tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 27, 2019 11:59am-2:00pm EDT
house democrats are planning a series of bills to bolster the aca. guest: it is a photo bitterly -- it is affordability. republicans failed in their effort to repeal and there was never a replacement, they started attacking it bit by bit. they were starting to unravel the market and the result was it created disruption in pricing and hardship on people. as a result of them taking away some of the subsidies and the efforts to get people to enroll, it resulted in higher premiums and that became the argument it was too expensive even though these were manufactured crises. we want to restore subsidies >> a portion of this is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we will leave this now. the house is gaveling in next. they'll debate a pay equity bill on gender pay discrimination and begin work on a nonbinding resolution on
transgender military service. live house coverage now on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks forgiving us another day -- for giving us another day. send us your spirit, enlighten the hearts of the members of this people's house. uphold all of our commitments to live according to your revealed truths. and the constitutional law of this great nation. let freedom flourish in the lives of your people who seek justice and prove themselves trustworthy.
shape virtuous leadership in government at every level. may all citizens know with confidence the diligence of their representatives and may this body prove creative in facing the issues of the day. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. mr. lamalfa: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. > madam speaker, i wish to say a happy new year to the syrians in my community. my neighbor was like a grandmother to me. she picked grape leaves in her back yard while she made rice so my brother and i could enjoy fresh domas after school. she talked about art and literature, how syrians built the first human cities, first to domesticate crops and how
they literally invented the wheel. she also told me about the centuries of persecutions syrians faced that caused so many to come for a new future in america. so as we celebrate the year 67-69 i want to tell the syrian community how grateful i am to be your neighbor and may this new year bring your families joy and happiness. i yield back my time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: madam speaker, i rise today to express my serious concern with the inappropriately and ufe mystically named paycheck fairness act. in reality, it should be called leave no lawyer behind act. i'm sure everyone in this room believes equal work deserves equal pay. in fact, congress passed the equal pay act in 1963 to ensure that. but that's not what democrats have put this legislation on the floor for.
instead, they want something to benefit trial lawyers and to make it nearly impossible for job creators to defend against frivolous unlimited lawsuits. in fact, this legislation is actually harmful to women in the workforce by creating a mandatory opt out system for class action lawsuits that will ultimately limit legal options when there actually is a workplace discrimination. the legislation is all about litigation and that's not right. enforce existing laws effectively, that will protect women and everyone in the workplace. the number of working women in the u.s. is higher than ever, more than 5 million. more women -- 75 million. it's more women entering the workforce than men. i support policies to help women become their own boss, not unlimited paydays for trial lawyers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. in honor of the final week of women's history month, i'm proud to join a group of bipartisan colleagues in introducing the national women's hall of fame commemorative coin act. as the national women's hall of fame celebrates its 50th anniversary, this legislation will help ensure the financial viability and longevity of this iconic, historical landmark for years to come. i'm especially pleased our very own louise slaughter will be inducted into the hall of fame this year, a fitting tribute for one of the most inspiring women i had the privilege of knowing. louise will take her place alongside some of our nation's greatest trail blazers in a city that forever -- trailblazers in a city that forever altered the course. i'm honored this will help louise and so many other remarkable women in the hall of fame will continue to inspire generations to come. i look forward to diligently working towards its passage and i ask my colleagues to support this important bill. thank you, madam speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania eek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to advocate for an appropriations request i put forward to provide adequate funding to the social security administration. social security enables millions of americans to make ends meet, including retired and disability workers and the families of deceased workers and it's a program that working folks have been paying into their entire working lives. despite the agency's effectiveness, funding cuts have created a massive, in some cases life-threatening backlog. ms. wild: the national average wait time for a social security benefits hearing is 535 days, and last year philadelphia, in my state, had the longest
average wait time in the country, 26 months. one west philadelphia woman th multiple legislator iswaited -- sclerosis waited 878 days. the president's budget is consistently hundreds of millions of dollars less than what congress enacted the previous year. this sums up why people are fed up with washington. powerful politicians keeping everyday americans from the benefits they've earned. the injustice needs to stop. we must stand with working families and help them get benefits. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. torres: madam speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 252 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 13. ouse resolution 252. resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 7, to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and labor. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on education and labor now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 116-8 modified by the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules.
