guilty of wage 
     discrimination if a pay differential is based on (i) 
     seniority, (ii) merit, (iii) a system that measures quantity 
     or quality of production, or (iv) a ``factor other than 
     sex.'' 29 U.S.C. 206(d)(l). The only difference is that 
     Paycheck Fairness Act will resolve uncertainty in the law 
     over how to apply the fourth defense by redefining it as ``a 
     bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, 
     or experience.''
       Enactment of a provision to clarify the ``factor other than 
     sex'' defense will not eviscerate legitimate use of the 
     defense. It is intended to prevent employers from asserting 
     that unequal pay was the result of market force-derived 
     excuses such as prior salaries or negotiation outcomes. A 
     bona fide factor other than sex must be job-related, 
     consistent with business necessity, and account for the 
     entire differential in compensation at issue. The only time 
     this defense would not apply would be in situations where an 
     alternative employment practice is available that would serve 
     the same business purpose without producing the wage 
     differential and the employer has refused to adopt it.
       Enactment of this bill will not encourage more lawsuits and 
     jeopardize post-pandemic economic recovery. The bill is 
     designed resolve uncertainties in the law and increase 
     employer compliance with the Equal Pay Act, not to encourage 
     more lawsuits.
       The bill's strengthened remedies, which align with those 
     available in other employment discrimination statutes, will 
     encourage employers to review their wage-setting practices 
     and rectify those that are based on invalid justifications. 
     Men and women who are paid fairly have no incentive to 
     jeopardize their jobs and subject themselves to costly, time-
     consuming, and emotionally taxing lawsuits brought against 
     their employers.
       The bill's clarification of the ``factor other than sex'' 
     defense will not spawn new litigation. Instead, it will 
     provide guidance to the courts and resolve uncertainty in the 
     law. The standard, which is adapted from Title VII 
     discrimination cases and codified in the Civil Rights Act of 
     1991, is one with which courts already are familiar.
       The bill will help strengthen the economy by improving the 
     present and future economic welfare of working women, who 
     comprise about one-half of the workforce and are the primary 
     breadwinner in more than 12 million American families.
       We urge you to demonstrate your commitment to equal pay for 
     equal work by voting for the Paycheck Fairness Act.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
                                                Patricia Lee Refo.


[[Page H1809]]


  

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to strongly support H.R. 7, the 
Paycheck Fairness Act, a critically important bill.
  As the first woman to chair the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, I enforced the Equal Pay Act. I particularly appreciate 
that H.R. 7 would bring long-awaited strength to the EPA.
  I especially appreciate that Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a great 
champion for equal pay, has included my Pay Equity for All Act in H.R. 
7, where I will focus today.
  The Pay Equity for All Act would prohibit employers from asking job 
applicants their salary history. Even though many employers may not 
intentionally discriminate against applicants or employees based on 
gender, race, or ethnicity, setting wages based on salary history is 
routinely done in the workplace and can reinforce the wage gap. 
Evidence clearly shows that members of historically disadvantaged 
groups often start their careers with unfair and artificially low wages 
compared to their White male counterparts, and these disparities are 
compounded from job to job.
  Job and salary offers should be based on an applicant's skill and 
merit, not on salary history. This bill addresses this problem by 
assessing penalties against employers who ask applicants for their 
salary history during the interview process.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7 requires that the employer defense must be 
consistent with ``business necessity,'' a broad and ill-defined term.
  We don't know how the courts will interpret this sweeping 
requirement, but we do know the dictionary says it means ``absolutely 
essential'' or ``indispensable.''
  How can an employer prove that any one factor determining employee 
pay could rise to the level to be necessary for the survival of the 
business?
  Proponents of H.R. 7 will argue this phrase has been adopted from 
title VII, as amended by the 1991 Civil Rights Act, but the phrase has 
spawned endless litigation because of its lack of clarity. Anyone who 
thinks this concept is simple and can just be carried over from title 
VII is either naive or has been misled.
  Further, the dubious concept of business necessity was developed 
under controversial so-called disparate impact analysis and cannot 
simply be slapped onto the Equal Pay Act, especially where, as mandated 
by H.R. 7, damages are unlimited. In contrast, under title VII, in 
disparate impact cases, damages are limited to backpay and benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this bill is really about mothers 
and daughters who earn about 82 cents on the dollar for every dollar a 
man earns. It is about mothers and daughters who lose about $1 trillion 
a year because of the wage gap.
  For those men who don't have a really good reason to vote for it, it 
is about the fact that a woman gave birth to every man alive. So for 
all of the suffering, we ought to vote for this bill, because we are 
here as a result of some woman suffering for us.
  At this time, I include in the Record a letter from the National 
Committee on Pay Equity.

                                                National Committee


                                                on Pay Equity,

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

       Dear Representative: As the House votes on the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act (H.R. 7), the National Committee on Pay Equity 
     (NCPE) strongly urges you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, 
     H.R. 7, without amendments that limit its scope or undermine 
     its critical protections.
       The National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE), founded in 
     1979, is a coalition of women's and civil rights 
     organizations; labor unions; religious, professional, and 
     educational associations, commissions on women, state and 
     local pay equity coalitions and individuals working to 
     eliminate sex- and race-based wage discrimination and to 
     achieve pay equity. 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 is one of these urgently required 
     tools.
       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 larger for many 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. Latinas lose more than $1 million over a 
     40-year career due to the wage gap. 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. And even when 
     controlling for factors, such as education and experience, 
     pay gaps persist and start early in women's careers and 
     contribute to a wealth gap that follows them throughout their 
     work lives and into retirement. Persistent pay 
     discrimination, often cloaked by employer-imposed pay secrecy 
     policies, is one factor driving these wage gaps.
       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
       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.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Carolyn York,

                                              Secretary-Treasurer,
                                 National Committee on Pay Equity.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 58th anniversary of 
the Equal Pay Act. Despite the goal to ensure equality for women in the 
workplace, nearly 60 years later, the pay gap still exists.
  Women today, on average, make 82 cents for every dollar earned by a 
man. For women of color, the disparity is worse, with Black women 
making 63 cents on the dollar, AAPI women making 60 cents, and Latinas 
making 55 cents.
  This disparity is unacceptable, and it is unfair.
  Let us come together right now to pass H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness 
Act.
  When women get equal pay, our families and our entire economy will do 
better.
  I include in the Record a letter from the United Church of Christ in 
favor of H.R. 7.

                                       United Church of Christ

       Dear Representative: We are writing to ask for your support 
     in passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7), and to 
     ensure that passage in the House is done without amendments 
     that diminish the protections provided by the bill.
       There is ample evidence to show that despite equal pay 
     laws, the gender pay gap exists. These lost earnings add up 
     to a loss of over $400,000 in a lifetime. The wage gap is 
     even more significant for women of color

[[Page H1810]]

     with Black women working full time making only 63 cents for 
     every dollar paid to men, Native American women only 60 
     cents, and Latinas only 55 cents, for every dollar paid to 
     their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts.
       As people of faith, we believe that each person deserves to 
     be treated with dignity and humanity. When women are paid 
     less for the same work that is a concrete and explicit way of 
     showing that their work and personhood are valued less. 
     Passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act will strengthen and 
     update the Equal Pay Act and provide women with the legal 
     means to fight the gender pay gap and challenge gender pay 
     discrimination.
       The work done by women, and particularly Black and brown 
     women, is undervalued and underpaid. Even though much of that 
     labor is what keeps people fed, clothed, and cared for. The 
     work of women, so important to how a society functions is 
     always relegated to less pay and less value. This is a gross 
     injustice--and part of the systemic racist structures that 
     undergird the economic system in the United States. God's 
     vision for our world is one where all are valued, no matter 
     their gender, race, or credo.
       We urge you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act without 
     harmful amendments that weaken its critical protections.
                                       The United Church of Christ
                                    Justice and Witness Ministries

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that every American should be 
compensated for the quality of their work and not face discrimination 
in the workplace based on race, color, national origin, religion, or 
sex.
  That is why Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963 and broader 
nondiscrimination laws under title VII of the Civil Rights Act the 
following year.
  However, unlike those bills, H.R. 7 offers no new protections. It is 
simply a messaging bill to score political points.
  What will the bill actually do? For job creators, they can expect 
more lawsuits and more regulatory burdens.
  While limiting legal options for women by changing EPA class action 
lawsuits from an opt-in system to a mandatory opt-out system, H.R. 7 
allows trial lawyers to pursue unlimited compensatory damages, making 
it nearly impossible for employers to defend against frivolous 
lawsuits.
  Additionally, it requires employers to make intrusive data 
disclosures to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding 
the sex, race, and national origin of employees and, for the first 
time, the hiring, termination, and promotion data of those employees, 
ultimately posing a threat to workers' privacy.
  The compliance costs to satisfy these requirements can total more 
than $600 million a year. We have already seen a number of small 
businesses forced to close this year because of COVID lockdowns, and 
now my Democratic colleagues want to impose more regulatory burdens on 
businesses that were lucky enough to survive.
  Thankfully, my colleague from New York, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, 
has a solution that will actually address pay discrimination and 
support women in the workplace. The Wage Equity Act protects workers' 
privacy by encouraging voluntary pay analysis while bolstering women's 
employment through the creation of a grant program for women in college 
or career and technical programs to provide negotiation skills 
education.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 7 and work with Republicans on 
meaningful legislation to ensure all workers have the opportunity and 
wages they deserve.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you advise us how much time 
is available on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 14\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee 
on Civil Rights and Human Services.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Paycheck 
Fairness Act.
  The Equal Pay Act has been the law for more than half a century, but, 
in 2021, equal pay for equal work is still not a reality for many 
women, especially women of color. This is an injustice to millions of 
working families. Closing the wage gap is an economic imperative.
  Last month, I was honored to chair the hearing on persistent gender-
based wage discrimination. We heard witnesses describe the barriers to 
detecting wage discrimination and holding employers accountable. Most 
importantly, we heard how the Paycheck Fairness Act can address the 
problematic loopholes in the current law, empower workers to better 
detect and combat wage discrimination, and create mechanisms for better 
pay data transparency.
  By advancing the Paycheck Fairness Act, we can restore the original 
intent of the Equal Pay Act and finally make equal pay for equal work a 
reality. I thank Congresswoman DeLauro for her steadfast leadership. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in support of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act from the American Association of University 
Women.

                                                         AAUW,

                                                   April 14, 2021.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 170,000 
     members and supporters of the American Association of 
     University Women (AAUW), I urge you to vote in support of the 
     Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7) and to oppose harmful 
     amendments when the bill comes to the House floor this week. 
     Despite federal and state equal pay laws, gender pay gaps 
     persist. The Paycheck Fairness Act offers a much needed 
     update to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by providing new tools to 
     battle these pervasive pay gaps and to challenge 
     discrimination.
       The dual crises of a global pandemic and systemic racism 
     have laid bare the economic disparities in our country. While 
     we all struggle to survive, we are relying heavily on the 
     work performed by essential workers who are 
     disproportionately Black and brown women. Yet their work has 
     long been and continues to be undervalued and underpaid. At 
     the same time, in 2020, American women lost more than 5 
     million jobs. Women accounted for 100% of the jobs lost last 
     December--all 140,000 of them--and women of color made up an 
     overwhelming share of those jobs. This massive job loss 
     coupled with the consistent undervaluing of women's work 
     compounds over time and results in significant lost earnings. 
     As a result, women do not have a financial cushion to help 
     weather the current economic crisis or the ability to build 
     wealth, all of which contribute to racial and gender wealth 
     gaps that create barriers to families' economic prosperity. 
     We cannot build back our economy without immediately 
     addressing these realities. And women and their families 
     cannot afford to wait any longer for change.
       To appropriately respond to the crises we are currently 
     experiencing we must make real, concrete progress in ensuring 
     all women receive fair pay. While the gap has narrowed since 
     passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, progress has largely 
     stalled in recent years. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau 
     once again revealed that women working full-time, year-round 
     are typically paid only 82 cents for every dollar paid to 
     men. The pay gaps are even wider for women of color. Black 
     women and Latinas make, respectively, 63 and 55 cents on the 
     dollar as compared to non-Hispanic, white men. Action is 
     required now: at the current rate, the overall pay gap 
     between men's and women's earnings will not close until 2093 
     and it will take significantly longer for women of color to 
     reach parity.
       Research indicates that the gender pay gap develops very 
     early in women's careers. Controlling for factors known to 
     affect earnings, such as education and training, marital 
     status, and hours worked, research finds that college-
     educated women still earn 7 percent less than men just one 
     year out of college. Over time, the gap compounds and widens, 
     impacting women's social security and retirement. Ensuring 
     that women have equal pay would have a dramatic impact on 
     families and the economy. According to a report from the 
     Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR), the poverty 
     rate for all working women would be cut in half, falling from 
     8.0 percent to 3.8 percent if women were paid the same as 
     comparable men. The same study indicates that the U.S. 
     economy would have produced an additional $512.6 billion in 
     income if women had received equal pay for equal work. This 
     is why I urge you to pass this important bill.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act would update and strengthen the 
     Equal Pay Act of 1963 to ensure that it provides effective 
     protection against sex-based pay discrimination in today's 
     workplace.
       The bill takes several important steps, including:
       Guaranteeing Non-Retaliation: The bill prohibits 
     retaliation against workers for discussing or disclosing 
     wages. Without the non-retaliation provisions of the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act, many women will continue to be silenced in the 
     workplace--that is, prohibited from talking about wages with 
     coworkers without the fear of being fired. This is an issue 
     that keeps women--like it kept Lilly Ledbetter--from learning 
     of the pay discrimination against them.
       Prohibiting Reliance on Prior Salary History: The bill 
     prohibits employers from relying on salary history in 
     determining future pay, so that prior discrimination doesn't 
     follow workers from job to job.

