Providing for Consideration of H.R. Paycheck Fairness Act, and Providing for Consideration of H.Res. Opposing Ban on Transgender Members of Armed Forces

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 252, providing for consideration of two bills: H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act; and H. Res. 124, expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor. It self-executes a manager's amendment. It also makes in order nine amendments.

The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 124 under a closed rule, and it provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Madam Speaker, 56 years ago, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act. He referred to this law as a ``structure basic to democracy''--equal pay for equal work, in essence, equality. But the sad reality is that, over 56 years later, women are still paid less than their male counterparts for the same work. I know, because it happened to me.

One of my first jobs was in a male-dominated industry selling steel. It didn't matter if I performed as well, if not better, than my male colleagues; I was still paid less. I had to leave that job, which I loved, because I wasn't getting my fair share. It was a shame then, and it is a shame now.

In the sixties, women made 60 cents on the dollar. Now the average woman makes 80 cents compared to her male counterpart--80 cents. For women of color, the gender wage gap is even more severe:

For every dollar made by her non-Hispanic White male counterpart, an African American woman makes 61 cents, a Native American woman makes 58 cents, and women who look like me, Latinas, make 53 cents on the dollar for similar work. That is less than the average woman made in the 1960s.

Do I not work just as hard as my male counterparts?

Do I deserve to make 53 cents on the dollar?

Do I not have to support my household as much as a man?

Latinas lose, on the average, $28,386 every year. That amounts to more than $1 million over her career.

What would an extra $1 million mean for the working woman or for her children? That she never has to chose between paying for childcare or buying groceries or not worrying about how to send her kids to college. Maybe she could even fulfill the American Dream of purchasing a home.

Some people brush this off by arguing that women choose different or easier jobs than men, like being a teacher or a nurse. To those people, I ask: Who sets those salaries? When was the last time you were underpaid to teach 40 children in a classroom setting?

Nursing assistants each suffer roughly three times--three times--the rate of back and other injuries as construction workers. Are you going to tell me that the nurse who spends 12 hours on her feet taking care of those most in need doesn't deserve higher pay, or the 911 dispatcher who is working the graveyard shift, fielding call after call after call, coordinating an effective emergency response so that they themselves can save lives or the first responders can save lives?

Don't tell me women's work is easier. We need equality--in practice, not just in law.

H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act will make equal pay a reality. It addresses the many complicated facets of sex-based discrimination.

Even when it is crystal clear, it is incredibly difficult to win a lawsuit to prove that employers are discriminating on the basis of sex. The Paycheck Fairness Act requires employers to demonstrate that wage disparity is based on a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience.

In workplaces where women are empowered to know how much they are making compared to their male colleagues, the gender gap shrinks by 7 percent; however, some workplaces penalize employees for discussing their salaries. The Paycheck Fairness Act would prevent retaliation against employees for wage transparency.

Sex discrimination causes women to make 6.6 percent less than equally qualified male counterparts on their first job. Over time, as raises and bonuses are decided based on a women's prior salary history, this gap is made even worse. The Paycheck Fairness Act prevents employers from asking for a salary history.

Another factor that contributes to gender pay disparity is that women are less likely to negotiate for a higher salary. Studies show that men are expected to negotiate, but when women ask for more money, they are penalized and still paid less. The Paycheck Fairness Act creates a grant program to fund negotiation and skills training.

Currently, employees must opt in to class action lawsuits brought under the Equal Pay Act, running contrary to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This makes it more difficult for women to use the courts to correct equal pay disparities. The Paycheck Fairness Act allows them to opt out, removing barriers to participate in class action lawsuits and, therefore, addressing systematic gender-based inequality.

I have offered two amendments to the Paycheck Fairness Act bill to highlight the serious effects of the gender pay gap on women of color.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a step in the right direction. Women who look like me should not make 53 cents on the dollar for the same work as our White male colleagues, and even less than the average woman made 60 years ago. It is wrong, and it is unjust. That is why it is crucial we pass H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Now, I would like to turn your attention to H. Res. 124, expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly gay transgender individuals.

For me, this issue hits close to home. I am a proud mother of an Air Force veteran.

It wasn't a decision they made lightly. It was one made with great personal sacrifice, and the U.S. Government made a promise to them that they would be safe to be themselves.

Imagine how their mothers and fathers must feel knowing that our Nation has broken a promise to their children. This doesn't make us safer.

We should welcome every qualified person who is willing to stand up to deploy and enlist in our Armed Forces to serve alongside people like my son.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, having more women enter the workforce does not mean that women are earning equal pay for equal work.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The smart and innovative women of Arizona's Eighth Congressional District deserve to have a voice in this debate, and I am going to give it to them.

They earn 80 cents to every dollar that their male counterpart earns. They deserve to have fair wages for the equal work that they are performing.

Before I begin my closing statement, I would like to take a moment to honor a valuable member of my staff: Justin Vogt.

Justin has been my legislative director for 2 years. During that time, he has been a phenomenal member of my team, designing innovative legislative initiatives, providing wise counsel, and serving as a generous mentor to my junior staff.

Now he will move on to be an excellent staff director for the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We are sad to see our waffle maker, Justin, leave our office, but we are so proud of all that he has accomplished.

Madam Speaker, 60 years from now, I hope that we have moved forward as a Nation. I hope that our daughters and granddaughters grow up in an America that recognizes their value through the quality of their work and not their gender. Imagine that.

The Paycheck Fairness Act gets us closer to securing a future for them.

A recent McKinsey study found that, if women's full potential in the labor market was reached, $4.3 trillion would be added to the labor market in 2025. Our economy would benefit from that woman power.

There has been enough talk about lawyer fees. Women attorneys deserve equal pay for equal work, too. This argument is nothing more than an attempt to avoid talking about the pervasiveness of wage discrimination in this country.

The policies in the Paycheck Fairness Act work. Just look at California. In 2017, Californian women made a median of 89 cents to every dollar made by their male counterparts.

In just a few years, we decreased gender pay disparity by more than any other State.

I have heard it said that addressing wage equity is bad for moms. What is bad about getting fair pay? Equal pay for equal work.

Mothers make 71 cents for every dollar earned by fathers in similar jobs. If we paid women fairly, maybe they would get a chance to spend more time with their kids.

If my colleagues care about moms spending time with their kids, let's pass National Paid Family Leave Act standards. Let's create better working conditions for pregnant women. Let's fund programs for affordable childcare.

This is just the beginning. The cost for American women, their families, and our economy is much too high to wait any longer.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in order as though printed as the last amendment in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if offered by Representative Lesko of Arizona or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as follows: after section 3 insert the following: SEC. 3A. FLEXIBILITY FOR WORKING PARENTS.

Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as paragraphs (3) through (5), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

``(2) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this subsection, an employee and an employer may voluntarily negotiate compensation and benefits to provide flexibility to best meet the needs of such employee and employer, consistent with other provisions of this Act.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source