Expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on my side?

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.

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.

``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.''

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) to explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona.

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.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 252, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 124) expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 124.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very straightforward. The Department of Defense, in cooperation with the White House, recently issued a policy, which will be implemented in a couple weeks, that would, effectively, bar transgender people from being able to serve in the military. We have this resolution to reject that policy. It is that simple and that straightforward.

We believe the policy that the Pentagon is putting forward is unfair, based on ignorance and bigotry, and will actually harm national security. We ask the House, in this resolution, to express the sense of Congress that we oppose this policy from the Pentagon.

Again, what this policy is primarily based on is ignorance and bias against the transgender community. The policies being implemented will make it virtually impossible for them to serve in the military. This is unfair discrimination, and it is also harmful to national security.

The Army last year failed to meet its recruitment quotas. It is a constant challenge in the military to find the people who have the character, the capability, and the ability to serve in our military.

We have the best military in the history of the world. We need high- qualified people to serve. To single out a particular group of people, to discriminate against them and say that they cannot serve, not because they can't meet the qualifications--it is not because they can't run fast enough or shoot straight enough or work hard enough--to be a member of the military, but because of something that literally has nothing to do with their ability to do their job, is bad for national security and is unfair discrimination.

We have heard a lot from people about how difficult it is for unit cohesion to have transgender people in the military, a whole bunch of arguments. The only problem with that is the military leaders who have actually been responsible for this--and I am just going to read one quote. There are many, and some of my colleagues will say it as well.

Army Chief of Staff Milley, who is about to become the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last year said

there are precisely zero reports of issues of cohesion, discipline, or morale as a result of transgender people serving.

There is no issue in terms of readiness, despite what the proponents of this policy will say. It is discrimination, pure and simple, and it is unnecessary.

We also hear opponents say that the policy doesn't ban transgender people from serving and, under certain circumstances, they can. But those circumstances, as described, are so limiting and restricting. Worst of all, as I will explain in a minute, in certain parts, it allows them to serve only if they are willing to deny who they are. That amounts to a ban. If you cannot be who you are and serve in the military, then that is a choice nobody should have to make.

Let's start with the fact that, right now, under this policy, anyone who wants to join the military, if they have transitioned to a different gender, either gone through the surgery or began hormone therapy, this ban says they cannot join. Again, this doesn't say anything about their fitness to serve, in terms of their physical ability or anything. If they have simply had transition surgery or gone through hormone therapy, they are barred from serving.

Worse than that, the people who are already in the military who are transgender are, to a certain extent, grandfathered in. In many different places throughout this policy, it says over and over again that they have to serve in their biological sex. A lot of people go: Well, what the heck does that mean? That gets at the essence, at the very heart, of what it means to be transgender.

This is not something that is just in people's minds. It is a physiological condition that people are born into in which they decide they are more comfortable being in the opposite gender. That is one of the cornerstone difficulties that all these people have to go through: Who am I? What gender do I want to be?

Working with therapists and working with other people, they make that determination. They decide: I know who I am, and this is who I am going to be.

This policy now says: Sorry, we don't care what your doctor says. You cannot be the gender that you know that you are. You have to deny who you are in order to stay in the military.

In many places throughout this policy, that is a consistent theme and points out what is so totally and completely wrong about this policy.

You have also heard, undoubtedly, that there are higher healthcare costs for people who are transgender. There are a number of studies out that show that actually isn't true. Yes, healthcare expense is part of people who serve in the military, and, regrettably, people who join the military have all manner of different healthcare expenses that we do have to pick up, but there is no evidence that this has an increased cost over an average servicemember.

Furthermore, we know that the purpose of this policy is not about cost because one of the first points that I made was about how they are not now going to be allowed to join the military even if they have already gone through transition surgery or hormone therapy. So even if they are all done with that, and there is no additional medical cost to come, this policy says that they are barred and banned from joining the military.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

It makes it perfectly clear that this policy is unfair discrimination based on bigotry and ignorance, and I urge this House to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I will agree, this is a messaging bill, and the message is this is a bad policy. That is what the House is doing.