[[Page H1811]]

       Requiring Job-Relatedness: The bill closes loopholes that 
     allow employers to pay women less than men for the same work 
     without a business necessity that is related to the job.
       Equalizing Remedies: The bill ensures women can receive the 
     same robust remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that 
     are currently available to those subjected to discrimination 
     based on race and ethnicity.
       Providing Additional Assistance and Resources: The bill 
     also provides technical assistance to businesses, requires 
     wage data collection, and supports salary negotiation skills 
     training programs to give women the tools to advocate for 
     higher wages.
       The pay gap is persistent and can only be addressed if 
     women are armed with the tools necessary to challenge 
     discrimination against them, and employers are provided with 
     effective incentives and technical assistance to comply with 
     the law. I urge you to take a critical step towards pay 
     equity by voting in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act 
     (H.R. 7) and opposing harmful amendments when the bill comes 
     to the House floor this week.
       Cosponsorship and votes associated with this bill may be 
     scored in the AAUW Action Fund Congressional Voting Record 
     for the 117th Congress.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Kate Nielson,

                                 Senior Director of Public Policy,
                                        Legal Advocacy & Research.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Another provision in H.R. 7 requires that, in addition to proving 
business necessity, an employer must prove the business necessity 
accounts for 100 percent of the differential in compensation at issue. 
This is impossible to do. How can an employer explain slight 
differences in compensation based on educational level, experience, or 
quality of work on the job?
  This bill is going to make it impossible for employers to pay 
differentially on merit for anything. It is a bad bill, and we should 
not be passing it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, this Nation has made far too little 
progress in the fight for equal pay in the workplace. In 2021, women 
who work full time year round are paid, on average, only 82 cents for 
every dollar paid to men. This adds up to over $400,000 in lost wages 
over the course of a woman's career.
  For women of color, the gender gap is a gender chasm, with Latinas 
earning 55 cents, Black women earning 63 cents, and Asian American and 
Pacific Islander women earning a mere 52 cents for every dollar paid to 
a White man for the same work.
  The long overdue Paycheck Fairness Act would bring us closer to 
closing these gaps by ensuring equal pay for equal work. Notably, it 
would hold employers accountable for discriminatory practices, end pay 
secrecy, ease workers' ability to challenge pay discrimination, and 
strengthen the available remedies for wronged employees.
  I thank Congresswoman DeLauro for her tireless advocacy on this 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from the 
National Women's Law Center.

                                  National Women's Law Center,

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

       Dear Representative: As the House votes this week on the 
     Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7), we strongly urge you to pass 
     the Paycheck Fairness Act without amendments that limit its 
     scope or undermine its critical protections.
       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. 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 larger for many 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. Latinas lose more than $1 million over a 
     40-year career due to the wage gap. 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. Mothers typically make 
     only 75 cents for every dollar paid to fathers. And even when 
     controlling for factors, such as 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
       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.
           Sincerely,
     Emily J. Martin,
       Vice President for Education & Workplace Justice.
     Maya Raghu,
       Director of Workplace Equality & Senior Counsel.

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my House colleagues to vote for 
this package and close the gender wage gap once and for all.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman DeLauro for 
her persistent leadership for so many years, as well as Chairman Scott 
and the Speaker.
  We must put an end to the wage gap and pay discrimination. Let me 
tell you, as you have heard, the wage gap for women of color is so much 
worse.
  I am reminded today of our heroine, Fannie Lou Hamer. She said, ``I 
am sick and tired of being sick and tired.''
  Black women earn 63 cents, indigenous women earn 60 cents, Latinas 
earn 55 cents, White women earn 82 cents, and AAPI women are paid as 
little as 52 cents on every dollar paid to the White man. That is 
outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Equal Pay 
Today! campaign urging Members to support the bill.


                                              Equal Pay Today,

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

       Dear Representative(s): As the House votes on the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act (H.R. 7), we strongly urge you to pass the 
     Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7, without amendments that would 
     limit its scope or undermine its critical protections.
       As members of the Equal Pay Today Campaign, we represent a 
     broad coalition consisting of both national and state based 
     organizations from all across the country, that are dedicated 
     to challenging the legal, policy, and cultural barriers at 
     the local, state, and national level that keep women from 
     being paid equally. Launched on the 50th anniversary of the 
     signing of the federal Equal Pay Act, we are committed to 
     fighting and advocating for legislation that will ultimately 
     close the gender wage gap.
       With our nation now entering into year two of this global 
     pandemic, we can no longer ignore the disparities that have 
     existed long before our nation's shutdown, and

[[Page H1812]]

     despite federal and state equal pay laws, the gender pay gap 
     persists, and earnings lost to these gaps are widened due to 
     the financial impacts of the pandemic, with a heavier burden 
     bared by women of color and the families and communities who 
     depend on them and their income.
       Women are increasingly becoming the primary or co-
     breadwinner in their families, with Black mothers being far 
     more likely than other mothers to be the primary or sole 
     breadwinners for their families and more than half of Latina 
     mothers being the breadwinner in families with children under 
     18. Women across this country, working full-time, year-round, 
     are typically being paid only .82 cents for every dollar paid 
     out to men, adding up to a loss of more than $400,000 dollars 
     over a lifetime. And the wage gap gets even wider as race is 
     factored in. 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. Latinas stand to 
     lose more than $1 million over a 40-year career due to the 
     wage gap, and 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. And even when controlling for 
     factors, such as education and experience, the pay gaps still 
     persist, start early in women's careers and contribute to a 
     wealth gap that follows them throughout their lifetimes.
       These pay gaps can be addressed and rectified through 
     legislation that offers workers the legal tools and 
     safeguards needed to challenge discrimination. The Paycheck 
     Fairness Act, which has already been passed by the House of 
     Representatives three times before and most recently by the 
     116th Congress, would offer the much needed updates to the 
     Equal Pay Act of 1963 by making these tools available while 
     also providing new ones, that would help to combat and 
     challenge discrimination and the pay gap.
       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
       provides much needed training and technical assistance, as 
     well as data collection and research
       This past year has undoubtedly been a challenging one. The 
     pandemic has shone a light on how the work performed by 
     women, specifically Black and brown women, has continuously 
     been undervalued, underpaid, and gone unnoticed. We cannot 
     continue to use the word ``essential'' to describe the nature 
     of this work, if there is no commitment to ensuring that all 
     women can work with safety and with dignity, and the first 
     step to making this happen, starts with pay equity, and the 
     catalyst for this would be the passing of the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act.
       We urge you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act without 
     harmful amendments that weaken its critical protections.
       Thank you for your time and consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Equal Pay Today.

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me finally say: Remember, 
because of this discrimination, women's Social Security benefits during 
their senior years are much lower than men. This injustice follows 
women throughout their lives. This issue impacts women, regardless of 
industry, education level or political party. It is past time--it is so 
past time for Congress to take action on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7 would create impossible conditions in which to 
operate for businessowners large and small. It would result in endless 
litigation in front of judges and juries, who will delve into employer 
compensation decisions even when there has been a showing that those 
decisions are not based on sex.
  Alternatively, businessowners will simply decide not to risk 
liability of unlimited damages, which could bankrupt them, and the end 
result will be the use of pay bands by employers, which imposes a 
government civil service model on the private sector that will result 
in everyone in the workplace being compensated equally without regard 
to merit.
  This is a very broad goal of liberals in general: Pay everybody the 
same and stifle innovation, stifle initiative, stifle anybody being 
different.
  This is the wrong thing for our country. That is not the way the 
United States of America operates. We value innovation, we value 
entrepreneurism, we value independent thinking. We don't want to crush 
everybody into thinking the same way. That is the way civil service 
works. That is the way the unions work. That is not the way it should 
be in private industry, which has made this country great.
  This bill stalls upward mobility. It hurts all employees striving to 
succeed on the job, who want to be rewarded for their efforts.
  For these reasons and others, H.R. 7's provisions are unworkable and 
will benefit only trial lawyers, not innovative, hardworking workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of 
the United States House of Representatives.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor of 
the House.
  This is about building back better with women, not stifling 
innovation and entrepreneurship, but reaping the benefits of all that 
women have to offer in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly 60 years ago, President John F. Kennedy signed 
the Equal Pay Act into law, lauding it as ``a measure that adds to our 
laws another structure basic to democracy.''
  Today, I rise in support of a similarly momentous measure for our 
democracy, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which will strengthen that law 
and reaffirm this pledge: equal work deserves equal pay.
  We all salute Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, the guardian angel of this 
legislation, and so much of what Democrats' work on behalf of women and 
families. Chairwoman DeLauro is relentless, introducing this bill in 
each of the last 13 Congresses and securing bipartisan support and the 
support of the entire House Democratic Caucus. And now, because of her 
leadership, we have a chance for it to become law.
  Many of us, with Chair DeLauro at the helm, have helped lead the 
charge for equal pay for many years now. Twelve years ago, House 
Democrats passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to protect women's 
right to challenge unfair pay in the courts. We are proud that 
President Obama made this bill the first bill he signed into law. You 
talked about it earlier, Mr. Chairman.
  Exactly 10 years later, when Democrats retook the majority, we were 
honored to stand with Lilly Ledbetter, that courageous woman, as we 
took another step forward for pay equity by again introducing 
Congresswoman DeLauro's bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Today, a Democratic Congress led by over 120 women in the House; with 
an administration led by President Biden, a longtime champion of women; 
and the first woman Vice President, Kamala Harris; and with a record 
number of women in the Cabinet, those are great advances for women.
  We will pass this landmark bill once more, send it to the Senate, and 
then, hopefully, to President Biden to sign into law.
  I am the mother of four daughters. I don't know anybody who has a 
daughter, a wife, a sister, a mother who can say to them, You are not 
worth it; your time is not worth the time of your brother, your father, 
your whoever else.
  What father, brother or son would not want the women in their lives 
to have equal pay?
  Sadly, equal pay is not yet a reality in America. Nearly six decades 
after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women working full time year 
round are paid only 82 cents for every dollar paid to men.
  And for women of color, the disparity is even greater. It is almost 
sinful. For Black women, it is 63 cents; Native Hawaiian, Pacific 
Islander, American Indian, and Alaska Native women, 60 cents; and a 
Latina is making just 55 cents for every dollar for the same work as 
men.
  Equal work, equal hours, equal efforts, but not equal pay. And this 
is not just about cents on a dollar. This pay

[[Page H1813]]

gap can add up to about $400,000 in lost wages over a career.
  What does that mean to a woman's pension?
  At the same time, the need for action has been accelerated by the 
pandemic, which has worsened economic disparities for women. Last year, 
women lost a net 5.4 million jobs during the recession, with losses 
disproportionately experienced by women of color.
  This unjust, uneven toll on women is expected to widen the wage gap 
by up to 5 percentage points. Widen the gap by 5 percentage points, 
even as the economy recovers.
  As the House passes this landmark legislation, let us stand proudly, 
unapologetically for what this does for the economy of our country. We 
continue to work to advance progress for women and families. With the 
strong support of President Biden, the House Democrats are proud to 
have passed and sent to the Senate our bipartisan VAWA reauthorization 
led by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee; legislation to remove the 
arbitrary deadline for ERA ratification led by Congresswoman Jackie 
Speier; and to have enacted the American Rescue Plan, which is helping 
many women to return to the workforce.

