Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Bettye Myers, an invaluable member of the Texas Woman's University community. Dr. Myers, a longtime Denton resident, taught at TWU as a Professor of Kinesiology for more than half a century. She recently passed away at the age of 92.

Before she was a professor, Myers began her time at the university as a student. After

completing the 11th grade, she enrolled at TWU and earned her bachelor's degree in Health, Physical Education & Recreation, with a minor in Government-Sociology, in 1946. The following year, she completed a master's degree at TWU and in 1960 earned a Ph.D. in counseling psychology from the University of Michigan. Dr. Myers returned to TWU as a faculty member in 1961. After completing 54 years of faithful service to the university, she retired in 2015. In honor of her service, TWU dedicated the Dr. Bettye Myers Butterfly Garden in 2016.

Throughout her career, Dr. Myers was an involved and beloved member of the Denton community. She was actively involved in many organizations, including the TWU Alumnae Association, the Kiwanis, AIDS Services of North Texas, the United Way of Denton County, and the Denton Independent School District Board of Trustees. In recognition of her service and contributions, the City of Denton declared September 26, 2006, her 80th birthday, as ``Bettye Myers Day.''

Dr. Myers received more than 30 awards for education and civic participation; however, she is most remembered for her kindness and dedication. Her legacy will continue on at Myers Middle School, where generations of North Texans will learn about her lifelong dedication to education as students at the school that bears her name.

I am grateful for Dr. Myers' many contributions to TWU and Denton. A true North Texas legend, she will be remembered by those whose lives she touched. I offer my condolences to her many friends and family upon this great loss.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As you know, the difficulty is, when we take away the managing of a business operation from that underlying business, the incentive to innovate and to serve consumers is likely to dissipate.

The internet, for decades, has thrived because it was not under the heavy hand of government. Because of this freedom, we are now on the brink of accessing the fifth generation of broadband technology that, when fully implemented, will eliminate the need for net neutrality regulations because latency for all content will be almost zero.

I don't think you find any disagreement that blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization are not practices that anyone wants as a part of the open internet. But classifying broadband internet as a telecommunications service under title II of the Telecommunication Act of 1934 will limit the ability of service providers to respond to consumer demands and potentially result in disruptions due to content neutrality requirements.

Republicans have introduced three proposals to preserve a free and open internet. I hope we can work together, going forward, to achieve that laudable goal.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment directs the Comptroller General of the United States to submit to Congress a report examining the influence of all entities on the virtuous cycle of the internet ecosystem and whether such rules protect the access of consumers to a free and open internet.

A portion of a consumer's online experience is through social media platforms and through other edge providers. Examples of this would include Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube, among others.

Nothing in the Save the Internet Act reviews all parts of the internet ecosystem. Yet, so-called edge providers are the services exercising the most discretion over content delivery.

As we saw last year with testimony in the Energy and Commerce Committee from Facebook and Twitter, the algorithms written by these companies are proprietary, and those proprietary algorithms may manipulate consumer access. We understand the role of these service providers and how each is weighted against the others. We have transparency rules for broadband providers, but not for edge providers.

The bill targets broadband service providers by reclassifying them as utilities under title II of the Communications Act, but we cannot achieve effective net neutrality principles without including the influence of edge providers on the internet ecosystem. For this reason, the amendment simply directs the Government Accountability Office to study the full internet ecosystem so that we can better understand the influence of all online entities in order to protect access to a free and open internet for every consumer.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the valuable ranking member of the full committee.

Madam Chair, again, this bill targets broadband service providers by reclassifying them as utilities under title II of the Communications Act, but we cannot achieve net neutrality principles without including the influence of edge providers on the internet ecosystem.

For this reason, the amendment simply directs the GAO to study the full ecosystem so that we can understand the influence of all online entities and, again, provide a free and open internet for every consumer.

Madam Chair, I certainly want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and thank the ranking member of the full committee for participating in this amendment discussion.

Madam Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and legacy of former Mayor Shirley Cunyus Spellerberg, a dedicated Texan who committed her life to serving others.

