2021: Schweikert Voted Against Limiting An Employer's Legal Defense In Pay Discrimination Lawsuits, Which Would Require Employers To Justify A Pay Difference Based On Bona Fide Job-Related Factors Instead Of Just Based On A Factor Other Than Sex. In April 2021, Schweikert voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "narrow the legal defense an employer may use in a lawsuit alleging pay discrimination on the basis of sex. Specifically, it would require employers to demonstrate that a difference in pay between employees is based on a business-related 'bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience' as opposed to being based on 'any factor other than sex.'" The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 108, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
Employers In Wage Discrimination Lawsuits Would Have To Prove Their Pay Disparities Were On A "Bona Fide Factor," Not Based On Gender. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would require, in wage discrimination lawsuits, that employers demonstrate that differences in pay were not based on gender but on 'a bona fide factor,' such as education, training or experience." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/13/21]
The Bill Would Close Federal Equal Pay Law Loopholes. According to Courthouse News Service, "Breathing new life into legislation that died in the Senate under the Trump administration, Democrats on Tuesday advanced a bill they say would close lingering loopholes in federal equal pay laws on the books for nearly 60 years." [Courthouse News Service, 4/13/21]
According To The National Women's Law Center, White Women Are Paid An Average Of 82 Cents For Every Dollar Men Are Paid. According to Courthouse News Service, "According to a 2020 study from the National Women's Law Center, white women who work full time year-round are on average paid just 82 cents for every dollar paid to men." [Courthouse News Service, 4/13/21]
According To The National Women's Law Center, Black Women Are Paid An Average Of 63 Cents For Every Dollar Men Are Paid. According to Courthouse News Service, "For Black women, the disparity is drastically worse at 63 cents." [Courthouse News Service, 4/13/21]
According To The National Women's Law Center, For Every Dollar Men Are Paid, Native American Women Are Paid An Average Of 60 Cents And Latinas Are Paid An Average Of 55 Cents. According to Courthouse News Service, "while Native American women earn just 60 cents and Latina women earn only 55 cents." [Courthouse News Service, 4/13/21]
According To The U.S. Census Bureau, Asian American Pacific Islander Women Earned An Average Of 85 Cents For Every Dollar Men Earned In 2019. According to Courthouse News Service, "Only Asian American Pacific Islander women came close to earning as much as men did in 2019, taking home nearly 85 cents to ever dollar, according to the study based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau." [Courthouse News Service, 4/13/21]
Republicans Argued The Bill Would Cause A Wave Of New Lawsuits. According to Courthouse News Service, "Republicans claimed a surge of new lawsuits would come if the bill were made into law." [Courthouse News Service, 4/13/21]
The Bill Would Expand The Standards Employers Must Meet In Order To Justify Pay Gaps Were Not Based On Gender Discrimination. According to Courthouse News Service, "The legislation raises the legal standards businesses must meet in order to claim any pay gaps aren't based on discrimination." [Courthouse News Service, 4/13/21]
National Right To Life Warned That The Paycheck Fairness Act Could Be Construed To Mandate Employers To Cover Elective Abortions With Their Health Benefits. According to the Scorecard Letter on H.R. 7 from National Right To Life, "While the legislation is meant to address potential discrimination regarding the gender pay gap, the legislation contains language that could be construed to require employers to cover elective abortion in their healthcare benefits." [Scorecard Letter On H.R. 7 -- National Right To Life, 6/8/21]
Since H.R. 7 Changed The Definition Of "Sex" To Include "Pregnancy, Childbirth, Or A Related Medical Condition" Without Preventing Funding For Abortion, National Right To Life Claimed That H.R. 7 Could Be Used To Sue Employers That Refuse To Provide Elective Abortion Coverage. According to the Scorecard Letter on H.R. 7 from National Right To Life, "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." [Scorecard Letter On H.R. 7 -- National Right To Life, 6/8/21]
National Right To Life Warned That Under The Paycheck Protection Act, If An Employer Provides Male-Specific Health Coverage, A Person Could Claim Discrimination If The Employer Failed To Provide Abortion Coverage. According to the Scorecard Letter on H.R. 7 from National Right To Life, "Under H.R. 7, if an employer provides health coverage for male-specific items, a person could make a claim that an employer's failure to provide health coverage for abortion is discriminatory." [Scorecard Letter On H.R. 7 -- National Right To Life, 6/8/21]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In April 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "adoption of the rule that would provide for House floor consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act (HR 7) [...] The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on each measure and make in order consideration of six amendments to HR 7 and six amendments to HR 1195." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 217-207. [House Vote 103, 4/14/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 303]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In April 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 303) that would provide for House floor consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act (HR 7) [...] The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on each measure and make in order consideration of six amendments to HR 7 and six amendments to HR 1195." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 217-208. [House Vote 102, 4/14/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 303]