                              {time}  1330

  And we will continue this drumbeat of action ensuring that the Senate 
passes the Paycheck Fairness Act and advancing legislation to 
strengthen women's access to childcare, healthcare, workplace safety, 
and more.
  And as we move forward to ``build back better,'' President Biden's 
alliterative phrase for how we have job creation in our country, we can 
only build back better if women are central to that effort. Advancing 
an economy in a country that works for all of the people in America is 
very important to America's families and America's children.
  I urge a strong and, hopefully, bipartisan vote on H.R. 7, the 
Paycheck Fairness Act. Fairness is an all-American quality. Fairness 
for women is essential because we know that when women succeed, America 
succeeds.
  I thank Congresswoman DeLauro and Chairman Scott for their 
leadership.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
  Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Foxx very much for yielding. I 
appreciate the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.
  All Americans, men and women, should be treated equally and receive 
equal pay for equal work. I happen to be the father of two daughters, 
and I will do everything in this House to ensure that that continues to 
be the case and is, in fact, the case.
  If this truly were an Equal Pay Act, Mr. Speaker, I think we would 
have a bipartisan initiative here. We would have bipartisan agreement. 
The problem is this is not what it is, Mr. Speaker, it goes well beyond 
dealing with equal pay.
  What it does is it provides equal pay for as many attorneys and trial 
lawyers as possible. And therein lies the problem. Once again, we have 
what looks like legitimate legislation that sounds good and feels good, 
Mr. Speaker, yet when you look at the details, it is far left 
extremism, which poisons the legislation and doesn't allow reasonable 
Members like myself to be supportive.
  And this isn't the first time. This occurs very often, and it is the 
reason why we don't get things done, nor do we get bipartisan 
cooperation. Because cooperation is the way that we will achieve and 
complete bills of importance, particularly that are named equal pay for 
all, equality for all.
  That is what our goal is. It would be great if a bill like this had 
the substance that provided the ingredients to provide for equal pay.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader 
of the United States House of Representatives.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the 
chairman of the Education and Labor Committee for yielding, and I thank 
him for his untiring work.
  ``No employer . . . shall discriminate, within any establishment in 
which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of 
sex, by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less 
than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite 
sex.''
  That was passed by the Congress of the United States, signed by the 
President of the United States in 1963. A half a century later, Mr. 
Speaker, the figures belie that promise. The figures are a shameful 
recognition of the emptiness of that promise.
  Now, I know the gentlewoman from North Carolina, not well, but well 
enough. We have served here together for some period of time. I hope 
she will take this with a measure of positivity. She is a feisty lady. 
She stands up for what she believes. And she is tough. All those things 
are said lovingly. God help us if they paid her less than they paid 
every male Member of this House.
  But we don't. We pay everybody the same, except, I will admit, the 
Speaker and myself, so perhaps I am not quite as detached. But 
everybody else gets the same. A person who comes in the first day gets 
paid as much as a person who has been here 40 years like me. Why? 
Because it is the responsibility and duties that we perform that are 
being compensated, not our gender.
  Now, in this bill and every other bill that has dealt with equal 
pay--however, let there be no mistake, clearly, I pay people in my 
office who have been there for 10 years more than I pay people that 
have been there a year if they are doing the same thing. Period. 
Experience counts.
  As a lawyer when I ran my law office, I paid people differently based 
upon their experience, their education, and other differentials, but 
not on the basis of gender. And like the gentleman who spoke before me, 
I have one more daughter than he has; he has two daughters, I have 
three daughters. Mr. Speaker, they would not be happy today if their 
dad came to this floor and voted against this bill, I will tell you 
that. I don't know about the gentleman's daughters, but I can tell you 
where my daughters would be.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring the Paycheck Fairness Act to the 
floor, as I did last Congress. The legislation is a critical part of 
Democrats' effort to close the gender pay gap and ensure that women 
earn equal pay for equal work. Lilly Ledbetter did not get equal pay 
for equal work. Period. Unfortunately, she was prevented by the Supreme 
Court from making her case. We corrected that.
  The House passed a bill in 2019, but the Republican-controlled Senate 
failed to do the same, a bill just like this. That was very 
disappointing, not only to those of us who have been working hard to 
close the gender pay gap in Congress, but more so to the tens of 
millions of people in the workforce who deserve to take home pay they 
have earned. This is not a gift. This is compensation based upon 
ability and contribution, not on gender.
  In America today, a woman still earns on average just 82 cents to 
every dollar earned by a man. Mr. Chairman, has that been disputed on 
this floor? From women of color it is even worse. African-American 
women earn on average only 63 cents to the dollar, while Latinas see 55 
cents for the same work.

  For women who work full time, year-round, the gender pay gap 
represents a loss of more than, as the Speaker just said, $400,000. 
That ought to be unacceptable to all of us if we believe in equality.
  This disparity does not only hurt women, it disadvantages their 
entire families, with women's pay critical to household incomes.
  Two-thirds of women are now either the primary breadwinner or co-
breadwinner of their households, and women's earnings are the main 
source of income in more than 4 in 10 households, 40 percent.
  Now, the gentlewoman from North Carolina knows full well that 
historically we have underpaid women because we thought men were the 
breadwinners. They were the people who earned the money. They were the 
people who needed money so they could support their families. That is 
not true today, if it was ever true. Those households ought not to be 
disadvantaged because women are paid less for the same work as their 
male counterparts.
  I mentioned in 1963 the promise we made as a Nation. In 2009, when I 
was majority leader for the first time, I was proud to bring the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to the floor and get it passed.

[[Page H1814]]

  I congratulate Rosa DeLauro who is on the floor today, Mr. Speaker. 
She has been indefatigable and focused and untiring--I suppose that is 
redundant--in her efforts to ensure that women were treated equally. 
And one of the best ways to treat people equally is pay them the same 
thing for the same job.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act builds on its success by making it harder 
for businesses to hide the underpayment of women in their employ 
through nondisclosure contracts and imposing new civil penalties for 
those who violate equal pay rules, among other beneficial provisions.
  Now, this has been in effect for half a century, and we haven't 
gotten there. Do we need some, yeah, let's get it done, this is what 
the law said in 1963? And we really meant it. So let's carry that out 
so when the bipartisan, nonpartisan reports are made as to who is 
making what for the same job, it will come back men and women are 
getting the same pay for the same job with the same skills and the same 
seniority.
  I hope the Senate will take up this long overdue legislation and pass 
it so President Biden can sign it into law and at long last make good 
on the promise of the Equal Pay Act nearly six decades ago.
  I thank my friend, as I just did, Rosa DeLauro for the work she has 
done. I thank Ms. DeLauro on behalf of Susan, on behalf of Stefany, on 
behalf of Anne, my daughters, on behalf of Judy and Ava and Brooklyn 
and Savannah, my three great granddaughters and my granddaughter. What 
she has done, what we can do will make a difference for them, their 
families, and our country.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the majority leader for his compliments of me. When Howard 
Coble first introduced me to the Republican Conference here he said, I 
was ``a feisty mountain woman from the Blue Ridge, who goes bear 
hunting with a switch.'' And so I have cherished that description of me 
over the years. I am a feisty woman because I grew up extraordinarily 
poor.
  And the majority leader is correct, I would not tolerate 
discrimination against me. I won't tolerate discrimination against 
anyone. I abhor discrimination. I am also an Italian American. I abhor 
that kind of discrimination and have fought against that. I fought 
against racial discrimination. I doubt there are many people in this 
body that fought more against discrimination against women than I have 
or mentored more women than I have.
  However, the majority leader also said something that made me think 
of the phrase, ``all things being equal.'' Well, rarely are all things 
equal. Obviously, when all things are equal, we want no discrimination, 
everybody to be treated the same. That is what I want.
  I have one child, a daughter. I have two grandchildren, a grandson 
and a granddaughter. I certainly don't want either one of them 
discriminated against on the basis of anything.
  But, I say to Mr. Hoyer, yes, 82 cents has been disputed. We hear the 
same old tired ``statistics.'' They are not accurate. So let's stop 
doing that. Let's deal with the facts.
  H.R. 7 is not the answer to discrimination. It is going to make it 
more difficult for employers to create jobs and to pay women and 
everybody equally. We need alternatives and we have one.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining on both sides, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McEachin). The gentleman from Virginia 
has 9\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), a co-chair of the Democratic 
Women's Caucus.

                              {time}  1345

  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me that in 2021 we are still 
having this debate on whether men and women are paid equally. And I 
just want to say to my colleague on the other side, being a Black woman 
in America, I can tell you I do not feel that she has had the 
discrimination and the disrespect in the pay scale that women of color 
have experienced. And during the brunt of this pandemic where women are 
in the forefront, those who are frontline workers, the service 
industry--predominantly women. Paycheck fairness corrects this 
injustice by allowing women to challenge pay discrimination and hold 
employers accountable.
  Many in this Chamber like to talk about leveling the playing field 
for all Americans. Then let's do it by passing this bill. And in 
America, when you walk in the room as a woman, you know you have 
overcome and you have work to do. And please don't continue to 
disrespect us by saying that everything is okay. In your world it may 
be, but today we can correct that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I have never said everything is perfectly 
okay. I said this bill is not the answer to what issues may still exist 
out there.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. 
Miller-Meeks), and applaud her for how she has handled herself in the 
past few months through all the turmoil and all of the challenges she 
has had.
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 
the National Federation of Independent Businesses opposing H.R. 7.

                                                         NFIB,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 2021.
     Hon. Bobby Scott,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx: On behalf of 
     NFIB, the nation's leading small business advocacy 
     organization, I write in opposition to H.R. 7, the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act. This legislation will add significant burdens 
     to small businesses and potentially expose them to frivolous 
     lawsuits.
       NFIB and its members believe in equal pay for equal work. 
     However, NFIB does not believe that this legislation is the 
     solution. H.R. 7 will make legitimate business-related pay 
     differences difficult to defend in court, invite frivolous 
     lawsuits against small business owners by allowing unlimited 
     compensatory and punitive damages in equal pay lawsuits, and 
     significantly increase small business paperwork burdens.
       This legislation would make it nearly impossible for a 
     small employer to defend against claims where an 
     ``alternative employment practice'' exists and could serve 
     the same business purpose without producing a wage 
     differential. Even if an employer were to demonstrate that a 
     legitimate factor such as education, training, or experience 
     accounted for a wage differential, an employee could claim 
     that an ``alternative employment practice'' existed and that 
     the employer refused to adopt such a practice. For example, 
     an employee of a small, local hardware store would be able to 
     sue an employer for refusing to adopt a business practice 
     that a much larger company uses to address wage 
     discrepancies. Forcing one-size-fits-all legislation on 
     small, independent businesses puts them at a significant 
     disadvantage relative to their larger competitors. A small 
     business may have legitimate reasons for not adopting the 
     practices of a large business. However, if an employee can 
     prove that the independent business refused to adopt the 
     ``alternative employment practice'' of a large competitor, 
     the small business automatically loses the suit.
       This legislation also prohibits an employer from asking a 
     prospective employee about wage history and prohibits an 
     employer from relying on wage history in determining wages. 
     These prohibitions create a very difficult situation for 
     small business owners. A person's written resume is only one 
     aspect of the application process; a person's salary history 
     is another essential part of gauging professional growth and 
     development. If the needs of a prospective employee and the 
     wants of a business do not match, the prospective employee 
     and the business should be able to discern this sooner rather 
     than later to avoid wasting each party's time and energy. By 
     eliminating salary history, the hiring process becomes less 
     precise and more difficult for small employers.
       This bill also puts significant paperwork burdens on small 
     business owners. It requires the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission (EEOC) to issue regulations providing for the 
     collection of employers' compensation data. Most small 
     business owners do not have a human resources department or a 
     full-time staff member in charge of reporting and compliance. 
     NFIB members find unreasonable government regulations to be 
     their sixth biggest problem and federal paperwork to be their 
     15th biggest problem when ranking their top 75 problems and 
     priorities.

[[Page H1815]]

       NFIB strongly opposes H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, 
     urges the committee to oppose the legislation in its current 
     form.
           Sincerely,

                                                Kevin Kuhlman,

                                                   Vice President,
                                     Federal Government Relations.