each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the resolution, house resolution 124, expressing opposition to banning service in the armed forces by openly transgender individuals. the resolution shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one hour. mrs. torres: madam speaker, for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from texas, pending which i yield myself
such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. i ask for unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. torres: madam speaker, on monday the rules committee met and reported a rule, house resolution 252, providing consideration for 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 one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on education and labor. it self-executes the 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 one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on armed ervices. 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 1960's, 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 $1 made by a nonhispanic while whithe 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's less than the average woman made in 1960.
i do not work -- 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'd never have to choose between paying for child care or buying groceries. or not worry 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 after 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 11 dispatcher who's -- 911 dispatcher who's working the grave yard 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's crystal clear, it's 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 modified factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience. in workplaces, where women are
empowered to know how much they're making compared to their male colleagues, the gender gap shrinks by 7%. 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% less than equally qualified male counterparts on their first job. over time, as raises and bonuses are decided based on a woman's prior salary history, this gap is made even worse. the paycheck fairness act prevents employers from asking for a salary history. another fact that are 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 in 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 support 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 systemic gender-based inequality. i have offered two amendments to the paycheck fairness act bill
that highlights the serious effects of 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's crucial we pass h.r. 7, the paycheck fairance county -- fairness act. now, i'd 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.
decision they made lightly. it was one made decision they m lightly. it was one made with great personal sacrifice. and the u.s. government made a promise to them that they would be safe. 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 the plate and enlist in our armed forces. to serve alongside people like my son. thank you, madam chair, and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, madam
speaker. i thank mrs. torres for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. and of that i will yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, today we are considering h.r. 7, the paycheck fairness act. this legislation seeks to prevent wage discrimination on this is of sex, but 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 anti-discrimination 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 federal laws. current 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 perpetrate these illegal acts are the exception and not the rule. congress must not ignore the positive trends our nation has
months. he last 26 since 2017 the trump administration has made significant strides in reining in federal overreach, improving opportunities and results for americans in the past two years. 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 -- across all demograph groups are rising faster now than at any time in recent history. according to 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. so 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 nonsex 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 nearly -- 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 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 get lower pay to have greater control of their work location, greater control of their schedule, how they aggregate their leave. studies have shown this is particularly true for women, but it's 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 pay and work arrangements, employers will be incentivize to have a job that one size fits all. h.r. 7 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 co-worker 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% 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're 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 a cap placed on attorneys' fees. $2,000 an hour, that's a phenomenal sum of money. it was rejected by the rules committee. apparently they felt their litigation attorneys were worth more than $2,000 an hour or were 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 xist, and i hope all employees -- had discrimination seek for trial lawyers, this would
mean 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 diline ating meck -- delien ating mechanisms to keep -- delineating mechanisms to keep that information safe. as we saw with the breach, the
government is not the best steward for a private citizen's information and we should limit the data received by agencies until those capabilities are improved and verified. so 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. 58% 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. with that i urge opposition to the rule and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. torres: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to take this opportunity to inform my colleague from texas that the women in texas makes 72 cents to their male counterpart. i think texas women you deserve to have equal pay. and with that, madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 7, the paycheck fairness act. long overdue legislation to close the gender wage gap and ensure equal pay for equal work. too many americans are not making enough to make ends
meet, living paycheck to paycheck, and we need to focus on strategies to raise family income and h.r. 7 does just that. h.r. 7 would limit pay secrecy, expand pay data collection, and create more employer accountability for pay differences. this legislation will build upon and improve the work of president kennedy who signed the equal pay act and president obama who signed the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. despite the progress we made over the past 50 years, women are still earning less than their male counterparts across age, race and socioeconomic groups. his stubborn wage gap, imposed by pay secrecy, can he must increases. if the annual gender gap were closed, a working woman would have enough money for a year of college tuition, more than one