Shirley Cunyus graduated from Waco High School in 1945 and enrolled at Baylor University to study business administration. In 1949, she married U.S. Air Force pilot Herman Spellerberg, and together they raised two sons.

The Spellerbergs were stationed in Miami, Florida during Herman's tenure as a PanAm pilot. There, Mrs. Spellerberg became an engaged member of the community, and she hosted a talk radio program called ``Speak Out Miami'' from 1974 to 1979 as well as co-hosted the weekly television show ``To the Point'' from 1977 to 1979.

In 1979, they returned to Texas, where Mrs. Spellerberg continued to be an active participant in her community. In 1983, she was elected Mayor of Corinth, a role in which she served for 16 years. In addition to her official capacities, Mayor Spellerberg served as president of the Denton Republican Women's Club, as a member of the State Republican Executive Committee and Republican Party of Texas Platform Committee, as president of Denton County Republican Assembly, and as a founding member of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum in 1972. For her efforts, she received numerous awards for her political activities in Florida and in Texas. In 2018, she was awarded the ``Yellow Rose of Texas'' award.

Mayor Spellerberg was a valued North Texas leader for more than thirty years. I am grateful for her steadfast service and appreciate her many years of dedication to our region.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Keller City Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Charles Ed Speakmon, who recently passed away at the age of 71.

A retired Marine, Republican precinct chairman, and former auto repair businessman, Mr. Speakmon spent his life serving both his country and his community in many ways. He was elected to the Keller City Council in 2016, where he was known for his gentle and kind nature as well as his willing participation and resolve to get things done.

Mr. Speakmon also was widely known for the elaborate and award- winning Christmas display that adorned his house every year. He was even given the nickname, ``Mr. Christmas'' because of the unique gift he annually shared with his community in his passion for the holiday.

Always faithful, Mr. Speakmon was a man of service who was deeply devoted to his country, his community, and his family. To those who knew him, the sense of loss felt in his sudden departure is a tribute to the life he lived. I am honored to have served alongside Councilman Speakmon to represent the community for which he cared so deeply, and I extend my sincerest condolences to his wife, Candy Speakmon, their family, and all who knew and loved him.

Madam Chairman, I call up amendment No. 6 to H.R. 1585.

Madam Chairman, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program through 2024. This amendment simply requires State and local governments that are recipients of the grant program to include information in their reports to the Attorney General on best practices for reducing the backlog of DNA evidence.

This grant program was originally authorized under the Justice for All Act of 2004 to provide grants to State and local governments for the collection and analysis of forensic samples and to ensure the timely processing of DNA evidence by law enforcement. Congress reauthorized the program several times, most recently providing $151 million for fiscal year 2019.

Despite these efforts, the backlog of untested DNA evidence is still high. According to reporting from The Texas Tribune, a paper back in the State of Texas, it costs between $500 and $2,000 to test a kit, and there are approximately 3,500 untested kits in Texas

alone. We must continue working to reduce this backlog so that we can bring justice to the victims of assault.

State and local grant recipients are required to submit a report to the Attorney General which is then summarized for Congress. My amendment adds best practices for reducing the backlog to the report required by grant recipients in order to better understand the needs of entities directly involved in collecting and processing DNA evidence.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we are here again considering one nonbinding resolution and a second resolution that will never become law. Both of these prevent us from focusing on the real business of Congress, which is to legislate.

The first, H. Res. 271, is a resolution condemning the Trump administration's recent position in the case of Texas v. United States.

So let's revisit that for a minute. Republicans are supportive of protecting access to health insurance for individuals with preexisting conditions. This resolution today will not advance the development of any policies to improve healthcare for the American people. There are options that the Democrats could have brought to the floor to lower healthcare costs and increase access to care; such legislation would indeed be worthy of our time. But, instead, we are debating expressions that basically amount to political posturing.