  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce 
this as a small business owner myself. The NFIB letter says: H.R. 7 
will add significant burdens to small businesses and potentially expose 
them to frivolous lawsuits. In addition, the bill will make legitimate 
business-related pay differences difficult to defend in court, invite 
frivolous lawsuits against small business owners by allowing unlimited 
compensatory and punitive damages in equal pay lawsuits, and 
significantly increase small business paperwork burdens.
  Moreover, the NFIB letter says that H.R. 7 will make it nearly 
impossible for a small employer to defend against claims where an 
alternative employment practice exists and could serve the same 
business purpose without producing the wage differential.
  The letter also highlights the significant paperwork burdens H.R. 7 
would place on small businesses who do not have a human resources 
department, a full-time staff member in charge, or attorneys for 
reporting and compliance.
  Mr. Speaker, having been a small business owner and supported by the 
small business owners, and during the pandemic when it is so necessary 
for us to get our small businesses up and operating, I urge my 
colleagues to take these views of small business owners into 
consideration before they vote on H.R. 7.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not just about the past, it is 
about the future. Gender-based wage discrimination exists in every 
State and in many industries.
  In the tech industry, which has a huge presence in my district in 
North Carolina's Research Triangle, women typically make thousands of 
dollars less than men in the same roles. Unsurprisingly, women in tech 
often leave the industry due to unfair compensation, much to that 
industry's detriment.
  Pay inequity also follows women into retirement. Women have, on 
average, only 70 percent of the retirement income men have.
  One of the best ways we can help close the wage gap is through salary 
negotiation training, which is one of the key provisions of this bill.
  I am thankful to groups like Ladies Get Paid and countless others 
working to empower women to help them advocate for their work.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill for the sake of future 
generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the National 
Council of Jewish Women.

                             National Council of Jewish Women,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 2021.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our 180,000 members, 
     advocates, and supporters, National Council of Jewish Women 
     (NCJW) urges you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7) 
     without amendments that limit its scope or undermine its 
     critical protections.
       NCJW is a grassroots organization of volunteers and 
     advocates who turn progressive ideals into action. Inspired 
     by Jewish values, NCJW strives for social justice by 
     improving the quality of life for women, children, and 
     families and by safeguarding individual rights and freedoms. 
     The Torah compels us tzedek, tzedek tirdof--to pursue 
     justice. To that end, we advocate for employment laws, 
     policies, and practices that provide equal pay and benefits 
     for work of comparable worth and equal opportunities for 
     advancement.
       Nearly 60 years after passage of the landmark Equal Pay 
     Act, the gender way gap persists. Overall, women earn only 82 
     cents for every dollar earned by men, and the gap is much 
     wider for women of color (Black women earn 63 cents, 
     Indigenous women earn 60 cents, Latinas earn 55 cents, and 
     some Asian American and Pacific Islander women earn only 52 
     cents). 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.
       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. I ask you to vote YES 
     on the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7) without amendments that 
     limit its scope or undermine its critical protections.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Jody Rabhan,

                                             Chief Policy Officer,
                                 National Council of Jewish Women.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).
  Ms. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of YWCA USA, I include in the Record 
a letter of support for H.R. 7.

                                                         YWCA,

                                                   April 13, 2021.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of YWCA USA, a network of 
     over 200 local associations in 45 states and the District of 
     Columbia, I write today to urge the Representative to support 
     the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7) and vote no on harmful 
     amendments. As the economy continues to struggle under the 
     weight of the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affecting 
     women and marginalized communities, there is no better time 
     to take action to improve the economic security of women and 
     families and strengthen our economy. I urge you to pass this 
     bill without amendments that limit its scope or undermines 
     its critical protections.
       For over 160 years, YWCA has been on a mission to eliminate 
     racism, empower women, and promote peace, justice, freedom, 
     and dignity for all. From our earliest days providing skills 
     and housing support to women entering the workforce in the 
     1850s, YWCA has been at the forefront of the most pressing 
     social movements--from voting rights to civil rights, from 
     affordable housing to pay equity, from violence prevention to 
     health care reform. Today, we serve over 2 million women, 
     girls and family members of all ages and backgrounds in more 
     than 1,200 communities each year.
       Informed by our extensive history, the expertise of our 
     nationwide network, and our collective commitment to 
     advocating for the equity of women and families, we believe 
     that no one should have to choose between their livelihoods 
     and their health, family, or safety. Yet far too women and 
     families, including a disproportionate number of women and 
     families of color, must make this choice every day. This has 
     become more clear as the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic 
     become more transparent. The impact of the pandemic has 
     fallen heavily on women and women of color. Women are 
     especially likely to be essential workers, but they are also 
     bearing the brunt of job losses, while shouldering increased 
     caregiving responsibilities that have pushed millions out of 
     the workforce entirely, resulting in an economic 
     ``Shesession''. Black women, Latinas, and other women of 
     color are especially likely to be on the front lines of the 
     crisis, risking their lives in jobs in health care, child 
     care, and grocery stores, all while being paid less than 
     their male counterparts.
       The bipartisan Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7) would help 
     close longstanding gender and racial wage gaps by updating 
     and strengthening the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and ensure robust 
     protections against sex-based pay discrimination. Today, on 
     average, women in the United States earn only 82 cents for 
     every dollar paid to men, amounting to an annual gender wage 
     gap of $10,157. Unfortunately, this gap is worse for women of 
     color. Among women who hold full-time, year-round jobs in the 
     United States, Black women are typically paid 63 cents, 
     Native American women 60 cents and Latinas just 55 cents for 
     every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. White, non-
     Hispanic women are paid 79 cents and Asian American women 87 
     cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, and 
     Asian American and Pacific Islander women of some ethnic and 
     national backgrounds fare much worse. The COVID-19 global 
     pandemic has exposed deepening economic disparities, further 
     unveiling how the work performed primarily by women, and 
     particularly women of color, has long been and continues to 
     be undervalued and underpaid. It is time Congress addressed 
     these deepening disparities and take steps towards real 
     economic change for women by passing the Paycheck Fairness 
     Act. We cannot afford to shortchange women as a result of 
     persistent gender pay gaps and we urge the Representative to 
     pass this bill without delay.
       YWCA USA urges the Representative to protect women's 
     economic security and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7) 
     and take critical steps towards strengthening women's 
     economic security, particularly at a time when the country 
     begins to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. At this pivotal 
     moment, Congress must take aggressive action to address the 
     economic disparities disproportionately affecting women and 
     women of color. We urge you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act 
     (H.R. 7) without harmful amendments that weaken its critical 
     protections.
       Thank you for your time and consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Elisha Rhodes,
                            Interim CEO & Chief Operating Officer.

  Ms. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, St. Louis and I rise in full support of H.R. 
7, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

[[Page H1816]]

  As a nurse, I earned around 60 percent of what my White male 
counterparts in the same position earned. I have often imagined how 
many people in my district experienced the same burdens, like how much 
overtime and missing wages we could have accrued every single month.
  We have been chronically underpaid and chronically undervalued. I 
have stood up to fight for underpaid nurses before and I stand here 
today to fight for underpaid women, especially women of color 
everywhere.
  Pay Black, pay Brown, pay indigenous, pay AAPI women what we're 
worth. Run us our money and run us our money now.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for leading and for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  It has been more than five decades since the passage of the Equal Pay 
Act of 1963, yet a woman still earns only 82 cents on average for every 
dollar earned by her male counterpart. Women of color fare much worse. 
The Paycheck Fairness Act will ensure equal pay for equal work. It is 
just that simple and it is just that overdue. Gender and racial pay 
gaps persist, and earnings lost to these gaps are felt even more during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. This falls most heavily on women.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will update and strengthen the Equal Pay 
Act to help close this gap. Pay inequities not only affect women, it 
affects children and their families. Though we have made strides in the 
past, we know the issue of equal pay persists.
  We must not pass this inequity on. I want my granddaughters, Aubrey 
and Ella, as well as my grandson, Sawyer, to live in a country where 
equal pay for equal work is the norm.
  I thank chairwoman and champion Rosa DeLauro.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, did you know that over 40 percent of mothers 
are sole or primary breadwinners for their families? It has been over 
50 years since the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, yet the problems 
that preceded that legislation remain today. So it is time for the 
Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Mr. Speaker, across the country, women are paid 80 cents to the 
dollar that men are paid, and the number is significantly lower for 
women of color. Black women make roughly 60 percent to the dollar. 
Native-American women make about 57 cents. And Latina women make just 
over 50 to the dollar.
  The discriminatory wage gap is costing women thousands of dollars a 
year for doing the exact same work as their male counterparts. And I 
see this right here in my community and my district where women are 
forced to work longer hours, harder, just to make ends meet and put 
food on the table for their families.
  My community is one of the poorest in the Nation, and the wage gap is 
one of the biggest factors for families who are really trying to get 
out of the cycle of poverty and get the support for their children so 
they can thrive.
  I am grateful to my colleagues on the Committee on Education and 
Labor for bringing this long overdue legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and 
thank him for his leadership--also, the Speaker and the ranking member.
  According to the National Women's Law Center, based on today's wage 
gap, a woman who works full-time year-round would typically lose 
$406,280 over her 40-year career. This means a woman making the median 
national salary for women would have to work almost 9 years longer than 
her male counterpart.
  Mr. Speaker, 58 years after the enactment of the Equal Pay Act, full-
time working women still earn 82 cents on average for every dollar a 
man earns, amounting to a yearly gap of almost $20,000. They, too, 
raise children. They, too, have overhead.
  In this pandemic year, we have found that 2 million women have lost 
their jobs. We know that Hispanic women earn 55 cents, Native-American 
women 60 cents, and African-American women, on average, only 63 cents.
  It is time now to put this paycheck fairness bill on the desk of the 
President of the United States. It modernizes and strengthens the Equal 
Pay Act, which is what the Lilly Ledbetter Act was, and brings the 
country one step closer to ensuring that women can receive equal pay 
for equal work.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor, a senior member of the 
Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, on the Budget, and a 
member of the Democratic Working Women's Task Force, I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 7, the landmark Paycheck Fairness Act, which 
strengthens and closes loopholes in the 1963 Equal Pay Act, including 
providing effective remedies for workers who are not being paid equal 
pay for equal work.
  I thank my colleague, the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, 
Congresswoman DeLauro, for introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act in 
every Congress since 1997, which enabled me join her as an original 
cosponsor all during those years as we fought shoulder to shoulder for 
women's equality and empowerment.
  Mr. Speaker, in January 2009, the Democratic-led 111th Congress sent 
to the President's desk the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first 
bill signed into law by President Obama, which restored the critical 
rights of workers to challenge unfair pay in court.
  Now, a Democratic-led House will push for enactment of another 
critical fair pay bill--the Paycheck Fairness Act that strengthens 
current law.
  When House has been controlled by a Democratic majority, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act has passed several times--including in the 110th Congress, 
the 111th Congress, and the 116th Congress, when it passed by a 
bipartisan vote of 242 to 187 on March 27, 2019, before dying in then-
Senate Majority Leader McConnell's legislative graveyard.
  This is the year to finish the job and send this critical legislation 
all the to President Biden's desk for signature.
  Mr. Speaker, as every woman Member of Congress knows, as our mother, 
sisters, daughters, and sorors in the workplace know all too well, the 
impact of the wage gap grows throughout a woman's career.
  According to the National Women's Law Center, based on today's wage 
gap, a woman who worked full-time, year-round would typically lose 
$406,280 over a 40-year career.
  This means a woman making the median national salary for women would 
have to work almost nine years longer than her male counterpart to make 
up this lifetime wage gap.
  Mr. Speaker, 58 years after the enactment of the Equal Pay Act, full-
time working women still earn just 82 cents, on average, for every 
dollar a man earns, amounting to a yearly gap of $10,157 between full-
time working men and women.
  The wage gap is also even larger for women of color.
  Hispanic women on average earn only 55 cents for every dollar paid to 
white, non-Hispanic men.
  Native American women on average earn only 60 cents for every dollar 
paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
  African American women on average earn only 63 cents for every dollar 
paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
  The National Partnership for Women and Families has calculated that 
$10,157 for a median family in America means more than 9 additional 
months of rent or 13 additional months of childcare.
  Indeed, if women were paid the same as men, the poverty rate for all 
working women would be cut in half and the poverty rate for working 
single mothers would be cut by nearly half.
  Because of loopholes in the law and weak sanctions for violations, 
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 has not provided the tools to truly combat 
unequal pay.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act modernizes and strengthens the Equal Pay 
Act and brings the country one step closer to ensuring that women 
receive equal pay for equal work in the following ways:
  1. Requires employers to prove that pay disparities exist for 
legitimate, job-related reasons and puts the burden on employers to 
show the disparity is not sex-based, but job-related and necessary;
  2. Bans retaliation against workers who voluntarily discuss or 
disclose their wages;
  3. Ensures women receive the same robust remedies for sex-based pay 
discrimination available to those subjected to discrimination based on 
race and national origin;

[[Page H1817]]