year's worth of food or 10 additional months of rent. equal pay is not simply a women's issue. a family issue. when women bring home less money each day it means less they have to take care of their family including for grocery, rent, childcare and health care. opponents of this legislation arguing, as we just heard, is this a gift to attorneys representing employees and their fees should be severely limited. remember, rights are easily disregarded and violated if you don't have the ability to enforce those rights. this argument made by opponents is simply an attempt to talk about the pervasiveness of wage discrimination. it's an attempt to decrease enforcement of the fair labor standards act and to lessen the penalties for employers who engage in discriminatory practices and if nothing else, we should call it out for what it is. we know when women succeed our country thrives and the paycheck fairness act will take us forward to ensuring act security for working women and i want to end by acknowledging the extraordinary leadership of our colleague, rosa delauro, the congresswoman from connecticut, who has spent so
much of her life dedicated to this issue. i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 7. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burgess: 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. now, let me just quote to you from an article in "the wall street journal" from march 1 of this year, 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, 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 isappointment. we shouldn't roll back those gains this administration has made the last 26 months. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. torres: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tre has. -- ms. trahan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. ms. trahan: thank you, madam chairwoman. i rise to offer my strong support for the rule and for my friend's host resolution 124. we should approve both and send a powerful message that congress will not tolerate such
a cruel and self-defeating policy. last month, the military personnel subcommittee held a hearing that was the first of its kind. the chairwoman, my colleague from california, invited transgender service members to testify. we heard from be a impressive panel of five dedicated service members. they asked for nothing more than to be permitted to continue to serve their nation honorably. before the hearing, i met staff sergeant patricia king. patricia grew up on cape cod. she is a dedicated infantry soldier who served nobly for 20 years in the army. sher life was turned upside down by a tweet, one that put her military career in jeopardy. we should never treat our callously. ers so if her story is not so convincing, consider how this cost. for
$2.2 million is .1% of d.o.d.'s annual health care budget for the active component and yet the cost to train a single fifth generation fighter pilot is $11 million. so the retraining cost of losing one transgender military pilot would be five times more than the entire transition-related care for the military for a year. meanwhile, the army missed its recruitment goal for the first time in more than a decade last year. now is certainly not the time to turn away well-qualified and patriotic soldiers. let's approve the rule and the resolution and say no to discrimination. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i'll reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. torres: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. frankel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for two minutes.
ms. frankel: thank you, madam speaker. this is a great day in america. i'm so proud to say that as the congress considers these bills that protect and advance human rights. and i rise today, specifically, to talk about the paycheck fairness act, because men and women should get -- be able to be paid the same for doing the same work. and i thank my colleagues, rosa delauro, and the committee chairman bobby scott, for their advancement of this great legislation. i want to tell you a story, madam speaker and my colleagues, a story of a young lawyer who worked in the public defender's office. her job was to represent people accused of crimes like murder and robbery. she was a free lawyer for them. it was very high pressure and it was very grueling but she loved it.
when she got the job, she was told a rule. nobody talks about salary in this office. but one day she found out that a male colleague was doing the same job and he had similar credentials but he made much more money. she was making $18,000 a year. he was making $20,000. when she asked her boss why, she was told that he, the male attorney, had a wife and children to take care of. madam chair, that was me. that happened to me 40 years ago. it was -- it was then and still today a very common experience for millions of women who are still earning 80 cents on the dollar that men make and actually much less for women of color and it still makes me angry to think about my own experience but i'm not complaining about my own life journey.
fortunately, i have a job now that pays me the same as my male colleagues. i'm so happy i'm in a position to do something about this today. as a result of lowering lifetime earnings and different work patterns, women are hit hard in retirement and that's why so many -- may i have another -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. torres: i yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. ms. frankel: this is why so many women end up in poverty, and i wanted to say this over and over. women go to work for the same reason men go to work and that's to take care of their families and regardless of the circumstances of gender, we deserve to be paid equally. this act will allow workers to talk openly about their pay, it will prohibit asking salary history and require bosses to prove disparities exist for discrimination and i urge my colleagues to support this bill
succeed, en women america succeeds. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i would 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 work force than at any time in our country's history. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance the time. gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california
is recognized. mrs. torres: thank you, madam speaker. aving more and i particularly thank ms. delauro for her work on this. in 1963 congress passed the equal pay for equal work act. prohibiting an employer from paying men and women different wages for the same work. it helped. but 56 years later the typical woman working full time year round is still only paid 80 cents for every $1 paid to her male co-worker. that amounts to more than $10,000 each year. and the gap is even worse for women of color. african-american women make only 61% of a white man's earnings. native american women make just 58%. nd latina women, a mere 53%. but let's be clear.
