[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2840-H2847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7, PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT, AND 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.RES. 124, OPPOSING BAN ON TRANSGENDER 
                        MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 252 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 252

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 7) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of 
     discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-8 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H. Res. 124) expressing 
     opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly 
     transgender individuals. The resolution shall be considered 
     as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the resolution and preamble to adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question 
     except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Wild). The gentlewoman from California 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1215

  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.

[[Page H2841]]

  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.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres) for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness 
Act. This legislation seeks to prevent wage discrimination on the basis 
of sex, but this is already prohibited under current law.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is a false promise made by the majority 
that would not provide the outcomes that we all seek as Americans. This 
legislation will empower trial lawyers and offers no new protections 
against pay discrimination.
  According to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Federal law currently 
prohibits all discrimination in pay or other employment practices based 
upon sex or any other nonjob-performance-related issue.
  In 1964, Congress enacted comprehensive antidiscrimination civil 
rights protection based on race, color, national origin, religion, and 
sex under title 7 of the Civil Rights Act.
  Together, these laws protect against sex discrimination and provide a 
range of remedies for victims. As a result, sex-based wage disparity is 
in direct violation of not one, but two current Federal laws.
  It is important to acknowledge that there are bad actors. A small 
number of managers may practice pay discrimination, but their actions 
are illegal, and this opens their businesses to lawsuits and to heavy 
fines.
  I could not agree more that such discrimination has no place in those 
businesses or in society in general. However, those who perpetuate 
these illegal acts are the exception and not the rule.
  Congress must not ignore the positive trends our Nation has seen in 
the last 26 months:
  Since 2017, the Trump administration has made significant strides in 
reining in Federal overreach, improving opportunities and results for 
Americans in the past 2 years;
  The Tax Cut and Jobs Act has given all Americans greater opportunity, 
regardless of sex, leading to an improved economy;
  Unemployment is at its lowest level in nearly half a century;
  Median wages across all demographic groups are rising faster now than 
at any time in recent history.
  According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the United States 
economy added jobs for 100 consecutive months. The current labor market 
is not only benefiting the low-skilled services, but also high-skilled 
workers and those with advanced degrees.
  In both low-skill and high-skill sectors, there remains a short 
supply of willing or qualified workers, driving up wages for both. 
Across the spectrum, all workers are benefiting from the current 
economy.
  Our former colleague Jack Kemp used to describe a situation where ``a 
rising tide lifts all boats.'' We may very well be in that ``rising 
tide'' period.
  But despite the good news, the majority has crafted legislation that 
would place a greater burden on employers and reduce the privacy of 
employees and increase Federal spending.
  H.R. 7 does little to protect the wages of American workers. In fact, 
it makes it harder for employers to defend legitimate differentials in 
pay.
  Currently, employers may pay different wages due to factors other 
than sex, such as education, training, or experience.
  Let's say that again. Under current law, you must pay equal wages for 
equal work. That means 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 
an advanced degree or more years of 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 business, 
including hiring the most qualified employees, regardless of their 
gender.

                              {time}  1230

  H.R. 7 would now require that non-sex reasons for any wage disparity 
would have what is termed a ``business necessity.'' Now, ``business 
necessity,'' this is a term that goes undefined in the legislation. 
Proving a gender-based business necessity that accounts for the entire 
differential in pay is sometimes a nearly impossible standard to 
defend.
  Employers would no longer be able to hire or pay employees based on 
qualifications, unless that qualification is being one sex or the 
other, a standard that is defined in very few jobs. In addition, 
employers would not be able to consider market or economic factors of 
their particular business sector that might account for a wage 
disparity.
  This change to what is called a ``bona fide factor defense'' does not 
take into account the reality of the labor market. Employees are often 
willing to accept lower pay for greater control over their work 
location, their schedule, or how they aggregate their leave. Studies 
have shown this is particularly true for women, but it is also true for 
men.
  With the threat of a lawsuit 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 their work 
arrangements, employers will be incentivized to transform jobs that 
were once negotiable and flexible into jobs where one size must fit 
all.