  4. Removes obstacles in the Equal Pay Act to facilitate a wronged 
worker's participation in class action lawsuits that challenge systemic 
pay discrimination;
  5. Makes improvements in the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission's (EEOC's) and the Department of Labor's tools for enforcing 
the Equal Pay Act;
  6. Provides assistance to all businesses to help them with their 
equal pay practices, recognizes excellence in pay practices by 
businesses, and empowers women and girls by creating a negotiation 
skills training program; and
  7. Prohibits employers from seeking salary history in determining 
future pay, so that pay discrimination does not follow women from job 
to job.
  Finally, equal pay is not simply a women's issue, but a family issue.
  Two-thirds of mothers are either the sole breadwinner or a co-
breadwinner in the household, so their earnings are vital to their 
families.
  When women bring home less money each day, it means they have less 
for the everyday needs of their families--groceries, rent, childcare, 
and doctors' visits.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is strongly endorsed by a coalition of more 
than 200 organizations, including AAUW, National Women's Law Center, 
National Partnership for Women and Families, National Organization for 
Women, National Committee on Pay Equity, MomsRising, UltraViolet, 
Center for Law and Social Policy, The Leadership Conference on Civil 
and Human Rights, NAACP, League of Women Voters, U.S. Women's Chamber 
of Commerce, AFL-CIO, SEIU, United Steelworkers, AFSCME, American 
Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, American Psychological 
Association, Anti-Defamation League, and many more.
  I urge all members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 7, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act of 2021, to ensure effective remedies for workers who are 
not being paid equal pay for equal work.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Women, 
in terms of employment and pay, have made great strides in this 
country. When I was graduating from high school, basically there were 
three open professions for women: nursing, teaching, and being a 
secretary. We have come a long way. We have also come a long way in 
terms of wages.
  Do we have ways to go in this country in terms of the way everybody 
thinks about people who are different from them? We certainly do. 
Republicans and Democrats both agree that pay discrimination is 
repugnant and illegal. I will say it again and again. It is repugnant 
and illegal.
  Despite misguided claims from the other side, this underlying 
principle is not up for debate. Women should not be paid less than men 
for equal work.
  However, Republicans are not in the business of passing radical and 
prescriptive bills just to get flashy headlines and score cheap 
political points.
  We are equally committed to promoting both fairness and strong 
policymaking, and when judged by these standards, today's bill falls 
woefully short. Pay discrimination is illegal.
  You know, we have really heard nothing about the inadequacies of the 
current law or the current processes. What we have heard is that we 
need new legislation. Republicans disagree with that. Again, we want 
pay discrimination to be illegal and we want any such cases to be 
treated seriously and to be looked at. This bill offers no new 
protection against pay discrimination in the workplace, however. And 
that is sorely lacking in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7 is nothing more than a trial lawyer payout at the 
expense of hardworking women. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time to secure equal pay for equal 
work. Over the past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has driven over 2 
million women out of the workforce. As women return to the workplace, 
failure to strengthen the equal pay protections will exacerbate and 
entrench the gender wage gap for years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that discrimination exists. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act will allow victims the tools they need to combat and also 
close loopholes that allows employers to escape liability for 
discriminatory pay differences.
  Today, we are talking about financial security for millions of 
families. Sixty-four percent of mothers are either the sole family 
breadwinner or co-breadwinner. We cannot continue to allow gender-based 
pay inequity to rob half of all workers and their families the wages 
they deserve.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is our chance to finally help close the 
gender wage gap by reinforcing the Equal Pay Act and strengthening 
protections for working women. The bill would ensure that gender 
equality on the job is not an aspiration but a reality.
  Madam Speaker, I ask our colleagues to support the legislation, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I have strongly supported the 
Paycheck Fairness Act and have done so for over two decades.
  When the legislation finally got a vote in the House in 2008, I voted 
``yes'' I voted ``yes'' again in 2009 and 2019. I have cosponsored the 
Paycheck Fairness Act since 2015.
  In January, I again enthusiastically cosponsored H.R. 7--the Paycheck 
Fairness Act.
  In late March, however, H.R. 7 was radically altered during markup in 
the Education and Labor Committee with a new definition of ``sex'' that 
according to serious legal analysis will compel employers to subsidize 
abortion on demand.
  Because I respect the inherent dignity and value of unborn baby girls 
and boys who will be put at grave risk of death by dismemberment 
abortion and chemical poisoning if H.R 7 is enacted in its current 
form, I will vote ``no'' today.
  In a letter dated April 14, the United States Conference of Catholic 
Bishops said: ``H.R. 7 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 
The FLSA, among other things, prohibits unequal wages between men and 
women performing equal work. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d)(l). Wages include 
all forms of remuneration, including ``frinqe benefits'' such as 
``medical, hospital, [and] accident . . . insurance,'' ``life 
insurance,'' ``retirement benefits,'' and ``leave.'' 29 C.F.R. 1620.10, 
1620.11.
  ``Strengthening federal law to ensure equal compensation for equal 
work as between men and women is a laudable legislative goal, and we 
heartily endorse that goal . . . Unfortunately, H.R. 7 has moved in a 
different direction . . . We believe that if the bill were to pass, the 
Fair Labor Standards Act could be construed to require employers, 
including even religious organizations, to cover and pay for abortions 
. . . we urge members to oppose the redefinition of sex in H.R. 7 and 
instead revert to the version of the bill that passed the House in the 
116th Congress.''
  The National Right to Life Committee opposed the redefinition of 
``sex'' and opposes the bill. They said in a letter: ``H.R. 7 makes 
definitional changes to sex to include pregnancy, childbirth, or a 
related medical condition. It is well established that abortion will be 
regarded as a ``related medical condition.'' See 29C.F.R.pt.1604 
App.(1986) and Doe v. CARS Protection Plus, lnc., 527F.3d 358 
(3dCir.2008).
  ``Historically, when Congress has addressed discrimination based on 
sex, rules of construction have been added to prevent requiring funding 
of abortion. Since there is no rule of construction that would make 
this legislation abortion-neutral, it is likely that H.R. 7 could be 
used to sue employers for a lack of elective abortion coverage.''
  In like manner, the Susan B. Anthony List opposes the bill noting 
that H.R. 7 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by adding 
``pregnancy childbirth, or a related medical condition'' to the 
definition of ``sex,'' which courts have interpreted broadly to include 
abortion.''
  Other pro-life organizations urged a ``no'' vote including March for 
Life Action.
  Madam Speaker, underscoring my commitment to the legislation without 
the redefinition of the term ``sex'', yesterday I introduced H.R 2490--
the Paycheck Fairness Act with the identical H.R. 7 language from 
January.
  H.R. 2490 is needed to ensure that the noble goals embedded in the 
landmark law, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, are achieved.
  Among its provisions H.R. 2490:
  Prohibits employers from seeking the salary history of prospective 
employees. By banning reliance on salary history in determining future 
pay, the bill ensures that prior pay discrimination doesn't follow 
workers from job to job.
  Bans retaliation against workers who discuss their wages.
  Improves research on the gender pay gap. The bill instructs DOL to 
conduct studies and review available research and data to provide 
information on how to identify, correct, and eliminate illegal wage 
disparities.
  Requires the collection of wage data from federal contractors and 
directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to

[[Page H1818]]

conduct a survey of available wage information and create a system of 
wage data in order to help the Department of Labor uncover wage 
discrimination.
  Provides a small business exception. The Equal Pay Act and the Fair 
Labor Standards Act have an exemption for small businesses that 
generate less than $500,000 in annual revenues a year, and the Paycheck 
Fairness Act would keep that exemption intact.
  Supports small businesses with technical assistance.
  Provides assistance to all businesses to help them with their equal 
pay practices, recognize excellence in pay practices by businesses, and 
empower workers by creating a negotiation skills training program.
  I include in the Record the following letters of opposition.

                                          United States Conference


                                          of Catholic Bishops,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 2021.
       Dear Representative: We write to raise pro-life and other 
     concerns about the Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7.
       H.R. 7 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FLSA, 
     among other things, prohibits unequal wages between men and 
     women performing equal work. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d)(l). Wages 
     include all forms of remuneration, including ``fringe 
     benefits'' such as ``medical, hospital, [and] accident . . . 
     insurance,'' ``life insurance,'' ``retirement benefits,'' and 
     ``leave.'' 29 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 1620.10, 1620.11.
       Strengthening federal law to ensure equal compensation for 
     equal work as between men and women is a laudable legislative 
     goal, and we heartily endorse that goal. See Economic Justice 
     for All, no. 167 (1986), (``Particular attention is needed to 
     achieve pay equity between men and women''); Compendium of 
     the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 295 (2004) (``An 
     urgent need to recognize effectively the rights of women in 
     the workplace is seen especially under the aspects of pay, 
     insurance and social security.''); Pope Francis, Audience 
     with Delegates from the Confederation of Trade Unions in 
     Italy (June 28, 2017) (``And what I am about to say may seem 
     obvious, but in the world of work women are still in second 
     class. You might say, `No, but there is that businesswoman, 
     that other one . . .'; yes, but if women earn less, are more 
     easily exploited . . . do something.''). Indeed, Congress 
     could do more in this area.
       Unfortunately, H.R. 7 has moved in a different direction. 
     On March 24, the House Committee on Education and Labor 
     marked up the bill to redefine the term .. ``sex'' to include 
     such items as ``sex stereotypes,'' ``pregnancy, child birth, 
     or a related medical condition,'' ``sexual orientation.'' 
     ``gender identity,'' and ``sex characteristics. including 
     intersex traits.''
       H.R. 7's redefinition of sex in the FLSA is seriously 
     problematic. We believe that if the bill were to pass, the 
     FLSA could be construed to require employers, including even 
     religious organizations, to (a) cover and pay for abortions, 
     contraceptives, and gender transition procedures in their 
     health plans (b) treat same-sex civil marriages as equivalent 
     to traditional marriages in the provision of spousal 
     benefits, and (c) facilitate abortions and gender transition 
     procedures by providing paid leave for that purpose as part 
     of existing paid leave programs. In this way, the bill would 
     require many religious organizations to be involved in and to 
     approve things they sincerely believe are wrong.
       Some may argue that Title VII already imposes all or some 
     of these requirements. That argument--in addition to 
     rendering the redefinition of ``sex'' in this bill seemingly 
     redundant in whole or in part--overlooks the fact that Title 
     VII has religious exemptions and abortion-neutral language 
     that are not found in the FLSA. The Supreme Court has put off 
     to another day the resolution of the question of exactly how 
     the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII intersect with 
     the religious convictions of employers. Bostock v. Clayton 
     County. 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1753-54 (2020). H.R. 7 would raise a 
     similar question but in a different statutory setting, one in 
     which the critical religious exemptions and abortion-neutral 
     language of Title VII are entirely missing.
       For these reasons, we urge members to oppose the 
     redefinition of sex in H.R. 7 and instead revert to the 
     version of the bill that passed the House in the 116th 
     Congress.
           Sincerely.
     His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan,
       Archbishop of New York, Chairman, Committee for Religious 
     Liberty.
     Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley,
       Archbishop of Oklahoma City, Chairman, Committee on 
     Domestic Justice And Human Development.
     Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann,
       Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas, Chairman, Committee on 
     Pro-Life Activities.
     Most Rev. David A. Konderla,
       Bishop of Tulsa, Chairman, Subcommittee for the Promotion, 
     and Defense of Marriage.
                                  ____

                                                 National Right to


                                         Life Committee, Inc.,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 13, 2021.
     Re In Opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7).