pay discrimination doesn't just hurt women. it hurts entire families and the overall economy. women are the sole or primary bread winners in half of u.s. households with children. so passing this bill would not just help women and families, it would help our entire economy. according to some estimates, equal pay could cut poverty among working women and their families by more than half and add over a half a trillion dollars to the u.s. economy. the paycheck fairness act is simple and straightforward. it protects all employees' right to free speech by ending the unfair prohibitions that can make it a firing offense for someone to simply tell a co-worker how much they make. and it strengthens workers' ability to challenge gender-based wage discrimination.
it is long overdue. it is fair. when women succeed, america succeeds. and our overall economy succeeds. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: madam speaker, may i inquire as thouch time remains on my side -- as to how much time remains on my side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 17 1/2 minutes. the gentlewoman from california has 11 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: let me yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. burgess: i appreciate congresswoman maloney's, the previous speaker's, comments. she and i served on the joint economic committee together back in 2010. and the country just lost a very wise economist, alan krueger. i remember him coming and
testifying to our joint economic committee and he testified about, of course, at the time in 2010, the discrimination was that we were in a low-pressure labor market. he con thatted -- contrasted that with a high-pressure labor market of the 1 60's. i don't call if -- 1960's. i don't recall if there were suggestions how to move from a low-pressure labor market to a high-pressure labor market, but don't think there can be any misunderstanding that we're back in a high-pressure labor market. and that's a good thing. i quoted a few minutes ago an article from the "wall street journal." let me just read a little deeper from that article. as they talk about one face of the red-hot job market is a high school graduate who was making $8.25 an hour at a daycare center near biloxi, mississippi,
just a few months ago. w she earns $19.80, that's almost $20 an hour, as an a rentice at a shipyard in nearby town. quoting from her, she's quoted in the article as saying, it's amazing that i'm getting paid almost $20 an hour to learn how to weld, she said. the single mother of a young daughter. when she finishes her two-year apprenticeship, her wage will rise to more than $27 an hour. such is the strength of a high-pressure labor market. and again, i would point out that since the inauguration of donald trump, our labor market has enin fact experienced a resur-- has in fact experienced a resurgence. that 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 which president trump committed at the time of his inauguration in january, 2017. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. torres: madam speaker, i have no additional speakers and if the gentleman is prepared to close, i am prepared to close myself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: let me again yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the resolution. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials into the record. immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. and i am pleased to now yield five minutes to the gentlelady from arizona, mrs. lesko, to explain the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection, and the gentlelady from arizona is recognized for how much time? mr. burgess: five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: for five minutes. mrs. lesko: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my good friend from texas, representative burgess, for yielding me time on this most important issue. first, i would like to talk about the underlying bill. equal work does deserve equal pay, regardless of the sex of the employee. in america, this is already the law of the land and it has been since 1963, when congress passed the equal pay act. however, we stand here today debating a rule for a partisan democrat bill that offers no protections against pay discrimination in the workplace. instead, the bill makes it easier for trial lawyers to score unlimited paydays while dragging working women through never-ending legal dramas.