[[Page H2842]]

  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 that her male coworker did not receive, that man could file a 
suit against the employer on the basis that the bonus is not a business 
necessity, due to the vagueness of the term in H.R. 7.
  With this threat in mind, employers may be less likely to use 
performance-based pay and bonuses, despite studies showing such pay 
models actually increase employee pay. As approximately 40 percent of 
employers now use performance-based compensation, this bill and the 
vague definitions in this bill could potentially lead to a stagnation 
or a decrease in wages.
  Under current law, employers are prohibited from pay discrimination 
whether it is intentional or not. If such pay discrimination is 
intentional, employees can sue the employer in a class action suit for 
up to $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act would remove the threshold to this 
liability and would require that workers be included in class action 
lawsuits. It would require that they be included in class action 
lawsuits unless they opt out, but many people may not be aware of that 
requirement that they must opt out. Otherwise, they are automatically 
included.
  In addition, there are no limits on the fees charged by trial 
lawyers. There were amendments offered at the Rules Committee hearing 
to do just that, but they were not accepted as part of this rule.
  One of those amendments, in fact, limited the compensation for 
litigation attorneys to $2,000 per hour. That was the cap placed on 
attorneys' fees, $2,000 an hour. That is a phenomenal sum of money. It 
was rejected by the Rules Committee. Apparently, they felt that their 
litigation attorneys were worth more than $2,000 an hour or are 
required to earn more than $2,000 an hour in order to put food on the 
table for their families. It just doesn't make sense. There should be 
reasonable limitations on those fees.
  While legitimate claims do exist, and I hope that all employees who 
have experienced discrimination seek a legal remedy, the changes in 
H.R. 7 would significantly increase the size and the profitability of 
lawsuits, making unnecessary lawsuits even more likely for trial 
lawyers looking for new cash flows.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act would also have a substantial impact on the 
rights of both employers and employees. The bill would prohibit 
employers from requesting information regarding an employee's pay 
history, which is likely an unconstitutional limit on the employer's 
freedom of speech.
  Furthermore, the bill reduces the right to privacy for employers and 
employees as it removes any recourse should an employee make public the 
wages of other employees, even without the consent of those employees 
or their employer.
  H.R. 7 also requires employers to provide disaggregated employee 
information to the Department of Labor without delineating mechanisms 
to keep that information safe.
  We saw just that last week with the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency data breach. The government is not always the best steward of a 
citizen's private information, and we should limit the data received by 
agencies until those capabilities are improved and verified.
  Let me be clear: Wage discrimination certainly has no place and is 
illegal in the United States of America. But I believe this bill places 
undue and unnecessary restrictions on otherwise lawful business 
practices and is based upon unsubstantiated findings. Therefore, I 
cannot support H.R. 7.
  The path that Congress must take is not to increase opportunities for 
trial lawyers but to continue focusing on strong economic policy that 
expands opportunities for all Americans.
  Last year, 2.8 million jobs were added to the United States' economy. 
Fifty-eight percent of those jobs were taken by women. Nearly 75 
million women are participating in the workforce today, more than at 
any time in our Nation's history. A robust and resilient economy will 
provide the jobs and wage gains Americans expect and deserve.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this 
opportunity to inform my colleague from Texas that the women in Texas 
make $0.72 to their male counterparts. I think Texas women deserve to 
have equal pay.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act, long overdue legislation to close the gender wage gap and 
ensure equal pay for equal work.
  Too many Americans are not making enough to make ends meet, living 
paycheck to paycheck. We need to focus on strategies to raise family 
incomes. H.R. 7 does just that.
  H.R. 7 would limit pay secrecy, expand pay data collection, and 
create more employer accountability for pay differences. This 
legislation will build upon and improve the work of President Kennedy, 
who signed the Equal Pay Act, and President Obama, who signed the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  Despite the progress we have made over the last 50 years, women are 
still earning less than their male counterparts across age, race, and 
socioeconomic groups. This stubborn wage gap, often exacerbated by 
employer-imposed pay secrecy policies, makes it clear that we must be 
intentional in our efforts to address persistent pay disparity.
  On average, women working full time lose a combined total of more 
than $900 billion every year due to the wage gap. If the annual gender 
gap were closed, a working woman would have enough money for an 
additional 13 months of childcare, a year of college tuition, more than 
1 year's worth of food, or an additional 10 months of rent.
  Equal pay is not simply a women's issue. It is a family issue. When 
women bring home less money each day, it means they have less to take 
care of their family, including for groceries, rent, childcare, and 
healthcare.
  Opponents of this legislation argue--we just heard it--that this is a 
gift to attorneys representing employees and that their fees should be 
severely limited. Remember, rights are easily disregarded and violated 
if you don't have the ability to enforce those rights.
  This argument made by opponents is simply an attempt to avoid talking 
about the pervasiveness of wage discrimination. It is an attempt to 
decrease enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act and to lessen the 
penalties for employers who engage in discriminatory practices. If 
nothing else, we should call it out for what it is.
  We know that when women succeed, our country thrives. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act will take us forward to ensuring economic security for 
working women.
  I want to end by acknowledging the extraordinary leadership of Rosa 
DeLauro, the Congresswoman from Connecticut who has spent so much of 
her life dedicated to this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 7.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  In almost every election cycle in which I have participated since 
2002, people on the Democratic side of the aisle have talked about 
wanting to rebuild the middle class. I will submit to you, over the 
last 26 months, this administration, this President, has rebuilt the 
middle class.
  Let me just quote to you from an article in The Wall Street Journal 
from March 1 of this year, a very recent article. ``All sorts of people 
who have previously had trouble landing a job are now finding work. 
Racial minorities, those with less education, and people working in the 
lowest-paying jobs are getting bigger pay raises and, in many cases, 
experiencing the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for their 
groups.''
  Continuing to quote here: ``They are joining manufacturing workers, 
women in their prime working years, Americans with disabilities, and 
those with criminal records, among others, in finding improved job 
prospects after years of disappointment.''
  It is incongruous to me that we would want to roll-back those gains 
that this administration has made in the last 26 months.