The first vote the Republicans called this year was a motion to require legislation protecting individuals with preexisting conditions. Surprisingly, the Democrats voted against that previous question. In 2017, as part of the proposed replacement for the Affordable Care Act, Republicans included legislation that would have preserved access for those with preexisting conditions.

Speaker Pelosi has already intervened on behalf of the House in Texas v. United States. While the Department of Justice has weighed in, the department is not litigating the case. As with every other legal case, this will play out in the courts. If Congress must act following the final legal decision, certainly we stand ready to do so. In fact, if the Democrats wanted to void this case, they know their options. They could repeal the individual mandate or they could reinstitute the tax on the individual mandate or they could provide a severability clause that was somehow left out when the Affordable Care Act was passed the first time. But we have seen them do none of those options.

The legal process will take time, and no Americans will lose access to their healthcare while the legal process is being heard. Unlike the case of Texas v. United States--which we know will not affect coverage because the judge in that case has issued a stay--individuals covered by what are known as association health plans may actually lose their coverage due to uncertainty in the legal outcome of that case. For last week, a Federal judge in the case of the State of New York, et al. v. Department of Labor, last week a Federal judge ruled that the Department of Labor's final rule on association health plans was not legal.

Association health plans provide employers who otherwise might struggle to provide health insurance for their employees to access the group market through an association, based either on geography or a line of business. The Washington Post recently reported that there are initial signs that association health plans are ``offering generous benefits and premiums lower than found in the ObamaCare marketplaces.''

Association health plans have provided additional choices for Americans seeking innovative healthcare options, but these choices may soon disappear as a result of the lawsuit State of New York, et al. v. the Department of Labor.

The Democrats are using the case of Texas v. United States to delay explaining their real ideas. Their real idea is a one-size-fits-all healthcare. The so-called Medicare for All would be a terrifying reality for our Nation. The Democrats' Soviet style, government-

run, single-payer healthcare bill would not provide access to quality healthcare for Americans. Instead, it would lead to a massive tax increase, eliminate private insurance, and bankrupt the already dwindling Medicare trust fund.

Constituents in my district back in Texas are struggling to afford their health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and I am certain that we are not the only ones suffering from high premiums and very high deductibles.

Madam Speaker, what good is health insurance if you are afraid to use it because you can't afford your deductible?

This is an issue that I would actually like to see us tackle. But I am confident that a government-run, single-payer system would only further deteriorate our Nation's healthcare.

As the son of a physician who chose to leave Canada because of their system of socialized medicine, I worry that the central state control of healthcare would further damage the doctor-patient relationship. As a physician, I do not believe that the government should hinder a doctor's ability to act in the best interest of his or her patient. I wish the concept of government dictating a physician's practice and decisions was unthinkable, but I find myself here today having to deconstruct the idea of further government control of healthcare.

The House Democratic proposal would implement a global budget, and once that has been set, hospitals and institutions would be required to stick to that for all outpatient and inpatient treatment.

What happens if the budget runs out?

Are the patients simply told: Sorry, we ran out of money, you may try again next year?

Today we should be focusing on the parts of the health insurance market that are working for Americans. For example, 71 percent of Americans are satisfied with their employer-sponsored health insurance. This provides robust protections for individuals with preexisting conditions under ERISA law--a 1970 law, not the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Quite simply, the success of employer-sponsored insurance is not worth wiping out for single-payer healthcare.

Since President Trump took office--and this is important--since the President took office, the number of Americans in employer-sponsored health coverage has increased.

How much has that increased?

I can't precisely tell you because our Congressional Budget folks have not seen fit to give us new coverage numbers.

But since the President took office, how many people are employed that were previously unemployed?

The number is somewhere between 3 and 6 million, and a significant number of those individuals have employer-sponsored health insurance who had no insurance before.

The coverage numbers under President Trump, if the story is ever told, have gone up. Today, there is a greater percentage of Americans in employer-sponsored health coverage than at any time since the year 2000. That is why it is astonishing that House Democrats would want to abolish that insurance option entirely.