       Dear Representative: This week, the House will consider the 
     Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7). While the legislation is 
     meant to address potential discrimination regarding the 
     gender pay gap, the legislation was amended to contain 
     language that could be construed to require employers to 
     cover elective abortion in their healthcare benefits.
       Because of this change, National Right to Life urges you to 
     oppose the bill and reserves the right to include a House 
     roll call on this measure in our scorecard of key pro-life 
     votes of the 117th Congress.
       H.R. 7 states that it constitutes discrimination to provide 
     disparate wages based on sex, and the legislation creates 
     more opportunities to seek remedies for those challenging 
     compensation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
     (EEOC) has defined equal pay under the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to include all forms of 
     compensation, including healthcare benefits.
       H.R. 7 makes definitional changes to ``sex'' to include 
     ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.'' It 
     is well established that abortion will be regarded as a 
     ``related medical condition.'' See 29 C.F.R. pt. 1604 App. 
     (1986) and Doe v. CARS Protection Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358 
     (3d Cir. 2008).
       Historically, when Congress has addressed discrimination 
     based on sex, rules of construction have been added to 
     prevent requiring funding of abortion. Since there is no rule 
     of construction that would make this legislation abortion-
     neutral, it is likely that H.R. 7 could be used to sue 
     employers for a lack of elective abortion coverage.
       Under H.R. 7, a person could make a claim that an 
     employer's failure to provide health coverage for abortion is 
     discriminatory if an employer provides health coverage for 
     male-specific items.
       For the reasons above, National Right to Life opposes the 
     current version of H.R. 7 and reserves the right to include a 
     House roll call on this measure in our scorecard of key pro-
     life votes of the 117th Congress.
       Should you have any questions, please contact us.
       Thank you for your consideration of NRLC's position on this 
     matter.
       Respectfully submitted,
     Carol Tobias,
       President.
     David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.,
       Executive Director.
     Jennifer Popik, J.D.,
       Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                        Susan B. Anthony List,

                                                   April 13, 2021.
       Dear Representative: I write to advise you that Susan B. 
     Anthony List, on behalf of our more than 900,000 members, 
     opposes H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was amended 
     at the last minute to add a definition of sex that could 
     force employers to cover elective abortion through employee 
     benefits under the guise of fairness.
       H.R. 7 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by 
     adding ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical 
     condition'' to the definition of ``sex,'' which courts have 
     interpreted broadly to include abortion.
       The abortion implications are buried in layers of court 
     interpretations and regulations of the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Fair Labor Standards Act 
     (FSLA) prohibits sex discrimination in the area of employee 
     wages. And while the FSLA does not explicitly include 
     benefits like health coverage in its definition of wages, the 
     EEOC has interpreted wages to include benefits. The EEOC 
     states that the Equal Pay Act, part of the FSLA, ``requires 
     that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay 
     for equal work.'' The Department of Labor and the EEOC 
     further stipulate that equal pay includes benefits, and the 
     EEOC allows a person to go straight to court with claims this 
     provision has been violated. There is nothing preventing a 
     person from claiming sex discrimination if an employer 
     provides health coverage for all of men's health services but 
     does not pay for coverage for abortion services for women.
       When the terms ``pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical 
     condition'' were used in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act 
     four decades ago, the terms were accompanied by language 
     stating that employers could not be forced to cover abortion 
     in health insurance benefits except to save the life of the 
     mother. While H.R. 7 does not override that limited 
     safeguard, it does fail to extend equivalent safeguards to 
     address its much broader, more sweeping reach. Without 
     abortion neutral language in H.R. 7, this legislation opens 
     the door for employers to be sued for sex discrimination by 
     simply refraining from funding abortion on demand in employee 
     health plans.
       Susan B. Anthony List opposes and will score against H.R. 
     7.
           Sincerely,
                                            Marjorie Dannenfelser,
                                                        President.

[[Page H1819]]

     
                                  ____
                                        March for Life Action,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 2021.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of March for Life Action and 
     the millions of pro-life Americans who march to end abortion, 
     I am writing to voice our opposition to H.R. 7, the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act. While March for Life Action has no position on 
     the original bill, inexplicably the bill language was changed 
     this Congress to include troubling language that seems to 
     have the singular purpose of promoting abortion.
       The definition included in Section 2 includes ``pregnancy 
     or related medical condition,'' which amends the Equal Pay 
     Act portion of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This law states 
     that it constitutes discrimination to provide different wages 
     to individuals based on sex. The EEOC defines equal pay under 
     the FLSA/Equal Pay Act to mean all forms of compensation, 
     including benefits.
       By stating that ``sex'' includes ``pregnancy or related 
     medical condition,'' the bill establishes the expectation 
     that women will be given ``equal benefits'' related to 
     pregnancy and abortion. The legislation gives power to the 
     Federal government to use its full force to attack health 
     care providers, including businesses, which do not include 
     full abortion coverage in their plans, and be subject to the 
     enhanced penalties laid out in the bill.
       Clearly this legislation is not about fairness, however it 
     is pushing a radical abortion scheme that is opposed by most 
     Americans. For these reasons, March for Life Action will 
     score against H.R. 7 in our annual scorecard for the 117th 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Thomas McClusky,
     President, March for Life Action.
                                  ____

  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my 
support for the passage of H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. This 
landmark legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor, will close 
loopholes in the Equal Pay Act to better protect and promote effective 
remedies for workers still subject to inequitable and insufficient pay.
  Signed into law by President John F. Kennedy in 1963, the Equal Pay 
Act was the first anti-discrimination law addressing wage differences 
at the federal level. Now, half a century after its enactment, women 
and minorities still face significant wage disparities despite making 
great strides in the workforce. According to a study conducted by the 
U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, the median earnings for 
women in Texas is $36k, compared to the median earnings of $46k for 
men. Across the Nation, women are only earning on average 82 cents for 
every dollar a man makes in similar, full-time positions. The 
differences are only exacerbated when you take into consideration that 
Black women make 63 cents, Native American women 60 cents, and Hispanic 
women 55 cents.
  As the first Black woman elected in Dallas and someone who has worked 
in fields dominated by men, I have witnessed and experienced firsthand 
the biases and hardships that women and minorities face in our 
workforce. That is why I am proud to announce that the advances made in 
this legislation are wide-ranging and significant. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act will protect working women against retaliation for 
discussing salaries, prohibit employers from screening job applicants 
based on their salary history, and finally require employers to prove 
that pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons. 
Additionally, this effort will make improvements to the tools available 
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of 
Labor to enforce the Equal Pay Act.
  Madam Speaker, as a member of the Democratic Women's Caucus, I am 
committed to advancing the professional development and financial 
security of women and minorities in our workforce. That is why I would 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
legislation.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill I'm proud to have voted for in the 
previous Congress.
  Today, women make up the majority of the college-educated workforce, 
yet only earn approximately 82 percent of what men earn. For women of 
color, the pay gap is even worse.
  This legislation is critical because it makes significant progress in 
eliminating pay discrimination against women by providing them the 
necessary protections and tools to combat sex-based pay discrimination.
  Simply put, ensuring that one half of the workforce is paid as much 
for the same job as the other half is a matter of basic rights and 
fairness. Women deserve better, and I look forward to voting for this 
bill once again.

                              {time}  1400

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DelBene). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Each further amendment printed in part B of House Report 117-15 not 
earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 
of House Resolution 303, 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.
  It shall be in order at any time 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 House Report 117-
15, not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 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.

          Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House 
Resolution 303, I rise to offer amendments en bloc.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, 
printed in part B of House Report 117-15, offered by Mr. Scott of 
Virginia:


            AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. BEYER OF VIRGINIA

       In subsection (f) as added to section 709 of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964 by the amendment made by section 7 of the 
     bill, strike paragraph (1) and insert the following:
       (1) Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, the Commission shall provide for the annual 
     collection from employers of compensation data disaggregated 
     by the sex, race, and national origin of employees. The 
     Commission may also require employers to submit other 
     employment-related data (including hiring, termination, and 
     promotion data) so disaggregated.
       At the end of subparagraph (2) of subsection (f) as added 
     to section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by the 
     amendment made by section 7 of the bill, strike the last 
     sentence and insert the following:
     The Commission shall also consider factors including the 
     imposition of burdens on employers, the frequency of required 
     reports (including the size of employers required to prepare 
     reports), appropriate protections for maintaining data 
     confidentiality, and the most effective format to report such 
     data.
       In paragraph (3) of subsection (f) as added to section 709 
     of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by the amendment made by 
     section 7 of the bill, strike ``(3)'' and all that follows 
     through subparagraph (C), and insert the following:
       ``(3)(A) For each 12-month reporting period for an 
     employer, the data collected under paragraph (1) shall 
     include compensation data disaggregated by the categories 
     described in subparagraph (E).
       ``(B) For the purposes of collecting the disaggregated 
     compensation data described in subparagraph (A), the 
     Commission may use compensation ranges reporting--
       ``(i) the number of employees of the employer who earn 
     compensation in an amount that falls within such compensation 
     range; and
       ``(ii) the total number of hours worked by such employees.
       ``(C) If the Commission uses compensation ranges to collect 
     the pay data described in subparagraph (A), the Commission 
     may adjust such compensation ranges--
       ``(i) if the Commission determines that such adjustment is 
     necessary to enhance enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting 
     pay discrimination; or
       ``(ii) for inflation, in consultation with the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics.''.
       In subparagraph (D) of subsection (f)(3) as added to 
     section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by the amendment 
     made by section 7 of the bill, strike ``shall'' and insert 
     ``may''.
       In subparagraph (G) of subsection (f)(3) as added to 
     section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by the amendment 
     made by section 7 of the bill, strike ``annually'' and insert 
     ``at 18-month intervals''.


           AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MS. NEWMAN OF ILLINOIS

       Page 28, after line 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 12. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Each employer shall post and keep posted, 
     in conspicuous places on the premises of the employer where 
     notices to employees are customarily posted, a notice, to be 
     prepared or approved by the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission and the Secretary of Labor, of the requirements 
     described in this Act (or the amendments made by such Act).
       (b) Relation to Existing Notices.--The notice under 
     subsection (a) may be incorporated into notices required of 
     the employer as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Digital Notice.--With respect to the notice under 
     subsection (a), each employer shall--

[[Page H1820]]

       (1) post electronic copies of the notice on an internal 
     website to which employees have access; and
       (2) notify employees on such internal website of the 
     location of the place on the premises where the notice is 
     posted.
       Page 28, beginning on line 18, redesignate sections 12 and 
     13 as sections 13 and 14, respectively.


        AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MS. OCASIO-CORTEZ OF NEW YORK

       On page 12, after line 15, insert the following:
       (a) Negotiation Bias Training.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish a 
     program to award contracts and grants for the purpose of 
     training employers about the role that salary negotiation and 
     other inconsistent wage setting practices can have on 
     allowing bias to enter compensation.
       (2) Training topics.--Each training program established 
     using funds under section (a) shall include an overview of 
     how structural issues may cause inequitable earning and 
     advancement opportunities for women and people of color and 
     assist employers in examining the impact of a range of 
     practices on such opportunities, including--
       (A) self-auditing to identify structural issues that allow 
     bias and inequity to enter compensation;
       (B) recruitment of candidates to ensure diverse pools of 
     applicants;
       (C) salary negotiations that result in similarly qualified 
     workers entering at different rates of pay;
       (D) internal equity among workers with similar skills, 
     effort, responsibility and working conditions;
       (E) consistent use of market rates and incentives driven by 
     industry competitiveness;
       (F) evaluation of the rate of employee progress and 
     advancement to higher paid positions;
       (G) work assignments that result in greater opportunity for 
     advancement;
       (H) training, development and promotion opportunities;
       (I) impact of mid-level or senior level hiring in 
     comparison to wage rates of incumbent workers;
       (J) opportunities to win commissions and bonuses;
       (K) performance reviews and raises;
       (L) processes for adjusting pay to address inconsistency 
     and inequity in compensation; and
       (M) other topics that research identifies as a common area 
     for assumptions, bias and inequity to impact compensation.
       On page 12, line 16, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       On page 13, line 19, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       On page 14, line 12, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.


           AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MR. TORRES OF NEW YORK

       Page 16, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 
     18, line 6, and insert the following:
       (b) Research on Gender Pay Gap in Teenage Labor Force.--
       (1) Research review.--Not later than 12 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor, 
     acting through the Director of the Women's Bureau, shall 
     conduct a review and develop a synthesis of research on the 
     gender wage gap among younger workers existing as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act, and shall make such review and 
     synthesis available on a publicly accessible website of the 
     Department of Labor.
       (2) Authority to commission studies.--Not later than 36 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Labor, acting through the Director of the 
     Women's Bureau, shall request proposals and commission 
     studies that can advance knowledge on the gender wage gap 
     among younger workers, and shall make such studies available 
     on a publicly accessible website of the Department of Labor.


           AMENDMENT NO. 6 OFFERED BY MS. WILLIAMS OF GEORGIA

       Page 27, after line 16, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 10. NATIONAL EQUAL PAY ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE.