[[Page H2843]]

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Trahan).
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my strong support for the 
rule and for H. Res. 124. We should approve both and send a powerful 
message that Congress will not tolerate such a cruel and self-defeating 
policy.
  Last month, the Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel 
Subcommittee held a hearing that was the first of its kind. The 
chairwoman, my colleague from California, invited transgender 
servicemembers to testify. We heard from an impressive panel of five 
dedicated servicemembers. They asked for nothing more than to be 
permitted to continue to serve their Nation honorably.
  Before the hearing, I met Staff Sergeant Patricia King. Patricia grew 
up on Cape Cod. She is a combat-tested and decorated infantry soldier 
who has served nobly for over 20 years in the Army. Her life was turned 
upside down by a tweet nearly 2 years ago, one that put her military 
career in jeopardy.
  We should never treat our servicemembers so callously. But if 
Patricia's story isn't sufficiently convincing, consider how 
shortsighted this ban is as well.
  The DOD's total cost for transition-related care in fiscal year 2017 
was $2.2 million, which is one-tenth of 1 percent of DOD's annual 
healthcare budget for the Active component. Yet the cost to train a 
single fifth-generation fighter pilot is $11 million. The retraining 
cost of losing just one transgender military pilot would be five times 
more than the entire transition-related care for the military for a 
year.
  Meanwhile, the Army missed its recruitment goal for the first time in 
more than a decade last year. Now is certainly not the time to turn 
away well-qualified and patriotic soldiers.
  Let's approve the rule and the resolution and say ``no'' to 
discrimination.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL. Madam Speaker, this is a great day in America. I am so 
proud to say that as the Congress considers these bills that protect 
and advance human rights.
  I rise today, specifically, to talk about the Paycheck Fairness Act, 
because men and women should be able to be paid the same for doing the 
same work.
  I thank my colleagues, Rosa DeLauro and the committee chairman,  
Bobby Scott, for their advancement of this great legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I want to tell you a story, the story of a young 
lawyer who worked in the public defender's office. Her job was to 
represent people accused of crimes like murder and robbery. She was a 
free lawyer for them. It was very high pressure, and it was very 
grueling, but she loved it.
  When she got the job, she was told a rule: Nobody talks about salary 
in this office.
  But one day, she found out that a male colleague was doing the same 
job, and he had similar credentials, but he made much more money. She 
was making $18,000 a year. He was making $20,000.
  When she asked her boss why, she was told that he, the male attorney, 
had a wife and children to take care of.
  Madam Speaker, that was me. That happened to me 40 years ago.