this bill also prevents women from utilizing their expertise, skills, talents and education to their advantage. it effectively ties employers' hands from considering factors that would allow them to potentially give employees better working environments, for employees to negotiate a higher salary. according to camille olson who testified as a witness in the house subcommittee on civil rights and human services, and on the house subcommittee on work force protections, there can indeed be unintended consequences -- negative consequences from this bill. let me read an example from her written testimony. and this is her statement and she gave an example. it basically says, in this example, an employer has chosen to pay a higher salary to a
female law firm office administrator who has a j.d. degree. the job duties for that position do not include legal work. nevertheless, in the employer's judgment, the performance of those job duties will be enhanced by the additional qualifications of a j.d. justifying the higher salary. in this example, the male employee had a lesser degree. so in that example, because in business t requires necessity, the male could sue. an even though he doesn't have as high of a degree as the woman, he could say, i want equal pay. so what i'm trying to say is, because of the wording of this
bill, i believe, and the witness in the committees believe there are unintended consequences that could actually hurt women. the employee may have a claim, even if the advanced degree does actually improve performance or serve another legitimate business goal. -- goal where it was not absolutely required for the job, because of the business necessity requirement in the bill. this example may not be the exception. as our economy and culture shifts, we are finding ourselves in a world where women, women are attending and graduating college far more often than men. according to the u.s. department of education data, nearly 60% of those graduated with a bachelor's degree were women. so certainly we do not want the unintended consequences of an employer not being able to
consider the advance education of a woman under this business necessity language in the bill. h.r. 7 is more of the same from the new majority. government knows best. it will tie the hands of employers and prevent employees, especially female employees, from negotiating a salary and working environment that works for them and their family. it is already against the law to discriminate and commonsense approaches to amending the law were rejected by my colleagues from the other aisle. if the previous question is defeated, we would amend this rule to include a simple change. it provides working parents more flexibility so that they can go to baseball games and science fairs and other -- fair, in other words, to be better parents. and i'd like to read a portion of that amendment. notwithstanding the other provisions of the subsection, an employee and an employer may
voluntarily negotiate compensation and benefits to provide flexibility to best meet the needs of such employee and employer consistent with other provisions of this act. we all know that the greatest benefit working parents with young children want and value is flexibility. our concern is that this radical proposal in this bill, which is called paycheck fairness, would actually -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. burgess: i yield the gentlelady an additional three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional three minutes. mrs. lesko: thank you, madam speaker. we all know that the greatest benefit working parents with young children want and value is flexibility. our concern is that this radical proposal, which is called paycheck fairness, would actually limit the flexibility employers can give to working parents, so parents can go to their childrens' activities. my amendment, this amendment, is a very simple amendment. it simply restates the law and
makes it clear that if you run a dry cleaner with five people in it, you don't have to hire a lawyer to define a job for an employee with a child in such a way that the employee can go to the science fair or a baseball game. instead of being about more litigation and trial lawyers, it is about giving more flexibility for working parents. working americans should have the freedom to choose what's best for them and their families , not the federal government. hardworking men and women need more flexibility to balance work, life and family. this amendment seeks to provide additional relief in this area. madam speaker, i urge no on the previous question, no on the underlying measure, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from arizona yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized.
mr. burgess: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is prepared to close. the gentleman may close. mr. burgess: i will -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is yielded the balance of his time. mr. burgess: while this bill 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. madam speaker, as we conclude, i urge a no on the previous question and no on the underlying measure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. torres: thank you, madam speaker. the smart and innovative women of arizona's 8th congressional
district deserve to have a voice in this debate. and i'm 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 ember of my staff. junsin. justin has been my legislative director for two years. during that time he has been a phenomenal member of my team. designing innovative legislative initiatives, providing wise counsel, and serving as a mentor to my junior staff. now he will move on to be an excellent staff director for the
economic opportunity subcommittee on the veterans' affairs committee. we're sad to see our waffle maker justin leave our office, but we're so proud by all that he has accomplished. madam speaker, 0 years from now -- 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 mckenzie study found that if women's full potential in the labor market was reached, $4.3 trillion would be added to he labor market in 2025.
our economy would benefit from that woman power. there has been enough talk about lawyers fees. women attorney 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 california 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. and 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 and i yield back the balance of my time, and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back her time. the question is on the ordering the previous question on the resolution, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. paul d. ryan -- paul d. ryan, the chair will reduce to five
minutes the minimum -- pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any vote on the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yes have it. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been ordered. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or
the nays are 190. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair now lays before the house the fog enrolled -- following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 252, an act to authorize the hon rarery appointment of robert j. dole to the grade of colonel in the egular army. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is correct. the house is not in order. the gentleman from texas is
recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 962, the born alive abortion survivors protection act, a bill which has the full support of the republican conference and the majority of the american people as it would save the lives of live-born infants that survived late der term abortions and i ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house is not in order order. members take their conversations to the cloorm. -- cloakroom. under guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers, as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leadership.