2021: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Add Protections To Employers That Conduct Self-Audits Over Their Pay Practices And Corrected Any Unlawful Disparities. In April 2021, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide a safe harbor such that employers would not be liable in legal action related to pay discrimination if the employer conducted a voluntary audit of its pay practices within the previous three years and took 'reasonable steps' to correct any compensation disparities found by the audit that may have violated fair labor law." The vote was on adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 183-244. [House Vote 107, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 38; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
2021: Schweikert Voted For A Substitute Amendment That Would Allow Employers To Rely On Someone's Wage History When Considering Hiring Them Only If Such Information Is Voluntarily Disclosed. In April 2021, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit employers from requesting or relying on the wage history of a prospective employee for consideration of employment, unless a prospective employee voluntarily discloses such information." The vote was on adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 183-244. [House Vote 107, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 38; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Prohibiting Employers From Retaliating Against Employees For Participating In Fair Labor Standards Law Litigation. In April 2021, Schweikert voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit employers from retaliating against employees involved in lawsuits under fair labor standards law; prohibit employers from relying on a prospective employee's wage history for hiring or wage determinations." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 108, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Prohibiting Employers From Relying On A New Hire's Wage History To Consider Their Wage Or Their Hiring Status. In April 2021, Schweikert voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit employers from retaliating against employees involved in lawsuits under fair labor standards law; prohibit employers from relying on a prospective employee's wage history for hiring or wage determinations." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 108, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
The Bill Would Forbid Employers From Basing A Worker's Salary On That Person's Previous Salary And Benefit History. According to Courthouse News Service, "Among its provisions, the bill bans employers from considering a person's salary and benefit history when deciding what to pay them." [Courthouse News Service, 4/13/21]
The Bill Would Have Increased Civil Penalties For Any Pay Discrimination Violation And Automatically Included All Affected Individuals To Pay Discrimination Class Action Lawsuits. According to Congressional Quarterly, "increase employers' liability for compensatory or punitive damages related to pay discrimination violations; and provide for automatic inclusion of all affected individuals in class action lawsuits related to pay discrimination." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21]
The Bill Would Have Directed The Department Of Labor In Establishing A Grant Program To Provide Training In Negotiation Skills Regarding Pay Disparities. According to Congressional Quarterly, "authorize a new Labor Department grant program for public and private entities to carry out negotiation skills training programs to address pay disparities." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21]
The Bill Would Have Established The National Award For Pay Equity In The Workplace To Annually Award An Employer's Efforts To Combat Gender Pay Disparities. According to Congressional Quarterly, "establish an annual national award for an employer that made a 'substantial effort to eliminate pay disparities between men and women.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21]
The Bill Would Have Required The Department Of Labor To Conduct Studies On Gender Pay Disparities. According to Congressional Quarterly, "require the Labor Department to conduct a number of studies on sex-based pay." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21]
The Bill Would Have Required The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission To Gather Employers Compensation Data By Breaking It Up By Sex, Race, And National Origin Of Employees. According to Congressional Quarterly, "require the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collect compensation data disaggregated by employees' sex, race and national origin." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21]
The Bill Would Establish Strict Data Collection Guidelines For Employers, Including Demographic Segregated Data On Compensation, Hiring, Termination And Promotion. According to Courthouse News Service, "The Paycheck Fairness Act also establishes rigorous data collection standards for employers, including details on compensation, hiring, termination and promotion broken down by sex, race and national origin." [Courthouse News Service, 4/13/21]