Instead of building on the success of our existing health insurance framework, Democrats' radical single-payer, government-run policy would simply tear it down. It would eliminate employer-sponsored health insurance, eliminate all private insurance, eliminate Medicaid, and eliminate CHIP.

Existing Medicare beneficiaries would not be exempt from harm, as the policy would raid the Medicare trust fund, which is already slated to go bankrupt in 2026.

Our Nation's seniors count on the existence of Medicare for their retirement healthcare needs. They have paid into it their entire working lives. How are we supposed to inform them that not only do the Democrats want to endanger their access to Medicare services, but, unbelievably, they will want to increase their taxes also?

There is no question that this policy could be catastrophic for America's patients today and for generations to come.

At least now there is some degree of honesty. Remember, a previous administration said, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Now at least there is some degree of honesty.

You can't keep your doctor. You can't keep your insurance. You can't keep your personal liberty. You get nothing. Effectively, it would end all the parts of our healthcare system that are, in fact, working for the American people.

Quite simply, single-payer healthcare would be another attempt at a one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare. We know this: Americans are all different. A universal healthcare plan will not meet the varying needs of each and every one of us as individuals. Single-payer is not one-size-fits-all. It is really one-size-fits-no-one.

Again, to restate the obvious: Since the beginning of this Congress, we have heard it. Through the last Congress, we heard it. Republicans support protections for individuals with preexisting conditions.

Instead of spending our time here today worrying about the judicial branch, we could focus on our job as members of the legislative branch. We should be actively working to better our healthcare system, not spending time taking votes that will fail to accomplish any real objective.

Madam Speaker, the second resolution included in this rule directs the removal of the United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.

We considered this resolution once before. At that time, Republicans successfully passed a motion to recommit that declared the House's opposition to anti-Semitism. However, this version of the bill does not include that important provision, and we are again debating legislation that is, in fact, based on a false premise.

The resolution is fundamentally flawed. United States forces are not engaged in hostilities between the Saudi-led coalition and the Iranian- backed Houthi forces in Yemen. Previously, the United States was providing midair refueling to Saudi Arabia but ceased this assistance in November 2018. The United States continues to provide limited intelligence-sharing and limited logistics support, which does not amount to engagement in hostilities.

The Trump administration is focused on countering al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic State, mitigating the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and assisting our allies.

The United States does not command, coordinate, accompany, nor participate in counter-Houthi operations or any hostilities other than those directed at al-Qaida and the Islamic State.

I might, here, just add: Those activities against the Islamic State have been significantly successful over the last 2 years.

This resolution sets a dangerous precedent. America has a security agreement with Saudi Arabia, just as we do with 117 other countries, including our NATO allies Canada, Australia, South Korea, and Israel. If this resolution were to become law, it could set a precedent that could prevent us from assisting allies and prevent us from meeting our treaty obligations. Rather than condemning a type of assistance that is no longer being provided by the United States, we should be finding ways to aid the millions of Yemenis at risk of starving to death.

Limiting how our forces can engage in the region will only further exacerbate this conflict and not help bring it to a conclusion.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, here is one of the uncomfortable truths of the Affordable Care Act: Under the law, every Member of Congress was supposed to be covered under the Affordable Care Act. Obviously, the pay and benefits of a Member in Congress exceed the subsidy limits, so these would be unsubsidized healthcare.gov policies. But then-Speaker of the House John Boehner, then-Leader of the United States Senate Harry Reid, and President Obama himself all intervened. They were fearful that Members of Congress might leave.

There might be a brain drain in Congress--if such a thing was, in fact, possible--if Members of Congress were required to put their health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, so they created an exception for Members of Congress, and Members of Congress only. They are the only people in the United States who can do this. There is a tax-free subsidy that a Member of Congress can walk into the D.C. exchange and get their coverage in the D.C. exchange.

I rejected that option because: Number one, I didn't think it was right. Number two, I didn't think it was legal. I thought it was going to be taken away from us. Apparently, no one else shared my concern because it still exists.

