Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 2016, the Obama administration proposed adding employee pay data to the EEO-1 report, which is filed by certain employers specifying employee data by job category, ethnicity, race, and sex. After strong concerns were raised about this misguided proposal by congressional Republicans, the Office of Management and Budget stopped it from going forward in August 2017. A Federal district court recently overturned OMB's stay on the data collection, which the administration will likely appeal. The Obama administration scheme would have imposed an extremely costly and uniquely burdensome mandate on business owners, providing reams of proprietary data to the government for uses which were never adequately explained. The Obama EEO-1 mandate would have increased the data fields provided by employers in each EEO report twentyfold, from 180 to 3,660. It was also estimated that adding employee pay data to the EEO-1 form would have brought the overall cost to employers of submitting the report to approximately $700 million annually. It is appropriate to compare the pay data collection provisions in H.R. 7 to the 2016 Obama scheme because H.R. 7, as modified by the Scott amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, codifies much of the 2016 Obama administration mandate. In fact, H.R. 7 now includes 12 pay bands, the same number as in the Obama mandate, at the exact dollar amounts that were part of the Obama mandate. Incredibly, H.R. 7's employee pay data mandate is even more extreme than the Obama proposal. In addition to collecting reams of employee pay data, the bill requires the EEOC to collect hiring, termination, and promotion data. How the EEOC would collect this kind of data and how business owners would comply is anyone's guess. As with the previous scheme to expand the EEO-1, H.R. 7's provision raises many concerns. For one, H.R. 7 would pose significant threats to the confidentiality and privacy of employee pay data. For instance, the EEOC shares the EEO-1 data with the Department of Labor, which, in certain situations, might release data even if the EEOC would not. Moreover, time and again we have seen massive and harmful data breaches of Federal agencies. Requiring the EEOC to collect pay data would create yet another valuable target, and H.R. 7 fails to adequately address the need for protection of employee data. As with the Obama EEO-1 scheme, I also have concern regarding the data's lack of usefulness and whether the EEOC would be able to appropriately manage and interpret the massive amounts of employee pay data it would collect. I have already mentioned the burden of such a collection on employers. For all these reasons, this amendment strikes the invasive, risky, and burdensome provision requiring the EEOC to collect employee compensation data from employers broken down by race, sex, and ethnicity. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, my colleague just said that Latina women are being paid 53 cents for every dollar a White man earns for the same work. That is currently illegal and should be reported. My colleague may want to amend her statement on that, but I want to say again, paying a woman less than a man when they are both doing the same work is abhorrent and illegal. Women deserve equal pay for equal work. That is why two Federal laws prohibit pay discrimination based on sex. What Congress should be looking at are ways to expand opportunities for women in the workplace. H.R. 7, however, does nothing to help women. Instead, it is written to help trial lawyers. Rather than treating sex discrimination charges with the seriousness they deserve, H.R. 7 is designed to make it easier for trial lawyers to bring more suits of questionable validity, which will siphon off money from settlements and jury awards to line the pockets of trial lawyers. As we have said before, H.R. 7 offers no new or meaningful protections against pay discrimination. The findings section in H.R. 7 to which this amendment is added already discusses women in the workplace and implies that the gender pay gap is largely caused by discriminatory acts. However, economic studies conducted by government and private entities alike consistently show that women make more holistic and discerning choices than men about managing work-life demands, placing an equal and sometimes higher value on life factors besides their paycheck as they make decisions about hours worked, overtime pursued, and promotions sought. Those values and choices should be honored, Madam Chair. As such, the gender pay gap significantly shrinks when these choices and factors are taken into account. Pay discrimination is a serious issue, but I do not believe this amendment will improve the bill or help to address pay discrimination in the workplace. Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, again I say, Republicans abhor any type of discrimination, particularly pay discrimination against women. Madam Chair, if H.R. 7 would help with the situation that my colleague described, we would be in favor of it. No woman should be discriminated against because she reports the fact that she is receiving unequal pay for work, but, again, H.R. 7 does nothing to help those situations. That is why we oppose it. Madam Chair, H.R. 7 is not helping women; it is helping trial lawyers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, women deserve equal pay for equal work. In America, it is law codified in the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately, H.R. 7 is a false promise that creates opportunities and advantages for trial lawyers, not for working women, and the bill already requires new government studies. H.R. 7 allows for undocumented compensatory and punitive damages, expands class actions, and makes it impossible to defend against a claim, when the pay difference at issue is legitimate. But the bill does not offer new protections for workers against pay discrimination. Both government and nongovernment studies have shown that the gender pay gap significantly shrinks when certain choices and factors are included, such as choices made in managing work-life demands. For example, a recent Harvard University study found that the gap in pay between female and male bus and train operators working for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority was explained by the workplace choices that women and men make, rather than other factors such as discrimination. The Harvard study is noteworthy because the workplace characteristics of the female operators are entirely comparable to their male operators. All of the operators are represented by the same union, and all are covered by the same collective bargaining agreement. We want to ensure the laws prohibiting pay discrimination are effective. However, this amendment, and the underlying provision in H.R. 7, are not going to be helpful in this regard. We should strive to provide women and all workers more freedom, flexibility, and opportunities. I do not believe this amendment will help us achieve that goal. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I want to say, again: no one in the workplace should be discriminated against. No woman of color, no woman, should be discriminated against. Republicans are opposed to any discrimination, in pay or otherwise, but H.R. 7 is not going to fix that. If it were, we would be on board. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, once again, it is wrong to discriminate, including with respect to pay, based on sex. It is also illegal to do so under both the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, supports equal pay for equal work because, when workers thrive, America thrives, but H.R. 7 does not further this goal. Democrats claim H.R. 7 will improve upon these existing and bipartisan laws to create new avenues for women to fight pay discrimination. What H.R. 7 actually does is create new avenues for trial lawyers to earn higher paychecks--while dragging countless women into unwanted lawsuits. Of the 2.8 million jobs created in the past year, more than 58 percent have gone to women. Today, there are 74.9 million working women in the United States, more than ever before; and one in five employer businesses, nationwide, is owned by women. We celebrate workers who choose to give priority to professional success and promotion, but it is equally important to show that we value freedom and diversity of choice in the workplace. It is not the job of Federal lawmakers to tell American workers of either sex what their priorities should be. A number of economic studies conducted by government and private entities alike consistently show that women make more holistic and discerning choices than men about managing work-life demands. The new government studies mandated by H.R. 7 will likely tell us what we already know and that our colleagues will not acknowledge: that work patterns and life decisions are key to explaining the wage gap, and that the wage gap shrinks considerably when factors such as hours worked per week, industry, occupation, work experience, job tenure, and preferences for nonwage benefits are considered. In addition to opening countless avenues for trial lawyer payouts while limiting employer defenses, H.R. 7 mandates intrusive and elaborate data collection from employers, breaking down compensation, hiring, termination, and promotion data by sex, race, and national origin of employees--that will cost about $700 million a year. Rather than expending taxpayer dollars on expanding studies, Federal lawmakers should promote a continued focus on strong economic policy, education, and innovation that will create opportunities and expand options for all American workers. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we believe women should not be discriminated against. We don't want women discriminated against, women of any category in this country, and this amendment is not necessary and neither is H.R. 7. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment and ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I reserve the right to change my mind based on what I hear from my colleague from Virginia. Mr. Chair, I do have great respect for my colleague from Virginia, and I appreciate the fact that this amendment recognizes the very serious problem with H.R. 7 by applying the expansive government data collection mandate only to business owners with 100 or more employees. However, the forced data collection scheme in the underlying bill, even with this amendment, is still extremely misguided. H.R. 7 requires business owners to, for the first time ever, submit reams of pay data to the EEOC, broken down by job category, race, sex, and ethnicity. Moreover, the collection must also include hiring, termination, and promotion data, which even the Obama administration's 2016 pay data collection scheme did not include. This data collection mandate raises several concerns. First, it