the gentleman will state his inquiry. >> it's my understanding that the republican conference is in full agreement. is the democratic conference with not onboard with saving lives? the speaker pro tempore: as indicated a unanimous consent request for the consideration of that measure would have to have received clearance ahead of time by the majority and minority leader floor and committee leadership. the chair is unaware of such clearance. therefore the chair cannot entertain the request at this time. for what purpose does the gentleman inquiry? >> i would ask we skedal vote immediately. the republican conference is fully onboard, and i would encourage the democrats to join us -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not stating a proper parliamentary inquiry. the gentleman is not recognized at this time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 7,
the paycheck fairness act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 252 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 7, the chair appoints the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, to preside over the committee of the whole.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole on the state of the you've -- union the for the consideration of h.r. -- union for the consideration of h.r. 7 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the fair labor sttstds act of 1938, to provide -- standards act of 1938, to provide more remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the ill is considered read first time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: i can't hear the gentleman. the committee will come to order. please take your conversations
off the floor of the house. i recognize the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, madam champlete i would like to thank, first, the gentlelady from connecticut for her decades of leadership fighting for working women. in 1963 the pay equity act codified the right -- madam chair, the house is not in order. the chair: the house is not in order. and the gentleman is trying to speak. the gentleman from virginia is once again recognized. mr. scott: thank you, madam ir-- madam chair. in 1963 the pay equity act, the equal pay act, codified the right to equal pay for equal work regardless of sex. in fact, equal pay act was enacted one year prior to the civil rights act of 1964, that for the first time provided for enforcement of
anti-discrimination laws. over the past 55 years, the equal pay act, in combination with title 7 of the civil rights act, has produced substantial progress towards addressing inequities for women in the workplace. yet loopholes and insufficient enforcement have allowed gender-based pay discrimination to exist. today women average 80 cents on the dollar compared to white men in similar jobs. the wage gap seen worse for women of color and it exists in every sector, regardless of education, experience, occupation, industry or job title. drawn out over a lifetime, the persistent wage gap could cost a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million. for many, this is the difference between financial stability and poverty. in fact, we know that achieving pay equity would actually cut the poverty rate for working women more than 50%. that is why we are considering this historic legislation today. after decades of failing to
address persistent wage inequity, this is our opportunity to strengthen the equal pay act, boast the rights of working women, lift families out of poverty, and finally align our remedies for gender discrimination with other established anti-discrimination laws by eliminating caps on damages when employers act with malice or reckless indifference, consistent with the laws governing discrimination based on race and national origin. treating attorneys' fees consistent with title 7 of the civil rights act, and restricting employers' inquiry and reliance on prospective employees' previous salaries. this is consistent with the americans with disabilities act, and the genetic information nondiscrimination act and similar restrictions regarding an applicant's marital or pregnancy status. as chair of the house committee on education and labor, i urge my colleagues to join me in casting a vote for final passage of the paycheck fairness act and making equal pay for equal work a reality. for working women across this
country. thank you, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. i recognize the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. my friend, the chairman, is a diligent and thoughtful colleague and i believe his heart is in the right place. everyone in this house is in agreement that pay discrimination on the basis of sex is wrong. no matter how you look at it. the law is very clear about this . but this bill doesn't do anything to help working women. this is a bill for trial lawyers , plain and simple. and that's what shows a fundamental difference in outlook and principle. democrats want women to sue their bosses, republicans want
women to become the bosses. republicans have favored strong economic policies that will empower and enable women to keep driving the economy forward and build the lives they want for themselves. instead of looking for ways to line the pockets of trial lawyers, we stand with working women. i'm proud, madam chairman, to yield five minutes to one of the hardest working women i know, the gentlewoman from wyoming. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized for five minutes. ms. cheney: thank you, madam chairwoman. and i'd like to start by thanking my dear friend and colleague, ms. foxx, the republican leader of the house education and labor committee, for her tremendous work and leadership on behalf of all american women and families. i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 7. the so-called paycheck fairness
act. this should be called the pay the trial lawyers act. madam chair, my state of wyoming launched the fight for women's equality and rights when we became the first jurisdiction in the world to grant women the right to vote 150 years ago. here in this chamber, 100 years ago, the house agreed that women should have the right to vote on a national basis. leaders of the women's suffrage movement were fighting on behalf of women's rights. they were not fighting to provide greater payouts to trial lawyers. we should honor those women and the generations of women who came after them by defeating this sham bill. the bill my democrat colleagues have put on the floor today offers no new protections for women in the workplace. it paints job creators, many of whom in the trump economy are
increasingly women, as evil. republicans know that economic policies that generate growth, create jobs and increase wages benefit women and men. our policies empower women and they facilitate the success of women-owned businesses. which account for roughly nine million jobs and $1.7 trillion in revenue. today's bill is just the latest example of the misguided and damaging policies democrats in this body are attempting to pursue. they claim to be, quote, for the people. but in the nearly three months that they've been in charge, they have embraced socialism, they have enabled anti-semitism, they have passed legislation that violates the first amendment and the second amendment, and they have repeatedly refused to take steps necessary to protect the lives of babies after those babies are born.