It does make me wonder why we would not offer a health reimbursement account, and I have brought this up several times in committee, where that same tax-free subsidy could be available to any American to walk into a health insurance plan of their choosing. Why not give the people of the country what Members of the Congress so generously bestowed upon themselves?

I didn't take the option to go into the D.C. exchange. I didn't take the option of the tax-free subsidy that went along with it. I bought an unsubsidized health insurance plan in healthcare.gov, signed up for it October 1, 2012. Many of you may remember that. We were in the process of shutting the government down at the time. It was in all the papers.

I started that process October 1, 2012. The check cleared the middle of January 2013. I went that entire time not knowing if I would have health insurance in healthcare.gov the next year because I couldn't get an answer to any questions.

You couldn't call the people at healthcare.gov. You would try, and you would be put on hold. You would stay on hold for a long period of time. You would eventually get to talk to a person. You would get cut off. You would have to start all over at the beginning. It was a miserable process.

The point is, Members of Congress should have gone through that. We should have had to deal with what we pushed off on the American people, at least those people in the individual market.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the Republican leader of the second oldest committee in the United States Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means.

I have as many as I need.

It will be me.

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to move a resolution that reinforces our long- held views that every American should have preexisting condition protections.

On the opening day of the 116th Congress, House Republicans brought a measure to the floor that called on lawmakers to legislate on locking in protections for patients with preexisting conditions. Unfortunately, in a fit of partisanship, the Democrats blocked this effort.

If the Democrats were serious, they would take up legislation immediately to protect patients with preexisting conditions. Instead, Democrats are trying to score political points.

Our position is simple and clear: Republicans stand ready to protect those with preexisting conditions in a manner that will withstand judicial scrutiny. This is why, if the previous question is defeated, House Republicans will move a resolution that:

Maintains that no American should have their health insurance taken away or lose protections for preexisting conditions due to the Democrats in Congress enacting an unconstitutional law;

Instructs Congress and the Trump administration to immediately ask the Court for a stay in this decision;

Guarantees that no American citizen can be denied health insurance or coverage or charged more due to previous illness or health status;

Includes commonsense consumer protections;

Provides more choice and affordable coverage than the Affordable Care Act;

Lowers prescription drug prices for patients;

Strengthens Medicare for current and future beneficiaries; and

Rejects the Democrats' radical, one-size-fits-all, government-run healthcare that would outlaw the employer-based coverage of more than 150 million Americans.

Finally, it is important to note that Texas v. the United States, the case that is working its way through the courts, did not immediately end ObamaCare and will not affect insurance coverage or premiums for calendar year 2019. Several legal steps remain before the courts reach a final conclusion.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman is agreeable, I am prepared to close.

So, in closing, while Republicans stand ready to legislate, we are again considering unnecessary resolutions. The first seeks to condemn the position of the Department of Justice in Texas v. the United States, the case in which the Department of Justice is not a party.

As I have stated several times, Republicans support protecting coverage

for preexisting conditions. I would hope we could work together to find a way to make health insurance affordable for all Americans rather than considering a divisive messaging resolution.

The resolution to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Yemen is not only unnecessary, but may prevent future assistance for our allies.

The brave men and women who are assisting Saudi Arabia in the fight against al-Qaida and the Islamic State are working to find solutions to the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding in Yemen, a mission for which we should be unified in our support.

Madam Speaker, with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and a ``no'' on the underlying measures.

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

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

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

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 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.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Tom Brymer, who is retiring from his dual leadership roles as the Town Manager of Westlake and Superintendent of Westlake Academy.

Mr. Brymer has devoted more than four decades of his life to public service. Before coming to Westlake in 2008, he held leadership roles in Gilmer, Lockhart, Bryan, and College Station, Texas, as well as Olathe, Kansas.

As Superintendent of Westlake Academy, Mr. Brymer has had the unique opportunity to lead Texas' only municipally-owned, open-enrollment charter school. Under his leadership, the school's enrollment has more than doubled, and it has added four additional building to its campus. Mr. Brymer, in coordination with Westlake Academy's faculty and staff, developed a renowned educational program that has earned accolades for its role in helping students thrive and prepare for the future.