I will also agree that, when it comes to crafting the right policy in this area, it should be done in committee, and it will be done in committee. That is why we didn't bring that out here on the floor.

But I think it is important for the House of Representatives to make it clear how wrong we think this policy is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, at some point someone has got to tell me what ``engaging in personalities'' means. I have served in this body for a long time. I still don't know what that means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cisneros).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I am prepared to close at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let's remember one important point. There was no problem. This was not an issue. It was not talked about until the President decided that, in his words, he wanted to ban transgender people from serving in the military.

I hope that is not engaging in personalities. It is simply saying what he said and did. He sent out a tweet saying we should ban people who are transgender. Then the military has had to backfill that tweet with a policy. I feel bad for the members of the military who have had to do that, who have had to waste their time for the last year trying to accommodate the ignorance and bigotry of this presidential policy.

There was no problem. Every single service chief testified there is no impact on unit cohesion. We weren't talking about that until the President decided that he wanted to discriminate against transgender people.

I think the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee is 100 percent correct. Every eligible person who can perform the duties should be allowed to serve.

This policy violates that principle in a whole bunch of different ways, but I will simply mention two.

Even if you have already transitioned, even if you have already gone through all of the healthcare needs and have fully transitioned to a new gender, this policy says you will not be allowed to serve if you are transgender.

That means that fully qualified people--not ones who have potential future surgery or anything--are being banned from serving.

It also says, if you are serving now, you cannot be who you are. And this is where the ignorance comes in.

Wow. What do you mean?

You have got to be the gender you were born in.

That is not the way it works. That is ignorance talking. This policy saying that, No, sorry, you have to be in your ``biological sex'' means you have to deny who you are. And that will also ban people from serving who are otherwise 100 percent qualified.

Without question, trans men and women who are fully qualified to serve in the military will be banned by this policy.

We have already seen the other two arguments: Well, the healthcare costs will go up.

No, they won't. The stats, the evidence, the facts show that transgender people have no greater healthcare costs than the average person serving in the military.

And the unit cohesion argument is an absolute joke. This debate, this policy, prompted by the President, inserting discrimination where it did not belong, is the only thing that has caused any of this issue.

As General Milley said: zero evidence of any unit cohesion issue.

So, let's be 100 percent clear here. This policy is based on ignorance and bigotry.

And why are we doing it on the House floor instead of down in some press conference somewhere? Because the vote of this House matters more than just the individual words of a few Members.

I, as a Member of the United States House and as a citizen of the United States of America, want my Congress to go on record that we will not stand for ignorance and bigotry in our military or anywhere else.

A vote of this House makes it clear just how wrongheaded this policy is. And make no mistake about it, this is not the military that wanted this. The President drove it, and he is causing problems that do not need to be caused. We should reject this policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 252 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do I deserve to make 53 cents on the dollar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Trahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Florida an additional 30 seconds.

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).

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a sense of Congress resolution that makes no change whatsoever in law or policy. It is a messaging bill rather than legislation that actually does something on a substantive issue.

So, one may ask, why bother opposing a bill that doesn't do anything? I have a couple answers.

Part of the answer, to me, is that we normally do not bring isolated issues in the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee to the floor.

Part of the reason that a national defense authorization bill has been signed into law every year for 58 straight years under Presidents of both parties and Congresses of both parties is that we try to look at national security as a whole as it relates to the Department of Defense. There have been a few isolated instances where something needed immediate attention, but, generally, we try to look at the whole, not bring isolated issues to the floor. I worry that doing so, even with a messaging bill, undermines that bipartisan approach that has been so successful.

Another part of the reason, Mr. Speaker, is that we also normally try to keep our troops above and beyond politics. Bringing a messaging bill that does nothing to law or policy also threatens to undermine that, and I worry about that.

On its face, the resolution, the messaging bill that is before us, includes a number of statements that are just flat wrong. It says that President Trump reversed the prior policy on transgender individuals in a tweet. In fact, well before any Presidential tweet, Secretary of Defense Mattis had put a delay on implementation of the policy that had previously been announced so that there could be a 6-month review. There was a 6-month review with experts, with uniformed and civilian people from all the services, with medical experts, with a whole variety of folks.

