According to U.S. News & World Report, the Paycheck Fairness Act is meant to close this gap by: The bill was first introduced in 1997,[7] and has been reintroduced to congress many times, including:

(Senator Reid changes his vote as a procedural maneuver, which left Democrats the option to call up the bill again at a later time.

)[11] On April 9, 2014, in another straight-party-line vote, the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 2199; 113th Congress) was again blocked by a Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate.

[21] The bill would make employers who violate sex discrimination prohibitions liable in a civil action for either compensatory or (except for the federal government) punitive damages.

[21] The bill would authorize the Secretary to make grants to eligible entities for negotiation skills training programs for girls and women.

[21] The bill would direct the Secretary to conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public regarding the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women.

[21] The bill would direct: (1) the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to continue to collect data on woman workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey, (2) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to use specified types of methods in investigating compensation discrimination and in enforcing pay equity, and (3) the Secretary to make accurate information on compensation discrimination readily available to the public.

[4] Senator Mikulski said that "it brings tears to my eyes to know women are working so hard and being paid less" and that "it makes me emotional when I hear that...

One reason for their opposition, given by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), was that Majority Leader Harry Reid had refused to allow votes on any of the amendments that Republicans had suggested for the bill.

[4] Republicans also objected because it would strongly benefit trial lawyers and would "remove caps on punitive damages against businesses found guilty of discrimination.

[4] The National Women's Law Center makes the following case for the Paycheck Fairness Act: For example: After conducting a study of 680,000 EEOC discrimination complaints that found 63% of filers later lost their jobs,[26] University of Massachusetts Amherst scholars Professor Donald Tomaskovic-Devey and doctoral students Carly McCann and J.D.

[28]Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, criticized the proposed law, citing the study.

[29] Columnist Daniel Fisher criticized the legislation in Forbes magazine, pointing out that eliminating the "reason other than sex" defense used by employers under existing law would mean that wage differences based on an individual's salary history and negotiating skills would be treated as evidence of discrimination, even if the employer's actions were not based on gender.