During his tenure as Town Manager, Mr. Brymer has overseen significant improvements to Westlake's infrastructure and economic development. For his efforts, Mr. Brymer been the recipient of multiple awards including the Texas Municipal League's 2009 Municipal Excellence Award, the TEDC 2012 Community Economic Development Award, the ICMA 2012 Community Sustainability Program Excellence Award, and the Site Selectors Guild 2017 Excellence in Economic Development Award, among many others.

On behalf of the 26th District, I thank Mr. Brymer for his service to the Westlake community and wish him every success in his future endeavors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today in support of H.R. 1839, the Medicaid Services Investment and Accountability Act of 2019.

This is a bipartisan Medicaid extenders package that moves forward House priorities with responsible offsets. In fact, this package actually saves the Federal Government $1 million.

H.R. 1839 includes a new program to improve access to healthcare from medically complex children and reauthorizes important and effective programs that benefit Americans each and every day.

Money Follows the Person is an important program for the State of Texas. This Medicaid demonstration, which was established in 2005, has enabled eligible individuals in States across our Nation to receive long-term care services in their homes or other community settings, rather than an institution such as a nursing home.

While I am disappointed that H.R. 1839 includes only $20 million to extend this critical program through September instead of through the end of calendar year 2019, I am pleased that the funding for Money Follows the Person was ultimately included in this package.

This bill also includes an extension through September of the protection for Medicaid recipients of home and community-based services against spousal impoverishment program. This program specifically protects married individuals requiring Medicaid-covered and long-term services and supports to ensure that they do not have to deplete their financial resources or bankrupt themselves in order to become or remain Medicaid-eligible to receive such services. Our seniors are among our most vulnerable citizens, and it is programs such as this that will help protect them from financial ruin.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, nearly one in five United States adults lives with a mental illness. Programs established to help individuals who are struggling with mental health issues, including the Excellence in Mental Health program, enable States to implement community behavioral health centers to address the needs of their populations. H.R. 1839 extends the Excellence in Mental Health program funding for Oregon and Oklahoma so that they will be on the same financial cycle as other States that are participating in the program.

The ACE Kids Act, which will improve care for children with complex medical needs, is also included in this package. The goal of this legislation is to improve comprehensive care for medically complex children through a State option to create a Medicaid health home specific to children. Health homes have proven effective in improving care coordination in the adult Medicaid population and hold promise for complex pediatric patients.

However, I want to clarify that this legislation is not intended to limit families or their physicians from selecting the provider of choice for medical services. There is nothing in this legislation that restricts the child's family or their physician from deciding who is best qualified as a Medicare provider. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has provided assurances that current freedom of choice rules will apply to new care coordination activity.

As a physician, I know that many children with chronic illnesses have a strong relationship with their physician and with other providers. I want to make certain that this new law will help families coordinate their care without affecting the relationship that families have with their current doctor or other medical care provider or other providers in their communities from whom they may wish to receive care.

This package contains must-pass provisions that will improve access for Medicaid beneficiaries, which is a laudable and important goal. Not only are these provisions imperative, but they are responsibly offset. In fact, this package saves money.

I would particularly like to thank the Energy and Commerce Committee staff, in particular J.P. Paluskiewicz and Caleb Graff, who have spent a significant amount of their lives negotiating this package to get it to the floor.

I support this legislation, and I urge other Members to continue to support this and get the other body to take it up and pass it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the Republican leader of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who is the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the author of the Cures for the 21st Century bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Republican leader of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill, and I urge all Members to support it.

Once again, I want to single out and thank J.P. Paluskiewicz and Caleb Graff for really moving heaven and earth to get this to the floor so that these valuable programs do not lapse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Congressional Motorcycle

Caucus, I am committed to advocating for riders both on and off the road.

