Providing for Consideration of H.R. Paycheck Fairness Act, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. DeSaulnier from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I first want to acknowledge, along with Mr. DeSaulnier, the poignant loss that we all feel here in the House with the departure of our friend, Alcee Hastings. He was a fixture in the Rules Committee for all the years I have been on the committee. Certainly, while yesterday we acknowledged that we feel his absence, we also feel his presence. He was truly larger than life on the committee.
Today's rule provides for consideration of two bills that are meant to improve working conditions and compensation. The House actually considered these same bills last Congress. They did not receive consideration in the Senate, and I do not believe any substance has changed in the underlying bills.
The first bill, H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, seeks to prevent wage discrimination on the basis of sex, a fact that is already prohibited under current law. This legislation will help trial lawyers but offers no new protections against pay discrimination.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits all discrimination in pay based upon sex or any other non-job-performance-related issue. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Sex-based wage disparity is in direct violation of not one but two Federal laws.
It is important to acknowledge that bad actors engage in gender pay discrimination. Their actions are illegal, and they leave employers vulnerable to burdensome lawsuits and heavy fines.
I could not agree more that such discrimination has no place in any business or in society in general. However, those who perpetrate these illegal acts are the exception and not the rule.
Congress must not forget the positive economic trends that this Nation enjoyed before the arrival of the novel coronavirus in the United States. The Trump administration made great strides reining in Federal overreach, which quickly improved opportunities for all Americans. Unemployment was at the lowest level in nearly half a century, and median wages across all demographic groups rose faster than at any other time in American history.
Unfortunately, the majority has crafted legislation that would place greater burdens on employers, reduce the privacy of employees, and increase Federal spending. H.R. 7 does little to protect the wages of American workers who are experiencing gender pay discrimination. In fact, it makes it harder for employers to defend legitimate differentials in pay based on factors other than sex.
Currently, employers may pay differential wages due to factors other than sex, like education, training, or experience. This means that all other things being equal, a woman cannot be paid differently than a man. When an employee brings different qualifications to the job, such as she has an advanced degree or more experience, the factors used to evaluate employee pay are no longer equal. This preserves the flexibility for employers to make the best decision for their businesses, including hiring the most qualified individuals, regardless of sex.
H.R. 7 would now require that non-sex reasons for any wage disparity have a business necessity, a term which is not defined in the bill. Providing a gender-based business necessity that accounts for the entire differential in pay is nearly an impossible standard to defend against.
This change to a bona fide factor defense does not consider the reality of the labor market. Employees are often willing to accept lower pay for greater control over their work location, schedule, and vacation time. Studies have shown that this is particularly true for women.
With the threat of lawsuits hanging over the heads of employers, they are less likely to allow for flexibility in the workplace. Instead of allowing employees to negotiate their own pay and work arrangements, employers will be incentivized to transform jobs that were once negotiable and flexible into jobs that are much more rigid.
H.R. 7 also limits an employer's ability to pay its employees based on performance. If a woman were to earn a performance-based bonus or salary increase that her male coworker did not receive, then that man could file suit against the employer on the basis that the bonus is not a business necessity due to the vagueness in terms in H.R. 7. With this threat in mind, employers are much less likely to use performance-based pay and bonuses, despite studies showing that such pay models actually do increase employee productivity.
While legitimate claims do exist, and I hope that all employees who have experienced discrimination do seek legal remedy, the changes in H.R. 7 would significantly increase the size and profitability of lawsuits, making nonmeritorious claims even more likely for trial lawyers looking for new cash flows. That is the inherent danger.
H.R. 7 also requires employers to provide disaggregated employee information to the Department of Labor without delineating mechanisms to keep that information safe. Have we ever heard that the Federal Government has lost employee data or that the Federal Government may not be the best steward of citizens' private information? Maybe we should limit the data received until those capabilities are, in fact, improved and verified.
The second bill included in this rule, H.R. 1195, requires that the Secretary of Labor issue a rule on workplace violence prevention in the healthcare and social service sectors. Some may be surprised to hear that acts of violence are the third leading cause of fatal occupational injuries. Of these incidents, approximately 8 percent were intentionally caused by another person.
When Americans go to work each day, they do not expect to face violence or other harm. This risk is especially high for healthcare providers and social workers. These caregivers can be subject to patients who may not be in control when under the influence of medication or may have some other mental stress, upset family members, ongoing domestic disputes, and, unfortunately, even gang violence.
The rate of workplace violence resulting in days away from work for healthcare providers is, on average, four times higher than for other professions. In addition, healthcare providers and social workers are less likely to report incidents. This may be partly due to the pledge to do no harm and the inclination to forgive patient-caused injuries as accidental. Regardless of the situation, all workers deserve a safe workplace.
Currently, there is no mandatory standard on workplace violence prevention. However, in 2015, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration published guidelines for preventing workplace violence for healthcare and social service workers and is currently working on a rule for workplace violence prevention.