                              {time}  1245

  It was then and still today is a very common experience to millions 
of women who are still earning 80 cents on the dollar that men make, 
and actually much less for women of color. It still makes me angry to 
think about my own experience, but I am not complaining about my own 
life journey. Fortunately, I have a job now that pays me the same as my 
male colleagues. I am so happy I am in a position to do something about 
this today.
  As a result of lower lifetime earnings and different work patterns, 
women are hit hard in retirement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman 
from Florida an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. FRANKEL. I am too excited, Madam Speaker.
  This is why so many women end up in poverty. I want to just say this 
over and over: women go to work for the same reason men go to work, and 
that is to take care of their families. Regardless of the 
circumstance's agenda, we deserve to be paid equally. This Paycheck 
Fairness Act is going to allow workers to talk openly about their pay. 
It is going to prohibit asking about salary histories. It is going to 
require bosses to prove disparities exist for discrimination.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill because when 
women succeed, America succeeds.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind the Speaker and colleagues 
in the House that when the President came and delivered his State of 
the Union message, he was significantly proud of the fact that right 
now more women are working in the workforce than any time in our 
country's history.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong 
support of the rule and the underlying bill, and I particularly thank 
my colleague, Rosa DeLauro, for decades of work in support of H.R. 7.
  In 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act prohibiting 
an employer from paying men and women different wages for the same 
work. It helped, but 56 years later, the typical woman working full-
time year-round is still paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to 
her male coworker. That amounts to more than $10,000 each year.
  The gap is even worse for women of color. African American women make 
only 61 percent of a White man's earnings. Native American women make 
just 58 percent, and Latina women a mere 53 percent.
  But let's be clear. Pay discrimination doesn't just hurt women. It 
hurts entire families and the overall economy. Women are the sole or 
primary breadwinners in half of U.S. households with children. So 
passing this bill would not just help women and families, it would help 
our entire economy. According to some estimates, equal pay could cut 
poverty among working women and their families by more than half and 
add over half a trillion dollars to the U.S. economy.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is simple and straightforward. It protects 
all employees' right to free speech by ending the unfair prohibitions 
that can make it a firing offense for someone to simply tell a coworker 
how much they make. It strengthens workers' ability to challenge 
gender-based wage discrimination.
  It is long overdue, and it is fair. When women succeed, America 
succeeds, and our overall economy succeeds.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains 
on my side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 17\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate Congresswoman Maloney, the previous 
speaker's, comments. She and I served on the Joint Economic Committee 
together back in 2010. The country just lost a very wise economist, 
Alan Krueger. I remember Alan Krueger coming in and testifying to our 
Joint Economic Committee; he testified about--of course, at the time in 
2010, the description was that we were in a low-pressure labor market. 
He contrasted that with the high-pressure labor market of the 1960s. I 
don't recall if there were specific suggestions how to move from that 
low-pressure labor market back to a high-pressure labor market, but I 
don't think there can be any misunderstanding that we are back in a 
high-pressure labor market. That is a good thing.

[[Page H2844]]

  I quoted a few minutes ago from an article in The Wall Street 
Journal. Let me just read a little deeper from that article:

       One face of the red-hot job market is Cassandra Eaton, 23, 
     a high school graduate who was making $8.25 an hour at a 
     daycare center near Biloxi, Mississippi, just a few months 
     ago. Now she earns $19.80--that is almost $20 an hour--as an 
     apprentice at a shipyard in nearby Pascagoula.

  The article continues:
  ``It's amazing that I am getting paid almost $20 an hour to learn how 
to weld, says Ms. Eaton, the single mother of a young daughter. When 
she finishes the 2-year apprenticeship, her wage will rise to more than 
$27 per hour.''
  Madam Speaker, such is the strength of a high-pressure labor market, 
and I include this article from The Wall Street Journal in the Record.

