Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

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.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

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.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, 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.

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 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.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve 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.

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.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a partner in important work to prevent and treat child abuse through the bipartisan Stronger Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or Stronger CAPTA. Child abuse and neglect are heartbreaking, immoral, and inexcusable. No child should ever have to endure pain and suffering at the hands of a parent or caregiver, yet, unfortunately, such behavior continues to affect millions of children across the country. This bill, Stronger CAPTA, is focused on doing what Congress can do to see that no child experiences the dreadful impacts caused by neglect and abuse. This legislation is the result of bipartisan collaboration among members of the Committee on Education and Labor and will strengthen Federal efforts to recognize, prevent, and treat child abuse and neglect nationwide. While we have a variety of perspectives represented on the committee, I believe this compromise will benefit children and families and maintain important protections for parents and faith-based providers of care to families. Importantly, Stronger CAPTA not only protects children, but it also maintains and strengthens parental rights. While there are certainly instances where intervention is necessary, this legislation includes important safeguards to limit unsubstantiated or false reports and provides education to child protective service workers about the rights of parents and families. The first priority of the Federal Government should always be to protect and respect the family unit, while fostering an environment for both parents and children to thrive. Stronger CAPTA gives a holistic view of child abuse and neglect, providing States with resources designed to strengthen families and keep children with those who love them most. CAPTA was originally enacted in 1974, to support the development of programs aimed at prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment of child abuse and neglect. Stronger CAPTA seeks to continue this important work while putting more emphasis on prevention so that abuse and neglect can be stopped before it happens. Madam Speaker, the need to pass this legislation and send it to the President's desk is urgent. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, heightened stress, school closures, loss of income, and social isolation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the risk for child abuse and neglect. The rate of child maltreatment has ticked up in recent years, devastating families and communities across the country and underscoring the necessity to open America's schools safely. Without teachers interacting with students every day, an entire line of defense against neglect and abuse is lost. Additionally, due to the increased demand on their services, State child protective service agencies are struggling to respond to the growing number of reports they receive each year. That is why we are here. Stronger CAPTA will help States address the recent and devastating rise in child abuse and neglect by improving the quality of child protective services and building networks of prevention services designed to strengthen American families. It improves collaboration between States regarding accountability, supports the development of strategies and best practices for reducing rates of abuse and neglect linked to parents' substance abuse disorder, and ensures that no child is removed from a family solely because of their economic situation or without a judicial order, except in cases of imminent harm. Furthermore, the bill seeks to prevent and treat child abuse by engaging the community. We want to prevent abuse before it ever happens, and one of the best ways to accomplish that goal is to ensure that communities and parents work together in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of prevention services. I believe every Member of this body wishes to live in a world where laws like Stronger CAPTA are not necessary. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world, but it is reassuring that during times of extreme political divisiveness, we can come together for the greater good. Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the hard work done on both sides of the aisle to author this bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting some of our most vulnerable citizens. Protecting America's children from abuse and neglect is something we can all agree is of paramount importance, and I am glad we could work together on such a meaningful initiative. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the Stronger CAPTA, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, no child should ever have to endure the pain of abuse or neglect by a parent or caregiver, and that is why today's work is so important. By passing today's bill, we are focused on protecting the most vulnerable citizens among us and give them a voice here in Congress. The bipartisan Stronger CAPTA bolsters prevention efforts and streamlines current assurances and requirements so States can focus on serving and providing treatment to children rather than spending more time filling out paperwork. Child abuse and neglect has no place in America's homes, and it is my hope that today's legislation will significantly reduce the number of children who must cope with the devastating impacts of abuse and neglect. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this critical legislation. Again, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 are attempts by the Federal Government to exert more force over law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves and their families. Let me remind my Democrat colleagues that the Second Amendment explicitly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Maybe they would remember that if they carried a pocket copy of the Constitution with them like I do every single day. Apparently not. I am proud to stand with the millions of gun owners in this great country who share an abiding gratitude for the Constitution and the Second Amendment itself. Make no mistake, these bills are created in bad faith. They are partisan shams that rob us of our freedoms.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.