Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS. 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.

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. 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.

Mr. BURGESS. 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.

Mr. BURGESS. 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.

Mr. BURGESS. I have as many as I need.

Mr. BURGESS. It will be me.

Mr. BURGESS. 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.

Mr. BURGESS. 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.

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

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

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. In almost every election cycle in which I have participated since 2002, people on the Democratic side of the aisle have talked about wanting to rebuild the middle class. I will submit to you, over the last 26 months, this administration, this President, has rebuilt the middle class. Let me just quote to you from an article in The Wall Street Journal from March 1 of this year, a very recent article. ``All sorts of people who have previously had trouble landing a job are now finding work. Racial minorities, those with less education, and people working in the lowest-paying jobs are getting bigger pay raises and, in many cases, experiencing the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for their groups.'' Continuing to quote here: ``They are joining manufacturing workers, women in their prime working years, Americans with disabilities, and those with criminal records, among others, in finding improved job prospects after years of disappointment.'' It is incongruous to me that we would want to roll-back those gains that this administration has made in the last 26 months. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind the Speaker and colleagues in the House that when the President came and delivered his State of the Union message, he was significantly proud of the fact that right now more women are working in the workforce than any time in our country's history. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, I appreciate Congresswoman Maloney, the previous speaker's, comments. She and I served on the Joint Economic Committee together back in 2010. The country just lost a very wise economist, Alan Krueger. I remember Alan Krueger coming in and testifying to our Joint Economic Committee; he testified about--of course, at the time in 2010, the description was that we were in a low-pressure labor market. He contrasted that with the high-pressure labor market of the 1960s. I don't recall if there were specific suggestions how to move from that low-pressure labor market back to a high-pressure labor market, but I don't think there can be any misunderstanding that we are back in a high-pressure labor market. That is a good thing. 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.''

Mr. BURGESS. Again, I would point out that since the inauguration of Donald Trump, our labor market has, in fact, experienced a resurgence that a rising tide is indeed lifting all boats. It is incumbent upon us not to damage the economy that has brought the benefit to so many people--so many of those forgotten Americans--who were denied that benefit before, those very Americans to whom President Trump committed at the time of his inauguration in January 2017. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the resolution. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

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

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

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