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 1, 2019]

            Inside the Hottest Job Market in Half a Century


 A look at who's getting ahead, who could be left behind and how long 
                           the boom can last

                   (By Erie Morath and Lauren Weber)

       The job market doesn't get much better than this. The U.S. 
     economy has added jobs for 100 consecutive months. 
     Unemployment recently touched its lowest level in 49 years. 
     Workers are so scarce that, in many parts of the country, 
     low-skill jobs are being handed out to pretty much anyone 
     willing to take them--and high-skilled workers are in even 
     shorter supply.
       All sorts of people who have previously had trouble landing 
     a job are now finding work. Racial minorities, those with 
     less education and people working in the lowest-paying jobs 
     are getting bigger pay raises and, in many cases, 
     experiencing the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for 
     their groups. They are joining manufacturing workers, women 
     in their prime working years, Americans with disabilities and 
     those with criminal records, among others, in finding 
     improved job prospects after years of disappointment.
       There are still fault lines. Jobs are still scarce for 
     people living in rural areas of the country. Regions that 
     rely on industries like coal mining or textiles are still 
     struggling. And the tight labor market of the moment may be 
     masking some fundamental shifts in the way we work that will 
     hurt the job prospects of many people later on, especially 
     those who lack advanced degrees and skills.
       But for now, at least, many U.S. workers are catching up 
     after years of slow growth and underwhelming wage gains.
       One face of the red-hot job market is Cassandra Eaton, 23, 
     a high-school graduate who was making $8.25 an hour at a 
     daycare center near Biloxi, Miss., just a few months ago. Now 
     she earns $19.80 an hour as an apprentice at a Huntington 
     Ingalls Industries Inc. shipyard in nearby Pascagoula, where 
     she is learning to weld warships.
       The unemployment rate in Mississippi, where Huntington 
     employs 11,500 people, has been below 5 percent since 
     September 2017. Prior to that month, the rate had never been 
     below 5 percent on records dating back to the mid-1970s. In 
     other parts of the country, the rate is even lower. In Iowa 
     and New Hampshire, the December jobless rate was 2.4 percent, 
     tied for the lowest in the country. That's helped shift power 
     toward job seekers and caused employers to expand their job 
     searches and become more willing to train applicants that 
     don't meet all qualifications.
       ``It's amazing that I'm getting paid almost $20 an hour to 
     learn how to weld,'' says Ms. Eaton, the single mother of a 
     young daughter. When she finishes the two-year 
     apprenticeship, her wage will rise to more than $27 per hour.
       It's no surprise to economists that many people who were 
     previously left behind are now able to catch up. It's 
     something policymakers have been working toward for years. 
     Obama administration economists debated how to sustain an 
     unemployment below 5 percent. Now Trump administration 
     officials are considering how to pull those not looking for 
     jobs back into the labor force.
       ``If you can hold unemployment at a low level for a long 
     time there are substantial benefits,'' Janet Yellen, the 
     former chairwoman of the Federal Reserve, said in an 
     interview. ``Real wage growth will be faster in a tight labor 
     market. So disadvantaged workers gain on the employment and 
     the wage side, and to my mind, that's clearly a good thing.''
       This was one of Ms. Yellen's hopes when she was running the 
     Fed from 2014 to 2018; keep interest rates low and let the 
     economy run strong enough to keep driving hiring. In the 
     process, the theory went, disadvantaged workers could be 
     drawn from the fringes of the economy. With luck, inflation 
     wouldn't take off in the process. Her successor, Jerome 
     Powell, has generally followed the strategy, moving 
     cautiously on rates.
       ``This is a good time to be patient,'' Mr. Powell told 
     members of Congress Tuesday.
       The plan seems to be paying big dividends now, but will it 
     yield long-term results for American workers?
       Two risks loom. The first is that the low-skill workers who 
     benefit most from a high-pressure job market are often hit 
     hardest when the job market turns south. Consider what 
     happened to high-school dropouts a little more than a decade 
     ago. Their unemployment rate dropped below 6% in 2006 near 
     the end of a historic housing boom, then shot up to more than 
     15% when the economy crumbled. Many construction, 
     manufacturing and retail jobs disappeared.
       The unemployment rate for high-school dropouts fell to 5 
     percent last year. In the past year, median weekly wages for 
     the group rose more than 6 percent, outpacing all other 
     groups. But if the economy turns toward recession, such 