       (a) In General.--There is established the National Equal 
     Pay Enforcement Task Force, consisting of representatives 
     from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the 
     Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, and the 
     Office of Personnel Management.
       (b) Mission.--In order to improve compliance, public 
     education, and enforcement of equal pay laws, the National 
     Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force will ensure that the 
     agencies in subsection (a) are coordinating efforts and 
     limiting potential gaps in enforcement.
       (c) Duties.--The National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force 
     shall investigate challenges related to pay inequity pursuant 
     to its mission in subsection (b), advance recommendations to 
     address those challenges, and create action plans to 
     implement the recommendations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, these amendments will: require the EEOC to provide for 
the collection of annual compensation data for employees disaggregated 
by race, sex, and national origin; add a requirement that employers 
post notices and distribute information electronically informing 
employees of their rights under this act; direct the Department of 
Labor establish a program to award grants to employers to engage in 
training and conduct self-audits to identify and reduce bias in pay 
practices; direct the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study and a 
research literature review of gender wage gap in the teenage workforce; 
and reestablish the National Equal Pay Equity Task Force that had been 
set up under the Obama administration to coordinate efforts between the 
Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Office of 
Personnel Management.
  These amendments will make meaningful improvements to the bill, and I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendments. I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the en bloc amendments.
  Madam Speaker, in America, discriminating in pay based on sex is 
illegal, as codified in the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act.
  Democrats claim H.R. 7 will improve upon these bipartisan laws to 
create new opportunities for women to fight pay discrimination. What 
H.R. 7 actually does is create new opportunities for trial lawyers to 
earn higher paychecks while offering no new protections for pay 
discrimination in the workplace.
  Unfortunately, I cannot support any of the Democrat amendments to 
H.R. 7 because none of them addresses the numerous unworkable and 
onerous provisions in the bill.
  I appreciate that Representative Beyer's amendment recognizes the 
very serious problems with H.R. 7 by attempting to place a fig leaf on 
the expansive government data collection mandate in the bill. However, 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, is still required to 
implement the draconian data collection scheme in the underlying bill, 
which is still extremely misguided, expensive, and unnecessary.
  H.R. 7 requires business owners to submit reams of pay data to the 
EEOC disaggregated by job category, race, sex, and ethnicity. Moreover, 
the collection mandate also includes other employment-related data, 
including hiring, termination, and promotion data, which even the 
discredited 2016 Obama administration pay data collection scheme did 
not include.
  The data collection mandate in H.R. 7 raises several concerns.
  First, it puts at risk volumes of highly confidential pay data 
involving millions of individual workers. We all know of the widespread 
data breaches the Federal Government has suffered.
  Second, EEOC will not be able to manage or properly use this data. It 
has never been explained what exactly the EEOC will do with this data. 
Madam Speaker, data is not the same as information.
  Third, this mandate is overly burdensome. Under the Obama 
administration scheme, the data cells required from business owners 
when they file an Employer Information Report, EEO-1, with EEOC 
expanded 180 cells to 3,660. Let me say that again: from 180 cells to 
3,660. H.R. 7's scheme will add on hundreds, if not thousands, of more 
data cells.
  EEOC has estimated that with the new reams of pay data added, the 
collection will cost business owners more than $600 million annually. I 
doubt that is going to help one single woman in this country.
  Although this amendment purports to give EEOC more discretion to 
implement the pay data collection, this data collection mandate should 
simply be removed from the bill.
  In any event, discretion cuts both ways, and the Democrat-controlled 
EEOC may choose to implement a data collection scheme even more 
expansive.
  Let me be clear that the Beyer amendment does not improve the 
draconian pay data collection mandate in

[[Page H1821]]

the underlying bill or the other serious flaws in other sections of 
H.R. 7 we have talked about today.
  Representative Newman's amendment takes a longstanding reasonable 
requirement and makes it disruptive and unworkable.
  First, the amendment requires a workplace notice posting of a 
partisan special-interest bill which fails to address pay 
discrimination in the workplace.
  Second, under current law, covered employers must post a notice of 
the equal employment opportunity rights in a conspicuous place at the 
workplace. Employees who telecommute or otherwise do not have access to 
the physical notice must be provided an electronic version. Under 
Representative Newman's amendment, the employer must post electronic 
copies of a new notice on an internal website to which employees have 
access. This is unrealistic. H.R. 7 applies to millions of small 
businesses that do not have websites, much less internal websites for 
their employees.
  In keep with the other impractical provisions in H.R. 7, the 
amendment adds another onerous requirement on small businesses that 
will be stuck with the bill.
  Representative Ocasio-Cortez' amendment would create a new program 
for the Department of Labor to--I hate to say this word--``train'' 
employers regarding bias in negotiation and other wage-setting 
practices. The amendment includes a non-exhaustive list of 13 wage-
setting practices on which employers allegedly need education. 
Employers may understandably review this list as 13 new ways for trial 
lawyers to allege violations of the Equal Pay Act.
  I will compliment one aspect of Representative Ocasio-Cortez' 
amendment. It mentions compensation self-audits. Republicans agree that 
self-audits can be a useful tool in combating pay discrimination, and 
we urge support for the Republican substitute amendment which 
encourages employers to conduct self-evaluations to identify 
potentially unlawful pay differences and to take steps to rectify any 
unlawful pay practices. Unfortunately, H.R. 7 does not encourage these 
self-evaluations.

  Representative Williams' amendment reestablishes the Obama-era 
National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force. This amendment would 
establish another politically biased government bureaucracy that 
includes agencies such as the EEOC and the Department of Labor already 
tasked with enforcing laws against pay discrimination and ensuring 
compliance with those laws.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support my amendment to H.R. 7.
  I was privileged to serve on the Science Committee and study physics 
as an undergraduate, and I have always been impressed with the 
Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It says you can't measure something 
without changing it.
  As a longtime businessman, we always wanted to be driven by data 
because you can't manage what you don't measure.
  Receiving equal pay should not have to depend on an anonymous note 
writer letting you know that you are being underpaid. Guaranteeing that 
women and men receive equal pay for equal work is a principle rooted in 
our Nation's commitment to equality and fairness.
  My amendment would require employers to report pay data by race, 
national origin, and gender to the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission and for that data to be shared with the Office of Federal 
Contract Compliance Programs.
  It would lengthen the timeframe for inception of the pay data 
collection from 18 to 24 months, providing the EEOC with more time to 
develop and execute an effective pay data collection.
  I believe it is plausible, Madam Speaker, to say that more than 90 
percent of paychecks are prepared by software, either internal or 
external. I remember preparing paychecks by hand, but it is a very 
small business that does that anymore. That software will evolve 
overnight, probably through the course of this debate, and the burden 
is likely to be small.
  The amendment also permits, but doesn't require, the use of pay bands 
or hours-worked data and provides the EEOC with flexibility in what 
type of compensation data to use. Importantly, it also gives the EEOC 
the discretion to collect additional employment-related data but also 
to consider employer burden, data format, and confidentiality.
  Pay data reporting by employers promises to shine light on race and 
gender pay disparities, increase the likelihood of employer self-
analysis and self-correction, and identify the areas of concern for 
further investigation by enforcement agencies.
  Reporting this data will also allow the EEOC to see which employers 
have racial or gender pay gaps that differ significantly from the pay 
patterns from other employers in their industry and region.
  I can also say, after almost 50 years of adapting to Federal 
regulations, almost every business can find a way to profit from it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I have two additional speakers.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Newman).
  Ms. NEWMAN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Ms. Foxx for her comments, 
and I will share a tip because I am a former small business owner. So, 
there is this great thing called communication. You can chat with one 
another and talk about some of their rights, so I recommend it for all 
that ask.
  Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the millions of women in the 
workforce that to this day are still only making 82 cents on every 
dollar. My amazing colleagues have identified lots of stats that are 
very, very convincing with strong data.
  I ask today that everyone consider the 15 to 20 percent of the female 
workforce who have either paused or stopped their careers--or ruined 
their careers, which many would say--because of the pandemic. It has 
been devastating, as we all know.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act builds on the Equal Pay Act and the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by making it harder for employers to pay women 
less than men for the same work.
  When woman return to the workforce, and I pray that they do, we must 
ensure that they are aware of their rights under legislation--verbally, 
electronically, by any means; it all works--which is why I have 
introduced an amendment that requires employers to display a poster in 
their workplace or their employment worksite, or by email, or whatever 
they can do, so workers clearly understand that they have rights under 
this act.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment and this 
legislation so we can ensure equal work means equal pay.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).
  Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the Paycheck Fairness Act and my amendment to this bill.
  On average, full-time working women need to work well into the next 
year to catch up to the salary our male counterparts earned the 
previous year. March 24 marked the day that women's salaries, on 
average, caught up to the salaries of our male counterparts in 2020. 
For several subgroups of women, this date won't come until later this 
year. For example, as a Black woman, it will take until August--an 
additional 8 months--to make the same salary of our male counterparts 
as they did in 2020.
  The American people look to Congress to be a force for economic 
justice and create policies that are fair and just. It is simply wrong 
that in the 21st century women still face pay inequity. That is why I 
am proud to support the Paycheck Fairness Act, which will strengthen 
existing laws to ensure that women are getting the pay that they 
deserve.

[[Page H1822]]

  My amendment will build on this crucial legislation by reestablishing 
the Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force. This task force, which previously 
existed during the Obama-Biden administration, will ensure Federal 
agencies are working together to limit any potential gaps in 
enforcement of equal pay laws. Putting this task force back in place 
will bring us one step closer to ensuring that women finally receive 
equal pay for equal work.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the 
bill before us today to ensure that women are paid fairly.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I hope we would adopt these 
three good amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I support equal pay for equal work. I don't 
know how many times Republicans have to say that, but we will keep 
saying it if necessary because equal pay for equal work is the right 
thing to do, but it is also required under two Federal statutes, and in 
most cases it is being adhered to.
  Congress should focus on policies that will continue to increase 
economic opportunity and expand options for all workers. That is what 
we should be doing in the Education and Labor Committee: looking for 
ways to increase economic opportunity and expand options for all 
workers.
  We shouldn't be doing away with pipeline jobs, we shouldn't be 
raising taxes, and we shouldn't be decreasing options for people to 
work in this country; but that is what this administration is doing, 
and that is what the other side is doing.
  The Democrat amendments and the underlying bill fail miserably in 
terms of increasing options and expanding economic opportunity. It is 
pushing people into the bands, making everybody the same and treating 
everybody as though they have no individuality, they shouldn't be 
innovative, they shouldn't be creative, and they shouldn't strive for 
more. That is not the way to go.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Democrat en bloc 
amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia.
  The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam 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.


              Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Miller-Meeks

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
4 printed in part B of House Report 117-15.
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I rise as the designee of 
Representative Stefanik, and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all of the bill and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be referred to as the ``Wage Equity Act of 
     2021''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       (1) In 1963, Congress passed on a bipartisan basis the 
     Equal Pay Act of 1963 to prohibit discrimination on account 
     of sex in the payment of wages for equal work performed by 
     employees for employers engaged in commerce or in the 
     production of goods for commerce.
       (2) Following the passage of such Act, in 1964, Congress 
     passed on a bipartisan basis the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
     Since the passage of both the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964, women have made significant 
     strides, both in the workforce and in their educational 
     pursuits.
       (3) Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were over 
     77,000,000 women in the workforce, the most in American 
     history. Of the 2,000,000 jobs created in 2019, 53 percent 
     went to women. This follows a trend that has been rising for 
     some time. Women are graduating from college at a higher rate 
     than their male counter parts, making up 61 percent of all 
     college degrees conferred in 2018. Additionally, according to 
     a recent survey of working women, more than half are their 
     family's primary breadwinner.
       (4) The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on 
     working women, resulting in over 2 million women leaving the 
     workforce since February 2020.
       (5) Despite these advances there is still concern among the 
     American public that gender-based wage discrimination has not 
     been eliminated.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFYING SEX-BASED DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITION.

       Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is amended by inserting ``bona fide 
     business-related'' after ``any other''.

     SEC. 4. JOB AND WAGE ANALYSIS.

       Section 16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 216) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) An employer shall not be liable in an action 
     brought against the employer for a violation of section 6(d) 
     if--
       ``(A) during the period beginning on the date that is 3 
     years before the date on which the action is brought and 
     ending on the date that is 1 day before the date on which the 
     action is brought, such employer completes a job and wage 
     analysis audit to determine whether there are differentials 
     in wage rates among such employees that may violate section 
     6(d);
       ``(B) such employer takes reasonable steps to remedy any 
     such differentials; and
       ``(C) such job and wage analysis audit is conducted and 
     such reasonable steps are taken in good faith to investigate 
     whether any such differentials exist; and
       ``(D) such audit is reasonable in detail and scope with 
     respect to the size of the employer.
       ``(2) A job and wage analysis audit under this section and 
     remedial action taken in response to the findings of such 
     audit--
       ``(A) may only be admissible by the employer for the 
     purposes of showing--
       ``(i) such audit was conducted; and
       ``(ii) such reasonable steps were taken; and
       ``(B) shall not be discoverable or admissible for any other 
     purpose in any claim against the employer.
       ``(3) An employer who has not completed a job and wage 
     analysis audit under this subsection shall not be subject to 
     a negative or adverse inference as a result of not having 
     completed such audit.
       ``(4) An employer who has completed a job and wage analysis 
     audit that does not meets the requirements of subparagraph 
     (D) of paragraph (1) but otherwise meets the requirements of 
     such paragraph shall not be liable for liquidated damages 
     under section 16(b).
       ``(5) In this section--
       ``(A) the term `job and wage analysis audit' means an audit 
     conducted by the employer for the purpose of identifying wage 
     disparities among employees on the basis of sex; and
       ``(B) the term `reasonable steps', with respect to 
     differentials in wages among employees that may violate 
     section 6(d), means steps that are reasonable to address such 
     differentials taking into account--
       ``(i) the amount of time that has passed since the date on 
     which the audit was initiated;
       ``(ii) the nature and degree of progress resulting from 
     such reasonable steps toward compliance with section 6(d) 
     compared to the number of employees with respect to whom a 
     violation may exist and the amount of the wage rate 
     differentials among such employees; and
       ``(iii) the size and resources of the employer.''.