The Bill Would Have Directing The Department Of Labor And Equal Employment Opportunity Commission To Provide Aid And Information To Small Business To Ensure Compliance. According to Congressional Quarterly, "require the Labor Department and EEOC to provide technical assistance for small businesses to comply with the bill's provisions." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Make Additional Employment Data Collection Optional For The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission When Providing Their Annual Compensation Data. In April 2021, Schweikert voted against en bloc amendments no.1 to the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "modify a requirement for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to provide for annual collection of disaggregated compensation data from employers to make collection of additional employment data optional." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 216-207. [House Vote 106, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 37; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Exempted Claims On Pay Equity From Allowing A Federal Court To Apply More Stringent Rules For Who Can Sue In A Class-Action Lawsuit. In January 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "exempt[ed a pay equity claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or the Fair Labor Standards (Equal Pay) Act." The underlying bill would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] federal courts from certifying proposed classes of individuals for a class-action lawsuit unless each member of the class has suffered the same type and degree of injury. Additionally, the bill would [have] require[d] quarterly reports by asbestos trusts including claims made against the trusts and payouts made by the trusts for asbestos-related injuries." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 177 to 224. [House Vote 27, 1/8/16; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/16; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 900; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1927]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Denying Companies That Pay Their Women Employees Less For Equal Work Than Male Employees From Receiving Defense Department Contracts. In May 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to the Congressional Record, would have barred the Defense Department from "enter[ing] into any contract with an entity if the entity [...] does not provide equal pay for equal work for women employees." In addition to the equal pay requirements, the proposed amendment to the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization bill would have ordered the Defense Department to require that any new department contracts set the minimum wage for any work performed on that contract at $10.10 an hour in 2015; required the Defense Secretary to ensure that women serving in the military are not discriminated against in combat or other military service; and forbidden the Defense Department from contracting with companies that have outsourced U.S. jobs to another country. It would also have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Defense Department's inspector general to investigate interest and fees charged on student loans made to members of the armed forces. It also would bar air carriers from charging fees for baggage checked by members of the armed forces who are deploying, returning, or traveling on official military orders." The vote was on a motion to recommit the underlying bill with instructions to report it back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 194 to 227. [House Vote 239, 5/22/14; Congressional Record, 5/22/14; Executive Order 13658, as published in the Federal Register, 2/20/14; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4435]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Require The Labor Department To Conduct Research On The Gender Wage Gap Of Younger Employees. In April 2021, Schweikert voted against en bloc amendments no.1 to the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require the Labor secretary to undertake research and commission additional studies on the gender wage gap among younger workers." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 216-207. [House Vote 106, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 37; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
2021: Schweikert Voted For A Substitute Amendment That Would Allow Employers To Limit The Time And Place For Workers To Discuss Wages. In April 2021, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "make it unlawful for employers to prohibit employees from inquiring about, discussing or disclosing wages but allow employers to limit the time, place and circumstances during which employees may do so." The vote was on adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 183-244. [House Vote 107, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 38; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Limit The Definition Of "Sex" To Not Include "A Sex Stereotype" Regarding Equal Pay Requirements And Require Enforcement Of The Bill's Provision From The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission And Labor Department. In April 2021, Schweikert effectively voted against the manager's amendment to the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "make technical corrections; strike language that would include 'a sex stereotype' in the definition of 'sex' with respect to equal pay requirements; and clarify Labor Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforcement and implementation authorities with respect to the bill's provisions, including to require each to issue relevant regulations." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 217-207, thus automatically adopting the manager's amendment. [House Vote 103, 4/14/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 303]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Expand The Definition Of "Sex" To Include "A Sex Stereotype" Regarding Equal Pay Requirements And Require Enforcement Of The Bill's Provision From The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission And Labor Department. In April 2021, Schweikert effectively voted against the manager's amendment to the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "make technical corrections; strike language that would include 'a sex stereotype' in the definition of 'sex' with respect to equal pay requirements; and clarify Labor Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforcement and implementation authorities with respect to the bill's provisions, including to require each to issue relevant regulations." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 217-208. [House Vote 102, 4/14/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 303]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Enforce Interagency Equal Pay Laws Through The Establishment Of The National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force. In April 2021, Schweikert voted against en bloc amendments no.1 to the Paycheck Fairness which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "establish the National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force to coordinate interagency efforts in enforcing equal pay laws." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 216-207. [House Vote 106, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 37; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against A Valid-For-Three-Months-Only Version Of The Paycheck Fairness Act, Which Would Make It Easier For Women To Successfully Sue Their Employers For Pay Discrimination, And Increase Employer Penalties In Such Cases. In September 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have added "the text of a measure (HR 377) to tighten prohibitions on pay discrimination based on sex." Specifically, it would have added the Paycheck Fairness Act, which according to the Congressional Research Service, would "increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for 'equal work,' and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law." The underlying bill funded the government through December 11, 2014; and the proposed amendment stated that the equal pay provisions would be in effect only through that date. The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill and report it back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 199 to 228. [House Vote 508, 9/17/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/17/14; H.R. 377, 1/23/13; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13; H.J.Res. 124, 9/17/14; Congressional Record, 9/17/14; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 124]
Amendment Would Also Have Raised The Minimum Wage To $8.20 An Hour Until December 11, 2014, And Allowed Student Loans To Be Refinanced At Current Borrowing Rates Until That Date. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have added "the text of a measure (HR 1010) that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the federal minimum wage for employees to $8.20 an hour, $9.15 an hour after one year, and $10.10 an hour after two years; [...] [and] allow[ed] student loan debt to be refinanced at rates available to current borrowers." The proposed amendment would have sunset the minimum wage and student loan refinancing provisions on December 11, 2014. [Congressional Quarterly, 9/17/14; Congressional Record, 9/17/14]
Amendment Would Also Have Reauthorized The Export-Import Bank For Five Years Instead Of Nine Months. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment "would [also have] extend[ed] the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank for 5 years." The underlying bill included a provision reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank through June 30, 2015. [Congressional Quarterly, 9/17/14; H.J.Res. 124, 9/17/14]
2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Considering The Paycheck Fairness Act, Which Would Make It Easier For Women To Successfully Sue Over Pay Discrimination, And Increase Employer Penalties In Such Cases. In April 2013, Schweikert effectively voted to block House consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, would "increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for 'equal work,' and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law." The vote was on ordering the previous question -- and preventing further amendment of -- the proposed rule governing House consideration of a bill concerning the National Labor Relations Board. Because the un-amended rule did not permit consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, the effect of the House's 226 to 192 vote to order the previous question on the rule was to block House consideration of Paycheck Fairness Act for the time being. [House Vote 97, 4/11/13; Congressional Quarterly, 4/11/13; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13; "The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means," House Rules Committee Minority Staff Memo, 3/18/10; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 146]
House Rules Committee Republican Staff: A Vote To Order The Previous Question On A Rule Is "A Vote About What The House Should Be Debating" Which "Does Have Substantive Policy Implications." According to a 2010 memo written by the then-House Rules Committee's minority staff, "This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. [...] Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan." ["The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means," House Rules Committee Minority Staff Memo, 3/18/10]
If The House Refused To Order The Previous Question, The Minority Would Assume Control Of The House Floor For An Hour And Could Offer A Germane Amendment To The Rule. According to a 2010 memo written by the then-House Rules Committee's minority staff, "Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say 'the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's 'American Congressional Dictionary': 'If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.'" ["The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means," House Rules Committee Minority Staff Memo, 3/18/10]