This week, Congressman Tim Walberg and I will reintroduce a resolution highlighting motorcycle profiling. This resolution recognizes motorcyclists' importance to their communities and promotes collaboration between motorcyclists and law enforcement.

We introduced this resolution in a previous Congress, and its Senate companion was passed in December of last year.

Mr. Speaker, more than 27 million Americans are estimated to operate a motorcycle, annually, representing 9 percent of the population, yet motorcyclists account for a significant portion of road accidents and road injuries. That is why I co-chair the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus: to support riders through education and awareness.

Together, we can make travel safer for all motorists in general and motorcyclists in particular. This first week of spring, I look forward to continued engagement on motorcycle safety and awareness.

Remember: Share the road.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to the rule providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 24 to release the special counsel's investigation report, a report that, I may note, has not yet been issued.

The resolution we are considering here today will not change the law; it will not increase transparency; and it will provide no new benefit to the American people. Quite simply, this resolution merely states current law. This resolution simply restates current Department of Justice protocol.

We had a Member here in this House who was also a physician and who was a member of the other party, former Congressman McDermott of Washington State. I remember one time Republicans offered a sense of Congress resolution that had something to do with taxes. The gentleman took to the floor of the House and said, if you want to do something about taxes, do something about taxes, but a sense of Congress resolution, why you might as well be sending a get-well card to the

If Democrats don't like the work that the Office of Refugee Settlement is doing, you are in the majority. You have the ability to introduce legislation and pass legislation to do something different.

Instead of standing here today discussing this superfluous resolution, the Democrats could be using this time to change a law that they clearly don't like.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the agency's Administration for Children and Families regarding this issue.

Administration for

Children & Families,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2019.

Representative Ted Deutch,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Deutch: At the February 26th House

Judiciary Committee hearing, you stated that ORR created ``an

environment of systemic sexual assaults by staff on

unaccompanied alien children'' and went on to conclude that

you have seen ``thousands of cases of sexual assault, if not

by

HHS staff, then by staff HHS oversees.'' (emphasis added).

However, this is unsupported by the data you provided and

none of the allegations involve HHS employees. By

mischaracterizing the data during a televised hearing, you

impugned the integrity of hundreds of federal civil servants

who, like Commander White, work tirelessly to ensure the

well-being of the nearly 50,000 unaccompanied alien children

who they have been charged by federal law to protect

annually. On behalf of these dedicated employees of HHS

assigned to the UAC program, we request that you apologize to

these career civil servants for your untoward and unfounded

comments. Acknowledging that you were wrong is the moral,

decent and right thing to do.

Child safety is our top priority in managing the UAC

program. All but one of our care facilities are licensed by

the authorizing state residential child care agency, and

operate under intense state and federal oversight. Because

ORR care facilities diligently track all allegations of a

wide range of sexually inappropriate conduct, ranging from

name calling or use of vulgar language to more serious

claims, the data given to Congress by our agency reflects

allegations much broader than just `sexual abuse' (as defined

in 34 U.S.C. Sec. 20341 and in ORR regulations at 45 C.F.R.

Sec. 411.6), to also include `sexual harassment' (as defined

in ORR regulations at 45 C.F.R. Sec. 411.6) and

`inappropriate sexual behavior' (a catch-all category for

sexual behaviors that do not rise to the level of sexual

abuse or sexual harassment).

The total number of sexual conduct allegations reported to

ORR decreased in FY2017 (1,069 total) but otherwise has

generally remained relatively stable each year (FY2015: 1,000

total, FY2016: 1,226 total, FY2018 (through July): 1,261

total). The vast majority of the allegations reported to ORR

are `inappropriate sexual behaviors' involving solely UAC,

and not staff or any other adults. Facilities can often

resolve these allegations by, for example, counseling the

minors about more appropriate behaviors.