puts at risk volumes of highly confidential pay data involving millions of individual workers. We all know the widespread data breaches the Federal Government has suffered. Second, the EEOC will not be able to manage or properly use this data. It has never been explained what exactly the EEOC will do with this data. Third, this mandate is overly burdensome. The data cells required from business owners when they file an employer information report, EEO-1, with the EEOC will expand from 180 cells to 3,660. It has been estimated that the new reams of pay data added to the EEO-1 will cost business owners $700 million annually. Although this amendment would spare some business owners from the mandate, the serious flaws in this data collection mandate make the provision in the underlying bill not worth saving. If the pay data collection mandate is not worth applying to smaller firms, then perhaps it should be reconsidered entirely. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time I have remaining, and how much time the gentleman from Virginia has remaining.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have said it I don't know how many times today. I will say it one more time. Republicans are opposed to pay discrimination. We have always been opposed to pay discrimination. We have always been for the rights of others. The first Republican President in this country was the leader that ended slavery in this country. Republicans have been for civil rights. We have been for equal pay. We support the rights of all citizens to be treated equally. We have all said that, every Republican who has spoken here. This bill does not do that. I believe that the gentleman from Virginia's amendment proves that this is a damaging bill, because he wants to spare smaller companies from the very damaging impacts of the pay data collection mandate. That, in a way, is discriminatory in itself because there is a feeling that it is okay for big businesses to pay the cost of this, but it is not okay for small businesses to pay the cost of this. In a way, this amendment itself damns the bill. As our colleague from Maryland says, I hope that every business owner in America will note that every Democrat is a cosponsor of this bill. I hope that word gets out loud and clear across the country, particularly among business owners. I will say that this amendment to spare smaller companies makes the teeniest, tiniest improvement to this bill, and, therefore, I will support it, although I don't believe the bill will go anywhere in the Senate. It is my hope that, again, that points out the discriminatory nature and the terrible aspects of this bill to all business and industry in the country. It doesn't help the underlying bill in terms of the other businesses and industries. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, in America, discriminating in pay based on sex is illegal as codified in the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act. Democrats claim H.R. 7 will improve upon these bipartisan laws to create new opportunities for women to fight pay discrimination. What H.R. 7 actually does is create new opportunities for trial lawyers to earn higher paychecks. Similarly, while this amendment appears to be marketed as assisting young women, this paternalistic approach undermines young women's abilities and pigeonholes them into stereotypical roles. This amendment directs the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study on the gender pay gap in the teenage labor force and then to report recommendations to Congress, including recommendations to expand awareness, specifically for teenage girls, on pay grades and employment rights. I am tempted to call this the babysitting amendment because it additionally asks the Department of Labor to spend taxpayer dollars to compare amounts earned by men and women in informal jobs such as babysitting. This amendment could also be called the in loco parentis amendment, because it is parents who should be teaching their children about the benefits of hard work and education and the importance of a first job, which is often a minimum wage job. We don't need the government coming in and telling children and parents what their children should be doing. These initial jobs help to teach teenagers important skills that will stay with them their entire lives. American women of all ages are skilled, they are smart, and today they are driving the American economy. Of the 2.8 million jobs created in the last year, more than 58 percent have gone to women. One in five employer businesses is owned by women; and we are seeing more young women than men earning college degrees. I support equal pay for equal work, which is rightfully required under two Federal statutes. Congress should focus on policies that will continue to increase economic opportunity and expand options for all workers. This amendment and the underlying bill fails in this regard. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I know that my colleague was not on the floor earlier when I spoke and told of my need to work even before I was a teenager, and I worked for survival. So I know that she did not know that and did not know that I do not take lightly the fact that many young people in this country are like I was and working to help support their families so that they have food and they are able to survive. I do not take lightly anyone's work in this country, not anyone. I worked hard all my life, and I have always wanted to be paid equally with men, and I know there were times I was not. So I understand that. I never want to see anyone discriminated against in this country. I particularly never want to see a woman discriminated against for equal pay when she is doing the job that a man is doing. I wish with all my heart that we were improving on the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act and helping to make things better for women with H.R. 7. We are not. We are lining the pockets of trial lawyers and in many cases will be harming women. This amendment stereotypes young women because it mentions babysitting. That is where the stereotypes come in, in this amendment, and that is unfortunate. We do have a younger generation, and we have women who can do any job that any man can do, and she should be paid equally for it. But neither this study nor this bill is going to guarantee that. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Pay discrimination on the basis of sex is wrong, and it also, importantly, violates two Federal statutes. Retaliation by an employer against an employee for pursuing reasonable discussion or inquiry regarding potentially discriminating compensation is wrong, and it, too, is illegal. However, like the rest of this bill, the expanded nonretaliation provision in H.R. 7 goes too far, and this amendment takes it even further. Under current law, those who inquire about, discuss, or disclose compensation information in a reasonable manner and with a good faith belief that an unlawful pay disparity may exist are protected from retaliation. However, the underlying provision in H.R. 7 regarding pay disclosures and discussion has no limits at all. The inquiry, discussion, and disclosure allowed under this bill is not required to be reasonable nor related to any perceived pay disparity and raises serious privacy concerns for all employees, especially in the age of social media. H.R. 7 takes away an employee's ability to control disclosure of information about their own pay. It also limits an employer's ability to protect what should be confidential information about employees. Congress should focus on policies that promote opportunity and options for all workers. This amendment does not further this purpose. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to protect workers' privacy rights by opposing this amendment and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, once again, I reiterate my opposition to the underlying bill and to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, in its present form, I am.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am here to offer a motion to recommit that is about honesty. It is about making sure this bill does what my Democrat colleagues say it will do, and that is help victims of wage discrimination on the basis of sex. It is about making sure that any woman who experiences unfair and illegal wage discrimination just because she is a woman doesn't go through all the hardship of a legal battle only to see her lawyer walk away with even more of her money. With this motion to recommit, if a plaintiff has entered into a contingency fee arrangement in Equal Pay Act litigation, the attorney's contingency fee, including costs, will not exceed 49 percent of the judgment awarded to the plaintiff. If adopted, it will ensure that the individual who has brought the claim actually receives a majority of the judgment and that the attorney doesn't collect the lion's share. The authors of H.R. 7 failed to include in the text any new legal protections for workers against discrimination. Instead, the bill alters the Equal Pay Act to allow unlimited compensatory damages even when there is no intentional discrimination, and unlimited punitive damages. It also expands class action lawsuits. H.R. 7 makes it impossible in many cases for employers to defend against Equal Pay Act claims even when there is a legitimate business reason for a pay differential. H.R. 7 creates special incentives and awards for trial lawyers. For working women who have been taken advantage of by their bosses, it sets them up to lose out again. H.R. 7 encourages trial lawyers to file more lawsuits of questionable validity and to drive workers into the suits without their knowledge for the purpose of siphoning off the new pool of unlimited compensatory and punitive damages created by H.R. 7, lining their own pockets at the expense of plaintiffs. A similar amendment capping lawyers' contingency fees at 15 percent was offered by Mr. Byrne when H.R. 7 was considered in committee. Every Democrat on the Education and Labor Committee opposed this modest change. If this amendment is adopted, trial lawyers will have to somehow make due with 49 percent of the overall judgment, and we all know that trial lawyers siphon off more than this amount in many of their class action cases. Victims of true pay discrimination should be the true beneficiaries of any judgment in their favor. This amendment will help ensure this outcome in Equal Pay Act cases. Madam Speaker, supporters of H.R. 7 say the bill is about helping victims of pay discrimination. If that is true, then all Members should support this reasonable proposal. All we are asking is that if our colleagues are so intent on giving trial lawyers a bigger piece of the pie, then consider giving working women more than a few crumbs. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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