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) Said He Would Propose An Amendment To The Rule Permitting Consideration Of The Paycheck Fairness Act If Given The Opportunity To Do So. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Polis said, "If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act. Here we are in 2013--2013--and yet women make 77 cents for every dollar made by a man for equal work. Equal pay is not just a problem for women, but for all American families who work hard to pay their bills. It's high time that this body took up the Paycheck Fairness Act, which we will do if we defeat the previous question." [Congressional Record, 4/11/13]
2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Ensuring That The Proposed SKILLS Act Would Not Diminish Employment Protections, Training Opportunities Or Education Benefits Of Certain Seniors, Veterans, Women Or Young Americans. In March 2013, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] clarif[ied] that nothing in the bill would repeal, deny or loosen employment protections, training opportunities or educational benefits for certain seniors, veterans, women or youth." The vote was on a motion to recommit the underlying bill to the House Education and the Workforce Committee and report the bill back with an amendment. This was part of a larger package that would have also raised the minimum wage to $10.10 in two years. The underlying bill was the House version of the SKILLS Act. The SKILLS Act reauthorized and overhauled 35 employment and job training programs into one funding stream for state and local use. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 184 to 233. [House Vote 74, 3/15/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/15/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/15/13; Congressional Actions, HR 803]
Amendment Supporters Argued That The Underlying Bill Unfairly Targeted For Elimination Programs Established To Protect Young Workers, Working Seniors, Farm Workers, Workers With Disabilities, English-Language Learners, Veterans And Low-Income Workers, And Would Have Eliminated The Workforce Investment Act Of 1998 Directive Requiring The Poorest Workers Be Given Priority Of Service. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said, "First, the bill eliminates and consolidates programs simply for the sake of elimination and consolidation. The populations served by these programs often face daunting challenges in the job market. Youth, older workers, farm workers, workers with disabilities, English-language learners, veterans and low-income workers are among those who face the greatest barriers to employment. Yet, programs that serve these populations are the very programs targeted by the Republicans. Even worse, the bill eliminates the directive requiring these poorest workers to be given priority of service. With limited money, hard-to-serve populations will be left out in the cold. And we have yet to hear any credible evidence that eliminating these programs will save taxpayer money. We have yet to hear any credible evidence that these programs are duplicative, nor have we heard credible evidence that this approach will make the system work better." [Congressional Record, 3/15/13]
The Obama Administration Opposed The Underlying Bill, Arguing It Would Downsize Employment Programs Protecting Those With Significant Barriers To Employment, Without Providing Critical Assistance To The People Those Programs Served. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, issued by the Office of Management, "While H.R. 803 takes some positive steps, the bill does not adhere to the Administration's key principles for reform. The bill would eliminate, or allow the consolidation of, many targeted programs, without providing the critical assistance needed by vulnerable populations such as veterans, low-income adults, youth, adults with literacy and English language needs, people with disabilities, ex-offenders, and others with significant barriers to employment. H.R. 803 would freeze funding for the next seven years and would fail to support efforts to innovate and replicate effective approaches." [Office of Management and Budget, 3/13/13]
Supporters Said The Proposed Amendment Would Ensure That, Even With Cuts Made By Bill, "The Poor Will Get A Better Shot At Better Jobs." According to the Congressional Record, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said, "When I look at the bill before us, I think of Gregory and a million other hardworking Americans like him. The bill before us is not for him. He's low-income. Under this bill, he loses his priority of service even if he wanted to train to try to get new skills for a better job with better wages to provide for his family. With this bill, he wouldn't be able to. With this bill, we shouldn't ask what it does for people like Gregory but what it does to them. Under the Foxx bill, seniors and youth no longer have wage protections. Low-income workers no longer get priority of service. The voices of labor and community colleges are squeezed off the Workforce Investment Boards, and the poor and disadvantaged get the shaft. We propose this motion to do something different so that, no matter what happens with the adoption of the Foxx bill, the poor will get a better shot at better jobs, and those who are working in low-wage jobs will get a decent wage." [Congressional Record, 3/15/13]