     improvement could again reverse quickly. ``The periods of 
     high unemployment are really terrible,'' Ms. Yellen said.
       The second risk is that this opportune moment in a long 
     business cycle might be masking long-running trends that 
     still disadvantage many workers. A long line of academic 
     research shows that automation and competition from overseas 
     threaten the work of manufacturing workers and others in mid-
     skill jobs, such as clerical work, that can be replaced by 
     machines or low-cost workers elsewhere.
       The number of receptionists in America, at 1.015 million in 
     2017, was 86,000 less than a decade earlier, according to the 
     Labor Department. Their annual wage, at $29,640, was down 5 
     percent when adjusted for inflation.
       Tougher trade deals being pushed by the Trump 
     Administration might help to claw some manufacturing jobs 
     back, but economists note that automation has many of the 
     same effects on jobs in manufacturing and the service section 
     as globalization, replacing tasks that tend to be repeated 
     over and over again.
       Andrew McAfee, co-director of the MIT Initiative on the 
     Digital Economy, said the next recession could be the moment 
     when businesses deploy artificial intelligence, machine 
     learning and other emerging technologies in new ways that 
     further threaten mid-skill work.
       ``Recessions are a prime opportunity for companies to 
     reexamine what they're doing, trim headcount and search for 
     ways to automate,'' he said. ``The pressure to do that is 
     less when a long, long expansion is going on.''
       With these forces in play, many economists predict a 
     barbell job market will take hold, playing to the favor of 
     low- and high-skill workers and still disadvantaging many in 
     the middle.
       The U.S. is adding jobs in low-skilled services sectors. 
     Four of the six occupations the Labor Department expects to 
     add the most jobs through 2026 require, at most, a high-
     school diploma. Personal-care aide, a job that pays about $11 
     an hour to help the elderly and disabled, is projected to add 
     778,000 jobs in the decade ended in 2026, the most of 819 
     occupations tracked. The department expects the economy to 
     add more than half a million food-prep workers and more than 
     a quarter million janitors.
       Those low-skill workers are reaping pay gains in part 
     because there aren't a lot of people eager to fill low-skill 
     jobs anymore. Only about 6 percent of U.S. workers don't hold 
     a high school diploma, down from above 40 percent in the 
     1960s, according research by MIT economist David Autor.
       James O. Wilson dropped out of high school in the 10th 
     grade and started selling drugs, which eventually led to a 
     lengthy incarceration. When Mr. Wilson, 59, was released in 
     2013 he sought out training at Goodwill, where he learned to 
     drive a forklift. Those skills led him to a part-time job at 
     a FedEx Corp. facility at an Indianapolis airport. He was 
     promoted to a full-time job in 2017 and is now earning more 
     than $16 an hour. He has a house with his wife and enjoys 
     taking care of his cars, including a prized Cadillac.
       ``I wanted to show FedEx you can take a person, and he can 
     change,'' he said. ``I want FedEx to say, `Do you have any 
     more people like him?` ''
       Skilled workers in high-tech and managerial positions are 
     also benefiting from the high-pressure labor market, 
     particularly in thriving cities. Of 166 sectors that employ 
     at least 100,000 Americans, software publishing pays the 
     highest average wages, $59.81 an hour in the fourth quarter 
     of 2018. Wages in the field grew 5.5 percent from a year 
     earlier, well outpacing 3.3 percent overall growth in hourly 
     pay. The average full-time employee in the sector already 
     earns more than $100,000 a year.
       Other technical industries, scientific research and 
     computer systems design, were also among the five best paying 
     fields. Some of the hottest labor markets in the U.S.--
     including Austin, Texas; San Jose, Calif.; and Seattle--have 
     more than twice the concentration of technical jobs as the 
     country on average.
       A Wall Street Journal analysis of Moody's Analytics data 
     found Austin to be the hottest labor market in the country 
     among large metros. It ranked second in job growth, third for 
     share of adults working and had the sixth-lowest unemployment 
     rate last year, among 53 regions with a population of more 
     than a million. San Jose, the second-hottest labor market, 
     had the lowest average unemployment rate last year and the 
     second-best wage growth.
       While a strong economy is conveying benefits to a broad 
     swath of Americans, those in rural areas aren't experiencing 
     the same lift from the rising tide.
       In metro areas with fewer than 100,000 people and in rural 
     America, the average unemployment last year was half a 
     percentage point higher compared to metro areas with more 
     than a million people, according to an analysis by job search 
     site Indeed.com.