It is serious and thoughtful, despite some of the characterizations that have been made from time to time. I recommend that Members actually read it, because I think they will be impressed. They may not agree with all of the recommendations, but they will see the serious and thoughtful approach that the Department took to this issue.

As a result of this review, the previous policy was modified. It didn't go back to the way it was. Again, those details are in the report.

The resolution before us today says that the Mattis policy is a ban. It is not. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found, on January 4, 2019, that it is factually inaccurate to call it a blanket ban. In reversing the lower court, the court of appeals said: ``The district court made an erroneous finding that the Mattis plan was the equivalent of a blanket ban on transgender service.''

This resolution before us says that there is a global medical consensus on transgender care. But the World Professional Association for Transgender Health says that they offer flexible clinical guidelines that cannot possibly reflect all the differences and situations which exist.

Mr. Speaker, turning to the substance of the matter for a second, to me, the heart of the issue is contained in the very first sentence to the Department report, which was issued in February 2018. The first sentence says: ``It is a bedrock principle of the Department of Defense that any eligible individual who can meet the high standards for military service without special accommodations should be permitted to serve.''

Any eligible individual who can meet the standards without special accommodation should be permitted to serve. That is what I believe, Mr. Speaker. I think that is what this policy attempts to achieve.

Now, it is a fair point to say it went too far this way or it didn't go far enough this way. We can have those substantive, serious debates at an appropriate time and place. But a messaging bill is not going to get that job done.

I would say, finally, Mr. Speaker, that our committee heard the day before yesterday a reminder that only 29 percent of Americans aged 17 to 25 are eligible for military service. Only 29 percent meet the physical, mental, and legal requirements to be eligible for military service, even if they want to. That means 71 percent are not eligible, for whatever reason.

There could be, and maybe there should be, a debate that the standards are too high, that we need to lower the standards, that we need to make some changes in the standards so that more people are eligible. But the point is, our view of military service is that anyone who meets those standards should be allowed to serve. If someone

cannot meet those standards, for whatever reason, through no fault of their own, then they are not able to serve. They can serve in a different way, but not in military service.

I think, again, Mr. Speaker, if we were to really be discussing the substance of the issue rather than a messaging bill, then we could talk about the high standards for military service without special accommodation and there would be a substantive discussion. That is not what we are doing today. It is a messaging bill, and that is too bad because there are serious issues that need to be discussed.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair whether the gentleman from Washington, the chairman, has any further speakers other than himself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the current House leadership seems rather consumed by Presidential tweets. As a matter of fact, just a few moments ago, the Speaker of the House, herself, was one of those Members who had to be reminded that it is a violation of the rules of the House to disparage the character of the President.

I guess we could do this every day. The President could tweet, and we would have a sense of Congress to comment on it, and the President would tweet. But generally, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a higher and better purpose for this House to work on the

problems that confront the American people.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, this is a messaging bill. It changes no law. It changes no policy. It could also be done down in the House radio-television correspondents' gallery. Somebody could give a speech, and there could be a press conference. It would have the same effect as having this resolution on the floor.

I don't have the time to correct all of the misstatements in the resolution or that have been made on the floor today. I will say this, Mr. Speaker: If we are going to do messaging, then my primary message is that every individual who serves our Nation in the military is entitled to respect and our appreciation--every single individual--and I am among those who are very impressed, by the way, by the transgender individuals who testified in front of our Military Personnel Subcommittee just a few weeks ago.

But on the substance of this issue, I believe the principle for the Department of Defense is that any eligible individual who can meet the high standards for military service without special accommodation should be permitted to serve.

Any eligible individual who can meet the standard without special accommodation should be permitted to serve.

I think that is the standard. That is not exactly what we have been talking about today, but that is the standard, and it should be the standard.

There may be some differences about what a special accommodation is, about various medical diagnoses and conditions. I understand that. But the standard is, if you meet the standard without special accommodation you should be permitted to serve.

And those who serve deserve our respect and our appreciation. That is the point. But that is not really the point of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking member managing this bill, and I thank Mr. Kennedy for his insight.