Opponents Said Proposed Amendment "May Hurt Workers And Job Creators And Increase Unemployment." According to the Congressional Record, House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) said, "The best approach right now is to get Federal spending under control and government out of the way of the Nation's job creators. Republicans are always willing to discuss responsible proposals that will promote economic growth and help people get to work. Since the motion to recommit would force this committee to advance a proposal that may hurt workers and job creators and increase unemployment, I urge my colleagues to vote 'no' on the motion and 'yes' on the underlying bill." [Congressional Record, 3/15/13]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Establish A Grant Program To Train Employers About Salary And Wage-Setting Negotiations. In April 2021, Schweikert voted against en bloc amendments no.1 to the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "direct the Labor secretary to establish a program to award contracts and grants for the purpose of training employers about the role that salary negotiation and other wage-setting practices can have on bias in compensation." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 216-207. [House Vote 106, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 37; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Including Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity Under The Definition Of "Sex" Regarding Federal Fair Labor Standards Law. In April 2021, Schweikert voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "add a definition of 'sex' with respect to federal fair labor standards law, which would include sexual orientation or gender identity." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217-210. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 108, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
National Right To Life Warned That The Paycheck Fairness Act Could Be Construed To Mandate Employers To Cover Elective Abortions With Their Health Benefits. According to the Scorecard Letter on H.R. 7 from National Right To Life, "While the legislation is meant to address potential discrimination regarding the gender pay gap, the legislation contains language that could be construed to require employers to cover elective abortion in their healthcare benefits." [Scorecard Letter On H.R. 7 -- National Right To Life, 6/8/21]
Since H.R. 7 Changed The Definition Of "Sex" To Include "Pregnancy, Childbirth, Or A Related Medical Condition" Without Preventing Funding For Abortion, National Right To Life Claimed That H.R. 7 Could Be Used To Sue Employers That Refuse To Provide Elective Abortion Coverage. According to the Scorecard Letter on H.R. 7 from National Right To Life, "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." [Scorecard Letter On H.R. 7 -- National Right To Life, 6/8/21]
National Right To Life Warned That Under The Paycheck Protection Act, If An Employer Provides Male-Specific Health Coverage, A Person Could Claim Discrimination If The Employer Failed To Provide Abortion Coverage. According to the Scorecard Letter on H.R. 7 from National Right To Life, "Under H.R. 7, if an employer provides health coverage for male-specific items, a person could make a claim that an employer's failure to provide health coverage for abortion is discriminatory." [Scorecard Letter On H.R. 7 -- National Right To Life, 6/8/21]
2022: Schweikert Voted To Require Equal And Non-Discriminatory Pay For Male And Female Athletes That Represent The U.S. In International Athletic Competitions. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Equal Pay for Team USA Act of 2022, which would "require the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee to ensure that female and male athletes who represent the United States in international amateur athletic events receive, from funds directly provided by the committee to the athlete, equivalent and nondiscriminatory compensation, wages, benefits, medical care, travel arrangements and expense payments. It would specify that the committee may consider merit, performance, seniority or quantity of play in determining contracts or other terms of participation, and may provide more beneficial terms to athletes to address disparities in outside income. It would require the committee to take 'all reasonable steps' to advocate to international sports federations to equalize athlete compensation and regularly report to Congress on the equal treatment of athletes, including information on the stipends and bonuses provided to athletes disaggregated by gender, race and status of participation on a professional sports team." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 350 -- 59, thus the bill was sent to President Biden and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 532, 12/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/21/22; Congressional Actions, S. 2333]
The Bill Ensured Equal Compensation For U.S. Women's International Sports, Which Was A Long-Time Battle For The U.S. Women's Soccer Team. According to the Associated Press, "The House has passed a bill that ensures equal compensation for U.S. women competing in international events, a piece of legislation that came out of the U.S. women's soccer team's long battle to be paid as much as the men." [Associated Press, 12/22/22]
The Bill Required All Athletes Representing The U.S. In International Competitions To Receive Equal Compensation And Benefits, Regardless Of Gender, And Instructed The U.S. Olympic And Paralympic Committee To Oversee Fair Pay. According to the Associated Press, "The Equal Pay for Team USA Act, passed late Wednesday, will require all athletes representing the United States in global competition to receive equal pay and benefits in their sport, regardless of gender. It covers America's 50-plus national sports and requires the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee to handle oversight." [Associated Press, 12/22/22]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Mandate Employers To Disclose Workers' Rights Through Both Physical And Online Publications. In April 2021, Schweikert voted against en bloc amendments no.1 to the Paycheck Fairness Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require employers to inform employees of their rights under the bill's provisions through physical and electronic postings." The vote was on adoption of amendments. The House adopted the amendments by a vote of 216-207. [House Vote 106, 4/15/21; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/21; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 37; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]