More serious allegations rising to the level of `sexual

abuse' are reported to both ORR and the Department of Justice

(DOJ). Of these, the vast majority involve `UAC-on-UAC'

allegations; the distinct minority involve adults. In FY2015,

279 allegations of sexual abuse were reported. Of these, 8.6%

(24 instances) involved allegations of facility-staff-on-

minor sexual abuse. These metrics fluctuated in subsequent

years but remained relatively consistent. In FY2016, ORR and

DOJ received 348 allegations of sexual abuse, and 16.1% (56

instances) involved facility-staff-on-minor allegations; in

FY2017, ORR and DOJ received 264 allegations of sexual abuse,

and 18.6% involved facility-staff-on-minor allegations (49

instances); in FY2018 (through July), ORR and DOJ received

412 allegations of sexual abuse, and 11.9% involved facility-

staff-on-minor allegations (49 instances). Thus, the total

number of incidents of alleged `sexual abuse' involving

facility-staff-on-minor misconduct across a four-year period

spanning the previous administration and this administration

was 178 out of approximately 182,806 children under UAC care

or about 0.10% of all children placed in ORR custody during

that period. None of the allegations involved ORR or other

HHS federal staff. These allegations were all fully

investigated and remedial action was taken where appropriate.

Your office staff requests an additional briefing from ORR

program officials on these allegations. ORR will be happy to

meet with you once you correct the hearing record and provide

an apology to the dedicated men and women working tirelessly

to protect and improve the lives of unaccompanied alien

children in our care.

Sincerely,

Jonathan H. Hayes,

Acting Director,

Office of Refugee Resettlement.

So here is the bottom line: House Democrats do not like the President of the United States, and we know that.

Less than 3 months into the 116th Congress, the Democrats have shown that they will work against President Trump to the detriment of the American people.

We are here in the United States House of Representatives to serve the American people, and the legislation we are considering here today will not do that.

President Trump has urged us at the State of the Union, asked all the Members present, to reject the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise, and the common good. I also believe this is possible, and I recommend we get on with the task.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, a little over 2 years ago, President Trump stood on the west front of this Capitol and pledged to dedicate his administration to taking care of the forgotten men and women of this country. This bill does not take seriously the plight of those forgotten men and women. It does take seriously the plight of protecting Democratic incumbents and candidates.

This bill can't become law. It is never going to pass in the Senate. It is never going to be signed by the President. But it is important to talk about it because it reveals the agenda of the Democratic majority here in the House of Representatives.

This bill, things like the Green New Deal, things like a massive single-payer healthcare system, and it is pretty clear that Democrats don't care about the economy. They don't care about the middle class. Every election I have been in, people talk about rebuilding the middle class.

My gosh, Donald Trump has rebuilt the middle class, but you don't care

about that. You don't care about jobs. You don't care about what people earn in those jobs, otherwise you wouldn't be opening the borders the way you are. You care about your own power. You care about maintaining your own power. It is our job to notify and magnify what is going on with the Democratic leadership of this House of Representatives. That is why I am speaking out about it today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Louis J. Goodman, Ph.D., CAE, as he retires after 22 years at the helm of the Texas Medical Association.

In his role as Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Goodman has

helped to strengthen the Texas Medical Association as it has grown more than 50 percent since 1997. Today the organization, our nation's largest state medical society, represents nearly 53,000 physician and medical student members--including myself.

A committed leader, Dr. Goodman has spent more than three decades serving the Texas Medical Association and its members since he first joined the staff in 1987. He previously held positions with the American Medical Association and the former Michael Reese Medical Center in Chicago. In the span of his career, Dr. Goodman has published more than 100 professional articles and papers.

Dr. Goodman also holds the appointment of Adjunct Professor of Public Health at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, is an honorary member of the American Medical Association, treasurer of the Physician Advocacy Institute and past president of The Physicians Foundation, the American Association of Medical Society Executives, and the Texas Society of Association Executives. Dr. Goodman serves on the executive committee of the Texas Civil Justice League, the TMA Insurance Trust Board of Trustees, and is chairman of The Coalition of State Medical Societies.

As Dr. Goodman retires from a distinguished career, I thank my friend for his steadfast service to Texas and wish him the best of luck in the chapters to come.