[[Page H2845]]

       ``Finding work can be challenging for rural job-seekers 
     because rural workers and employers both have fewer 
     options,'' said Indeed economist Jed Kolko. ``Many rural 
     areas have slow-growing or shrinking populations.''
       Bradley Cox lives in Vevay, Ind., a rural community of 
     fewer than 2,000 people. The 23-year-old graduated with a 
     bachelor's degree in business administration and liberal arts 
     from Indiana University East in December, but said he had 
     found opportunities limited in his region.
       After years working in hourly positions at a casino, he 
     took a job last summer as a cashier at a CVS Health Corp. 
     drug store, making about $12 an hour. He hoped to work at a 
     bank, or perhaps in a traveling sales role, making use of his 
     business degree. ``But to be honest, for me to do that, I 
     would have to move to one of the cities or commute to one of 
     the cities, at least,'' he says. ``I don't have the 
     opportunity around where I live.''
       Other workers are employed--but need to string together two 
     or more jobs to make ends meet.
       Michelle Blandy, 48, had a full-time digital marketing job 
     in Phoenix but hasn't been able to find steady work since 
     moving to Harrisburg, Pa., to be closer to her family. 
     Instead she's pieced together some freelance projects, 
     occasionally drives for Lyft and sells refurbished jewelry 
     boxes on Etsy. ``I have applied for full-time jobs, I just 
     didn't have any luck,'' she said. ``Harrisburg is tiny 
     compared to Phoenix. There's not as many tech companies or 
     big companies here that are hiring.''
       The good news is this long run of low unemployment could 
     last for a while. Economic theory holds that when 
     unemployment is very low, it stirs inflation, which causes 
     the Federal Reserve to raise short-term interest rates and 
     short-circuit growth and hiring. That kind of cycle ended the 
     1960s period of low unemployment, but inflation in this 
     period remains below the Fed's target of 2 percent.
       That has allowed the Fed to keep rates low. By January 
     1970, when the unemployment rate was 3.9 percent, the Fed had 
     raised its target short-term interest rate to more than 8 
     percent to fight inflation. By contrast, when the jobless 
     rate fell below 4 percent last year, the Fed kept its target 
     rate below 2.5 percent thanks to low inflation.
       ``It may turn out that lower unemployment proves to be more 
     sustainable than it was in the 1960s,'' says Ms. Yellen. ``I 
     think we don't know yet.''