H.R. 1195 would require the Secretary of Labor to issue a rule on workplace violence prevention based upon OSHA's 2015 guidelines. An interim standard is required within 1 year, and a final rule must be issued within 2 years.
While the goal of this legislation is very important, the timeframe imposed on the Department of Labor and OSHA does exceed the norm. While no one believes that we should continue to delay worker protections, OSHA has already begun the rulemaking process and is gathering stakeholder input.
Perhaps, rather than pass a bill to require the issuance of a rule, we should be considering reforms to the entire OSHA rulemaking process. In other words, let's improve the bureaucracy rather than simply flogging it.
While an OSHA rulemaking would ensure enforcement of workplace violence prevention policies, according to a 2018 American Hospital Association survey, 97 percent of respondents reported they already have a workplace violence prevention policy in place. In 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that additional research was required to identify effective strategies to prevent violence, particularly in healthcare settings.
We can all agree that there is a need for OSHA to do its work to issue a workplace violence prevention regulation to protect healthcare providers and social service workers. I hope we are able to accomplish this goal, but I do worry that we are placing another costly burden on entities through what is supposed to be an expedited process that may require modification in the future to ensure an effective and safe workplace for all Americans.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule immediately to consider H.R. 2430, the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act. This critical bill would extend the Drug Enforcement Administration's authority to temporarily schedule fentanyl analogues for another year.
Unfortunately, President Biden's open border policy is encouraging drug trafficking of substances like fentanyl. So it is imperative that the Drug Enforcement Administration retain this authority to keep those dangerous substances out of our communities.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, this is a critical reauthorization and it is imperative to maintaining our Nation's efforts to address the opiate epidemic.
In February of 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration used its authority to place nonscheduled fentanyl-like substances temporarily into schedule I for a period of 2 years. It is important that we do not let this authorization lapse, as it listed fentanyl is still an eminent threat to Americans.
The Drug Enforcement Administration testified that the positive impacts since implementing this temporary schedule are significant, stating that prior to this action, the DEA observed a rapid and continuous emergence of a new fentanyl-like substance each time it is scheduled to remove a fentanyl-like substance. In other words, you take one out and one would pop up.
We simply cannot return to that reality because of the deadly nature of this substance.
Just last month, two north Texas teenagers died from counterfeit pills containing fentanyl. Last year, the Dallas DEA found over 16 kilograms of fentanyl targeting the region. It contained over 8 million lethal doses--one for every north Texas resident.
Unfortunately, throughout this pandemic, the opiate crisis has continued, and it has gotten worse. Exacerbating this problem is the ease with which fentanyl is being smuggled across our southern border. The changes in border security enforcement that have occurred have sent a message to the cartels and the drug smugglers that securing our sovereignty is no longer an administration priority. What is worse is that some adults and children are forced to carry these drugs into the United States by smugglers. Sometimes innocent individuals traffic drugs into the United States in their vehicles without even knowing that the cartels have placed it there without their knowledge.
The only way to limit the exploitation of innocent individuals and to protect our American communities is to limit the market for these vile products.
During the past year, this country has suffered over half a million deaths to an unforeseen disease. We should do everything we can to trample the market of a known killer: fentanyl. We must equip our communities to address this issue at its very source.
The temporary emergency rescheduling of fentanyl analogues to schedule I is a necessary tool for the Drug Enforcement Administration to work with other agencies and law enforcement officials to address the threat of illicit fentanyl.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support this bill, and I strongly urge fellow Members to defeat the previous question and support H.R. 2430.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) to speak on the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer) to speak on the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
And just to speak a little further on the amendment that has been offered if the previous question is defeated, H.R. 2430; like so many Members, I too have traveled down to the border. The difference is I have done that many times over the last 12 years.
It has never been this bad; and I need to emphasize that. I encourage the President and the Vice President to visit the southern border, come to the Lower Rio Grande Valley and see for themselves, firsthand, just how bad this crisis is.
And then back to the business at hand. I want to be very clear about the two bills included in today's rule. Wage discrimination has no place in any society, and it is currently illegal in the United States of America.
The path Congress must take is to not increase opportunities for trial lawyers, but to continue its focus on strong economic policy that actually expands opportunities for all Americans.
Prior to the pandemic, nearly 75 million women participated in the workforce, more than at any other time in history. A robust and resilient economy will provide the jobs, provide the wages and the wage gains that Americans expect and deserve.
Also, workplace violence is a threat that no American should have to face. The threat is particularly high for healthcare workers and social service workers. These workers dedicate their lives to taking care of others, and they deserve to be taken care of in return.
While I support the goal of H.R. 1195, I believe it would benefit from further discussion to ensure that the timeline for issuing a rule and developing workplace violence prevention will produce the most effective and safe outcome for American workers.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source