now, madam chair, they're telling us they are fighting for women. when really they are simply fighting for trial lawyers. we have seen this movie before. the democrats are not really for the people. they are for the government and for the special interest groups that support them. the american people know better and we deserve better. madam chair, i urge a no vote on this bill and i call on my democratic colleagues to come together with us, to work with us so that we can actually make real progress for america's women and our families. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you. madam chair, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the sponsor of the bill. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes.
ms. delauro: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 7, the paycheck fairness act. it is a historic day on the house of representatives floor. and we are going to pass paycheck fairness, equal pay for equal work in this united states of america. i want to say thank you to the chairman of the education and labor committee for getting this bill through the committee and on to the floor today. we have waited eight years, eight years to be able to vote on this issue. the united states congress has a rich history of making a difference in the lives of the american people. social security, the fair labor standards act, the g.i. bill, medicare, the affordable care act, to name but a few. and today we can make a difference for working women and their families. today we can address the biggest
economic challenge of our time. that americans are in jobs that do not pay them enough to live on. we can address their economic struggle. and yes, this is a bill that the majority is passing today to address that economic need for families. i cannot tell you how difficult it has been to breakthrough on something so simple. men and women in the same job deserve the same pay. collided. issue has equal pay is at the center of public disers can understand -- discourse and paycheck fairness is ready for passage today. a bipartisan bill and supported by every member of the democratic caucus, the paycheck fairness act toughens remedies in the equal pay act of 1963, to give america's working women the opportunity to fight wage discrimination, to receive the paychecks that they have earned. under existing law, damages are too insubstantial to provide women with the full restitution
or provide bad acting companies a meaningful deterrent. paycheck fairness puts gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination. by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages, -- damages, is better protects employees from being fired -- it better protects employees from being fired for sharing their salary with co-workers. it establishes a grant program to provide salary negotiation training for girls and for women. and it ensures an employer's -- ensures employers are not reliant on wage history when they hire an employee. over 60 years ago, after republican president dwight eisenhower, called for equal pay legislation, he did that during his 1956 state of the union address on the floor of this house. he called for equal pay legislation. and more than 55 years after president kennedy signed the equal pay act, pay
discrimination is very much still a reality in our country. in 2017 there were almost 26,000 charges of unlawful sex-based pay discrimination filed with the u.s. equal employment opportunity commission and 996 equal pay act charges. women continue -- mr. scott: an additional minute. ms. delauro: thank you. women continue to earn 20% less than men on average, according to the census data, and women earn less regardless of the choices they make in their career or education. and across industry. whether you're a financial manager, a registered nurse, a school teacher, an executive, a pay gap exists between men and women. 10 years ago we passed the little ledbetter pay fair act. it reopened the courtroom door but did not address the underlying issue at hand today. we have an opportunity to pass the paycheck fairness act. it is a matter of right and wrong. discrimination is unacceptable and we are all diminished when
we fall short. president kennedy said, when he signed the equal pay act, this would add to our laws another structure basic to democracy, affirm our determination that when women enter the labor force, they will find equality in their pay envelope. we can do this today on the floor of this house. i urge my colleagues to please pass, on both sides of the aisle, to vote for the paycheck fairness act, and make sure that we guarantee equal pay for equal work in our society. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i now would like to yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from missouri, ms. hartler. the chair: the gentlewoman sizz -- is recognized. mrs. hartzler: thank you, madam chair. today i rise in opposition to h.r. 7. it's a deeply flawed bill t