  Mr. BURGESS. Again, I would point out that since the inauguration of 
Donald Trump, our labor market has, in fact, experienced a resurgence 
that a rising tide is indeed lifting all boats. It is incumbent upon us 
not to damage the economy that has brought the benefit to so many 
people--so many of those forgotten Americans--who were denied that 
benefit before, those very Americans to whom President Trump committed 
at the time of his inauguration in January 2017.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I have no additional 
speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) to explain the amendment.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas, 
Representative Burgess, for yielding me time on this most important 
issue.
  First, I would like to talk about the underlying bill. Equal work 
does deserve equal pay, regardless of the sex of the employee. In 
America, this is already the law of the land, and it has been since 
1963 when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act. However, we stand here 
today debating a rule for a partisan Democrat bill that offers no 
protections against pay discrimination in the workplace. Instead, the 
bill makes it easier for trial lawyers to score unlimited paydays while 
dragging working women through never-ending legal dramas.
  This bill also prevents women from utilizing their expertise, skills, 
talents, and education to their advantage. It effectively ties 
employers' hands from considering factors that would allow them to 
potentially give employees better working environments or for employees 
to negotiate a higher salary.
  According to Camille Olson, who testified as a witness in the House 
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services and on the House 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, there can indeed be unintended 
negative consequences from this bill.
  Let me read an example from her written testimony. This is her 
statement, and she gave an example.
  It basically says: In this example an employer has chosen to pay a 
higher salary to a female law firm office administrator who has a J.D. 
degree. The job duties for that position do not include legal work. 
Nevertheless, in the employer's judgment, the performance of those job 
duties will be enhanced by the additional qualifications of a J.D., 
justifying the higher salary.
  In this example, the male employee had a lesser degree. So in this 
example--because in this bill it requires business necessity--the male 
could sue. Even though he doesn't have as high a degree as the woman, 
he could say: I want equal pay.
  So, what I am trying to say is because of the wording of this bill, I 
believe--and the witness in the committees believes--there are 
unintended consequences that could actually hurt women.
  The employee may have a claim even if the advanced degree does 
actually improve performance or serve another legitimate business goal 
where it was not absolutely required for the job, because of the 
business necessity requirement in the bill.
  This example may not be the exception. As our economy and culture 
shifts, we are finding ourselves in a world where women are attending 
and graduating college far more often than men. According to the U.S. 
Department of Education data, nearly 60 percent of those who graduated 
with a bachelor's degree were women. So, certainly, we do not want the 
unintended consequences of an employer not being able to consider the 
advanced education of a woman under this business necessity language in 
the bill.
  H.R. 7 is more of the same from the new majority: government knows 
best. It will tie the hands of employers and prevent employees--
especially female employees--from negotiating a salary and working 
environment that works for them and their family. It is already against 
the law to discriminate, and commonsense approaches to amending the law 
were summarily rejected by my colleagues from the other side of the 
aisle.
  Madam Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, we would amend 
this rule to include a simple change. It provides working parents more 
flexibility so that they can go to baseball games and science fairs; in 
other words, to be better parents.

  I would like to read a portion of that amendment:

       Notwithstanding the other provisions of the 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Mrs. LESKO. We all know that the greatest benefit working parents 
with young children want and value is flexibility. Our concern is that 
this radical proposal which is called paycheck fairness would actually 
limit the flexibility employers can give to working parents, so parents 
can go to their activities.
  This amendment is a very simple amendment. It simply restates the law 
and makes it clear that if you run a dry cleaner with five people in 
it, you don't have to hire a lawyer to define a job for an employee 
with a child in such a way that the employee can go to the science fair 
or a baseball game.
  Instead of being about more litigation and trial lawyers, it is about 
giving more flexibility for working parents. Working Americans should 
have the freedom to choose what is best for them and their families, 
not the Federal Government. Hardworking men and women need more 
flexibility to balance work, life, and family. This amendment seeks to 
provide additional relief in this area.
  Madam Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on 
the underlying measure.

[[Page H2846]]

  


                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, while this resolution attempts to increase protections 
against wage discrimination based on sex, it does not significantly 
improve what already exists in current law.
  I agree with my Democratic friends that there should be no tolerance 
for wage discrimination based on sex or for any other factor protected 
under the Equal Pay or Civil Rights Act, but this bill is not the way 
to do so.
  So, Madam Speaker, as we conclude, I urge a ``no'' on the previous 
question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  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.''

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 192, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 130]

                               YEAS--231

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--192

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman

[[Page H2847]]


     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Amodei
     DesJarlais
     Granger
     Meng
     Serrano
     Torres Small (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman

                              {time}  1331

  Messrs. SMITH of Nebraska, STIVERS, McCAUL, JOHN W. ROSE of 
Tennessee, and Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the adoption of the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 190, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 131]

                               YEAS--232

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--9

     DesJarlais
     Granger
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     Johnson (LA)
     Kinzinger
     Torres Small (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman

                              {time}  1340

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, on March 27, 2019, I was unable to be 
present for the vote on the motion to agree to H. Res. 252, offered by 
Rep. Torres of California. Had I been present for rollcall No. 131, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 131.
  Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, earlier today I was not present to cast 
a vote on the Combined Rule. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay'' on rollcall No. 131.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Speaker, I was not present for Roll Call Vote No. 
130 on ordering the previous question of H. Res. 252 and Roll Call No. 
131 on adoption of the rule, H. Res. 252. Had I been present, I would 
have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 130 and No 131.

                          ____________________