     SEC. 5. WAGE HISTORY; DISCUSSION OF WAGES.

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

     ``SEC. 8. PROVISIONS RELATING TO WAGE HISTORY AND DISCUSSION 
                   OF WAGE.

       ``(a) Requirements and Prohibitions Relating to Wage 
     History.--It shall be an unlawful practice for a person after 
     the date of enactment of the Wage Equity Act of 2021--
       ``(1) to rely on the wage history of a prospective 
     employee--
       ``(A) in considering the prospective employee for 
     employment, including by requiring that the wage history of a 
     prospective employee satisfies minimum or maximum criteria as 
     a condition of being considered for employment; or
       ``(B) in determining the rate of wage for such prospective 
     employee; or
       ``(2) to seek, or to require a prospective employee to 
     disclose, the wage history of such prospective employee.
       ``(b) Voluntary Disclosure Exceptions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply with 
     respect to a prospective employee who voluntarily discloses 
     the wage history of such prospective employee.
       ``(2) Wage history verification.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a)(2), a person may take actions necessary to 
     verify the wage history of a prospective employee if such 
     wage history is voluntarily disclosed to the person by such 
     prospective employee.
       ``(c) Prior Inquiries.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with 
     respect to the wage history of an employee acquired by an 
     employer before the date of enactment of the Wage Equity

[[Page H1823]]

     Act of 2021, including a current employee's wage history with 
     another employer that was requested and used to set an 
     employee's starting wage before such date and which is 
     embedded in an employee's pay and pay increases after such 
     date.
       ``(d) Prohibitions Relating to Discussion of Wages.--
     Subject to subsection (c), it shall be an unlawful practice 
     for an employer--
       ``(1) to prohibit an employee from inquiring about, 
     discussing, or disclosing the wage of--
       ``(A) the employee; or
       ``(B) any other employee of the employer if such employee 
     has voluntarily disclosed the wage of such employee;
       ``(2) to prohibit an employee from requesting from the 
     employer an explanation of differentials in compensation 
     among employees; or
       ``(3) to take an adverse employment action against an 
     employee for--
       ``(A) conduct described under paragraphs (1) or (2); or
       ``(B) encouraging employees to engage in conduct described 
     in such paragraphs.
       ``(e) Limitations Relating to Discussion of Wages.--
       ``(1) Time and place limitations.--An employer may impose 
     reasonable time, place, and manner limitations on conduct 
     described under subsection (c) if such limitations are 
     written and available to each employee.
       ``(2) Involuntary disclosure.--An employer may prohibit an 
     employee from discussing the wages of any other employee if 
     such other employee did not voluntarily disclose such wages 
     to the employee discussing such wages.
       ``(f) Pay Expectation Conversation.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to prevent a person from--
       ``(1) inquiring about the pay expectations of a prospective 
     employee; or
       ``(2) providing information to such employee about the 
     compensation and benefits offered in relation to the 
     position.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 202) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(z) the term `prospective employee' means an individual 
     who took an affirmative step to seek employment with a person 
     and who is not currently employed by such person, a parent, 
     subsidiary, predecessor, or related company of such person, 
     or an employer connected by a purchase agreement with such 
     person; and
       ``(aa) the term `wage history' means the wages paid to the 
     prospective employee by the prospective employee's current 
     employer or any previous employer of such employee.''.
       (c) Retaliation.--Section 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or prospective employee'' after ``any 
     employee''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or prospective employee'' after ``such 
     employee''.
       (d) Penalty.--
       (1) In general.--Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended by inserting ``Any 
     person who violates the provisions of section 8 with respect 
     to an employee or prospective employee shall be liable to 
     such employee in an amount equal to the difference between 
     the amount that the employee or prospective employee would 
     have received but for such violation and the amount received 
     by such employee or prospective employee, and an additional 
     equal amount as liquidated damages.'' after ``tips unlawfully 
     kept by the employer, and in an additional equal amount as 
     liquidated damages.''.
       (2) Civil monetary penalty.--Section 16(e)(2) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(e)(2)) is amended 
     by striking ``6 and 7'' and inserting ``6, 7, and 8''.

     SEC. 6. NEGOTIATION SKILLS EDUCATION.

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

     SEC. 7. GAO STUDY.

       The Comptroller General shall, not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to 
     Congress a study on the causes and effects of--
       (1) wage disparities among men and women;
       (2) with respect to employees that leave the workforce for 
     parental reasons (commonly referred to as the ``Manager's 
     Gap''), the impact on wages and opportunity potential; and
       (3) the disparities in negotiation skills among men and 
     women upon entering the workforce.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the 
gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Iowa.
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, equal work deserves equal pay, and we owe it to women 
to constructively engage on addressing pay disparities in the workplace 
and put forward real solutions. Unfortunately, Democrats have put forth 
a bill that prioritizes lawsuits and government regulation over women's 
economic empowerment and advancement.
  H.R. 7 would require employers to make intrusive data disclosures 
that would add compliance costs exceeding $600 million per year while 
posing serious threats to workers' privacy and their paychecks.
  On top of these onerous new requirements, H.R. 7 will force America's 
businesses to prepare for an onslaught of frivolous lawsuits, which now 
will be open to unlimited compensatory and limited damages.
  Forty percent of small businesses are run by women, and H.R. 7 would 
make it harder for these women business owners to succeed.
  This issue is too important to leave to partisan solutions. Our 
amendment, the Wage Equity Act, offers a stark contrast to the approach 
laid out in H.R. 7. We look to innovation in the States to find 
bipartisan policy that is supported by both Republicans and Democrats 
and signed by Republican Governors--proof that equal pay for equal work 
is not a partisan issue.
  The Wage Equity Act supports the empowerment of women in today's 
economy. America's businesses--particularly our small businesses--seek 
to do right by their employees. In recognition of this, the Wage Equity 
Act creates a voluntary pay analysis system to encourage the good-faith 
efforts of employers to self-identify and correct any wage disparities, 
should they exist, creating an environment of consistent self-
reflection.
  We believe every American should be able to negotiate employment 
based upon their qualifications and merit for the position, and that a 
victim of wage discrimination should not have this discrimination 
follow them to their next job and compound through the rest of their 
career.
  This is why this amendment protects the employee's right to not 
disclose their salary history during the job interview process unless 
they wish to do so voluntarily. At the same time, we cannot erode the 
necessary negotiations that take place in a job interview.
  The Wage Equity Act protects the ability for an employee and their 
prospective employer to have a pay expectation conversation, an 
important part of any negotiation.
  Our amendment protects employees' ability to discuss compensation 
with

[[Page H1824]]

their colleagues while giving employers the ability to set reasonable 
limitations on the time, location, and manner of this activity to 
protect employees from harassment.
  Furthermore, the Wage Equity Act seeks to put women on equal footing 
as men as they start their careers with a grant program targeted 
towards women in college and career tech programs to provide 
negotiation skills education.
  Lastly, our amendment directs the GAO to study the manager's gap to 
give us a clearer sense of the impact new parents leaving the workforce 
have on an employee's future earning and opportunity potential.
  These are commonsense proposals that are supported by both Democrats 
and Republicans alike. I encourage my colleagues to reject partisan 
Government overreach and to support practical, bipartisan solutions 
that improve the existing law of the land--equal pay for equal work--by 
voting for the Stefanik amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).
  Mrs. HAYES. Madam Speaker, this amendment would allow employers to 
self-audit compensation disparity. Asking the same employer, who may be 
engaged in pay discrimination, to self-police their wage practices is a 
blatant conflict of interest.
  Rather than actually incentivizing equal pay, as Ms. Stefanik would 
claim, this amendment gives employers the tool to hide evidence of pay 
discrimination and delay any resulting lawsuit and accountability by 3 
years. The very idea behind this provision is insidious. It presumes 
that employers should be given loopholes to avoid liability after 
breaking the law. Employers do not need a workaround to guard against 
these types of lawsuits. Their best defense is simple: do not engage in 
wage discrimination.
  In fact, this amendment actually creates another means for employers 
to discriminate on the basis of sex by preserving a vague standard for 
employer defense when accused of wage discrimination. Unlike Ms. 
Stefanik's proposed amendment, H.R. 7 makes clear that the ``any factor 
other than sex'' employer defense must be bona fide, job-related, and 
required by business necessity.
  Employees must be judged by their education, training or experience 
instead of their gender. As women drop out of the workforce in historic 
numbers due to the pressures of COVID-19, we have a responsibility to 
take every precaution to ensure they do not face discrimination when 
they return to the workforce.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act ensures all workers will get equal pay for 
equal work, regardless of gender. It will prohibit employers from 
paying women less simply because another employer paid them less in the 
past. It helps to oppose pay discrimination with more speed and 
transparency, and allows women to fight pay injustices they may 
experience. The Paycheck Fairness Act fixes a systemic injustice that 
women have suffered.
  This amendment would only water down this landmark civil rights and 
labor legislation. Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' to this amendment and stand up for equity.

  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, which was also 
introduced earlier this week by Representative Stefanik as a standalone 
bill, H.R. 2491, the Wage Equity Act of 2021.
  Unlike the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, which will unfairly 
punish businessowners and reward trial lawyers at the expense of 
workers, this amendment will effectively address pay discrimination in 
the workplace and help working women by ensuring pay differences among 
workers of the opposite sex are due to legitimate business-related 
reasons.
  Among other commonsense provisions, this amendment will direct funds 
and research towards women's advancement in the workplace and will also 
authorize a grant program to educate women in college careers and 
technical programs on negotiating pay.
  This amendment will also allow job applicants to disclose prior 
salary history voluntarily, ensuring they control this information as 
they see fit.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the sponsor of the 
underlying legislation.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, the gender pay gap is a pervasive problem 
that demands thoughtful, multipronged solutions. The Paycheck Fairness 
Act represents a comprehensive response to the shortcomings of existing 
law and addresses the holes that have emerged over time.
  Representative Stefanik's substitute, the Wage Equity Act, is exactly 
what the Paycheck Fairness Act has been fighting over the years. It 
purports to offer protections, but, in reality, it creates loopholes 
that give a wink and a nod to discrimination. Not only would it offer 
empty protections, it would erode existing protections already in 
place.
  The substitute includes inadequate protections for workers who 
discuss or disclose wages. While ostensibly protecting employees who 
disclose or discuss that pay, it allows employers to place limitations 
on when, where, and how employees may do so, negating the point of the 
provision.
  Madam Speaker, you cannot remedy pay discrimination if you have no 
idea that you are making less than the man across the hall. When 
workers fear retaliation for talking about their pay, any wage gap they 
face is likely to continue to grow undiscovered in the shadows.
  More egregiously, there is no mechanism for enforcement, as it would 
allow employers who conduct self-designed pay audits to escape 
accountability for unlawful pay disparities and deny a worker a remedy.
  I think it bears repeating that corporations do not feel free to sell 
us spoiled meat, lock our daughters up in ninth-floor sweatshops with 
no fire escapes, employ our underage sons in coal mines, force us to 
work 13-hour shifts without overtime or a break because corporations 
experienced a moment of Zen and decided to evolve.
  No. They were forced into greater accountability and social concern 
by the legitimate actions of a democratic government. In other words, 
if we depend on goodwill or a self-audit, then we are all screwed.
  This amendment seeks to destroy the entire purpose of the bill and 
allows companies to evade accountability for violating the law.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and a ``yes'' 
vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I would hope we would defeat the amendment. This just recreates the 
loopholes that we are trying to close. You have to start with the idea 
that there is a differential in pay. And what we are trying to do is--
if you can explain this in any kind of way that is business-related, 
then they get away with it.
  The Fair Pay Act says it has to be bona fide and required by the job. 
If it is not required by the job, why do you have a differential in 
pay?
  We can do better than this, and I hope we defeat the amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appear to have it.
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H1825]]

  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.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 7 
is postponed.

                          ____________________