We are reminded that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Franklin Delano Roosevelt offered those great words on the precipice of World War II, the victory with the United States troops standing side by side, some of them African Americans who lived and served in the uniform but in a segregated way. But their blood was the same, and they shared their blood in the same way; they died in the same way.

Do we want victory or defeat?

Let me be very clear. Allowing transgenders to serve and brushing them out is a travesty.

Do you realize that it is clear that the RAND report found that healthcare coverage for transgender military personnel would increase the military total account by less than zero?

In addition, when all of this was banned by the Obama administration, we recognized it is honored, the sacrifices of selfless transgender servicemembers who have endured exclusion, silence, and persecution due to discriminatory policies and attitudes against LGBT and military personnel such as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which was rightfully struck down under the Obama administration.

We must be against these destructive practices.

Do we want victory or defeat?

There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Support this resolution to stand with those who want to serve and die for their country.

I rise in support of H. Res. 124.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 26, 2017, the fears of the LGBTQ community were confirmed.

In an unexpected move that immediately sent shockwaves through the media and LGBTQ+ community, the President tweeted Wednesday morning that ``the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.''

Scores of individuals, civil rights groups, and military personnel on all sides of the political spectrum unanimously condemned the President's announcement as an intolerant and irrational violation of the sacred right of Transgender Americans to valiantly serve their country.

In his tweets, the President claimed that ``our military . . . cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.''

This statement directly contradicts the wealth of rigorous evidence indicating the exact opposite:

According to a 2016 study by the RAND Corporation, allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military poses ``little to no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness.''

Furthermore, RAND found that health care coverage for transgender military personnel would increase the U.S. military's total annual health care expenditures by a mere 0.04 to 0.13-percent.

The President's illogical ban on transgender military personnel reverses a previous policy set forth by Former Defense Secretary Ash Carter in June, 2016 that allowed transgender troops to serve openly.

This policy under Obama was a significant step forward that made our armed services more inclusive.

It honored the sacrifices of selfless transgender service members who have endured exclusion, silence, and persecution due to discriminatory policies and attitudes against LGBTQ+ military personnel such as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' which was rightfully struck down under the Obama administration.

Numerous advocacy groups that focus on LGBTQ+ service members and veterans organizations have decried the President's transgender ban announcement and criticized the hypocrisy and poor leadership of the White House.

Officials at OutServe, which provides legal assistance to LGBTQ+ troops and recruits, said Trump's ``pseudo-policy-by-twitter'' demonstrated ``blatant disregard for transgender service members.''

The group then turned the President's hateful rhetoric back on itself: ``The disruptive burden to the military comes from indecision in a White House which itself is not focused on victory if it's targeting service members.

The readiness, effectiveness, and lethality of the Armed Services comes from the commitment of our troops--not the vagaries and bigotry of exclusionary policies.''

The Palm Center, an advocacy group for transgender service members, denounced the President's comments as ``creating a worse version of don't ask, don't tell'' policy.

Vote Vets, an organization dedicated to opening U.S. military services to diverse Americans, correctly assessed that ``removing [transgender service members] weakens our country and our military.''

There are approximately 15,000 transgender service members currently serving in the U.S. military.

The President's announcement offers no clarity on the status of these troops who continue to serve their country with honor, dignity, and excellence.

However, if the President's expression of intent to ``not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve'' entails the removal of these service members from the ranks of the U.S. military--this can only be understood as a direct violation of the rights and principles laid down in the Constitution.

Angela Davis once said, ``If they come for me in the morning, they will come for you in the night.''

Americans of all races, ethnicities, origins, sexual preferences, and gender identities must realize that the reverse is also true: If the President comes for them in the morning, he will come for me in the night.

To the brave transgender individuals who have served, currently serve, or dream of serving in the military: I recognize your commitment to protecting this nation with your very lives.

I oppose the President's unlawful agenda of discrimination. I will not stop until your sacrifices are regarded as equal under the law of the United States.

To all members of the transgender community: I stand with you. I am fighting for you. I will not allow your rights to be stripped away by bigoted men who have lost sight of what it means to be American. That is why I support H. Res. 124.