The chair on this vote the yeas are 230, the nays are 19. The amendment is adopted 19. The amendment is adopted 189. The amendment is adopted. There being no further amendments under the rule, the committee rises. The committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h. R. 2500 and pursuant to House Resolution 476, i report the bill as amended by the resolution back to the house with sundry amendments adopted by the committee of the whole. The speaker pro tempore the chair of the whole house on the state of the Union Reports the committee has had under consideration the bill, h. R. 2500. Pursuant to House Resolution 476, reports the bill as amended, pursuant to that resolution, back to the house, with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. Pursuant to House Resolution 476, the question is on adoption of further amendments will be put engross. The question is on adoption of the amendments. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Amendments are adopted. The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Third reading. The clerk a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the department of defense, and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year nd for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore members, can we please have rder in the house . For what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Mr. Thornberry madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. The speaker pro tempore is the gentleman opposed to the bill . Mr. Thornberry i am in its present form. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman qualifies and the clerk will report the motion. The clerk mr. Thornberry of texas moves to recommit the bill, h. R. 2500, to the committee on Armed Services, with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. At the end of subtitle a of title 3, add the following new section. Mr. Thornberry madam speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. The speaker pro tempore is there objection . Without objection, the amendment is consider the motion is considered as read. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Thornberry madam speaker, this motion is the last opportunity to amend the bill and it does so, of course, without delaying passage. The bill as it was considered in committee authorized 733 billion for defense. Thanks to the work of general bacon, the committee added 2. 3 billion for disaster aid and then the rules committee added widows tax and afghan visas and other items that brought the total up to about 737 billion. This amendment takes one more incremental step to fill essential funding gaps in the way that matters most to the troops. It restores 1. 6 billion of readiness for things like repairs of f15s that are only 59 of which are flyable that only 59 of which are flyable today. Training, things that matter most in saving the lives of our men and women. It restores 308 million to the personnel accounts. Thats not as much as the pentagon asked for, but it does take it up to the level that passed the senate by a vote of 868. Finally, it provides a 4 pay raise for the troops. Now, remember remember, madam speaker, the underlying bill does nothing for pay. The formula is as it is. And those members who have claimed the underlying bill did something, have gotten three pinocchios over it. This underlying measure does do something, it provides a 4 pay raise to help with recruitment and retention and to send a message to our troops that we value them. Now, thats it. Straight up the middle. Three things, you either vote for them or you vote against them. Total, it takes the total authorization to just about 740 billion. Thats not enough in my opinion. But its better. Its better. I yield to the gentleman from indiana, a veteran of the war of afghanistan. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Madam speaker, madam speaker, i was proud to serve my country in uniform in afghanistan. And now im proud to serve in this congress. And im proud to serve in a new and different way on what has historically been the most Bipartisan Committee the house committee, the House Armed Services committee. Truth be told, i had expected that this committee, above all other committees, would always Work Together in support of our National Security. After all, for over 50 years this committee and this congress have risen above partisan politics and passed the National Defense authorization act. Mr. Banks sadly, today it appears that tradition might come to an end. Madam speaker, it doesnt have to be that way. This motion is an opportunity for my friends on both sides of the aisle to rise above petty partisan politics and do what the American People sent us here to do. To support our troops and defend our homeland. This year the ndaa has unfortunately become the nondefense authorization act. And instead has been hijacked with a partisan political agenda. Unlike the last couple of years, when we all actually worked together to restore military readiness. At a time when our enemies are challenging us on the world stage, we simply cannot put our troops at risk and jeopardize our National Security. Which is exactly what the underlying bill would do. Let us show the American People the leadership they deserve. Let us give our troops the raise heyve earned. Let us restore readiness and pass a worthy National Defense authorization act. Madam speaker, mark my words. This is the moment of truth for this congress. This is the single most defining moment of this congress so far. This motion is an opportunity to show the American People that we can rise above petty partisan politics. Will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really vote against a wellearned pay raise for our troops . Or for bolstering our readiness accounts . Madam speaker, our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines, they deserve better. The American People deserve berlt. With that, i yield back better. With that, i yield back. Mr. Thornberry madam speaker, its straight up. Pay raise, restore personnel accounts, and improve readiness. Straight up or down. You are for it or against it. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the entlemans time has expired. The gentleman from washington, for what purpose do you rise . Mr. Smith to claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Smith thank you, madam speaker. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion. And the worst part about it is they all know that. Because we spent six months, my staff, your staff, working together to produce this product. The only petty partisanship on this bill is coming purely from the republican party. It will put their partisan desires against voting for why . Because democrats are in charge. As weve seen time and again on this floor, no matter how much we work with them, no matter how much we cooperate with them, at the end of the day, partisanship trumps all. They will not vote for anything democrats do. Including, by the way, in this bill we have the largest pay raise for our troops in 10 years. And you all are going to vote against that pay raise. In this bill. We have in this bill money for widows. You have cosponsored this bill for 10 years, telling us how much you care about making sure that the widows of our troops get money. And now that we do it, after 10 years, we put it in the bill, youre going to vote against it. Just, just so you can say democrats dont support National Security. 733 billion in this bill. The largest defense bill in the history of the country. Its not enough. And we sponsored it can always be more. No matter what it is, theyre going to say, do more. The pentagon is apparently the only place in the country where republicans feel that you can throw money at the problem. Relentlessly. This body has raised pay for our troops every single year and, again, i will simply close by saying, we have the largest pay raise in 10 years in this bill for our troops. Weve worked in a bipartisan manner. Its easy to say, well, im going to vote no and therefore its partisan. Theres no good reason for it. This should be a bipartisan bill. It supports our troops, it supports our National Security, and with that, i yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from new jersey, a navy veteran, who has fought for our country as well, and a member of the Armed Services committee. Mr. Sherrill thank you, madam speaker. I ms. Sherril thank you, madam speaker. I rise today to oppose the motion to recommit. As a veteran and an american, i urge all of you to put the political games aside, put our troops and our country first, and pass this defense bill. Ms. Sherrill for 58 years straight this congress has come together across party lines to pass a bipartisan, National Defense authorization act. This critical piece of legislation ensures congress has a say in the mission of our military, in the policies of our department of defense, and the safety and security of our women and men in the field. Madam speaker, i am honored to serve on the House Armed Services committee. And i thank the chairman and the Ranking Member and all the leaders for the and all of my colleagues for their dedication to our military and to our National Security. And as a u. S. May i have veteran, who navy veteran who served for almost 10 years, im proud to be part of the new class of veterans and National Security professionals who have worked on this bill in the committee. We know what its like to rely on congress to execute our mission and to keep our country safe. So we must pass the National Defense authorization act in this house. We must make sure that the vitally important priorities included in this house bill make it to the president s desk and we must show the country that our disagreements are nothing compared to our tradition of crossing party lines and supporting the National Defense authorization act. And dont take my word on the importance of this bill. Take it from a republican and a fellow Naval Academy graduate. He said, how do we explain to americans who are risking their lives for us that we could not summon the courage to take some hard votes . How do we explain that we could not come together and Work Together when it mattered most . The fundamental purpose of this legislation, which has united members from both sides of the aisle, is to provide our armed forces what they need to do the jobs we ask of them. Ladies and gentlemen, john mccain knew this must be an area of bipartisan support and this m. T. R. Is an attempt to strip away that bipartisanship, to inject the broken politics of washington into a bill that should be bigger than your political party. The ndaa fully funds a 3. 1 pay raise for u. S. Military personnel, exactly what the president asked for. This is the largest pay increase since 2010, the last time the democrats were in power. My colleagues had almost 10 years and more recently 21 hours of markups and 28 hearings to discuss this very issue but not one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle brought this issue up in committee. This last second, partisan motion undercuts the hard work of the House Armed Services committee. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewomans time the entlewomans time has expired. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. The question is on the motion to recommit. Those in favor say aye. Hose opposed, no the noes have it. The motion is not adopted. Madam speaker. The chair the gentleman from texas. Mr. Thornberry i ask for a recorded vote or yeas and nays. The speaker pro tempore a recorded vote is requested. Those favoring a recorded vote will rise. A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, a phiminute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a fiveminute vote on passage of and the if ordered motion to suspend the rules and pass h. R. 1327. S that fiveminute vote. This is a fiveminute volt. Vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 204, the nays are 212. The motion is not adopted. The question is on passage of the bill. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The gentleman from texas. Mr. Thornberry madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. The speaker pro tempore a recorded vote is requested. Those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. A sufficient number having risen, a record vote is ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 220, the nays are 197. The bill is passed. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the Unfinished Business is a vote on the motion of the gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, to suspend the rules and pass h. R. 1327 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will report the title. The clerk h. R. 1327, a bill to extend authorization for the september 11 Victim Compensation fund of 2001 through fiscal year 2090 and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore the question is, will the house splules and pass the bill as amended . Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote the yeas are 402, the nays are 12. 2 3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, moths to reconsider is laid on the table the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Without objection, the title is amended. Without objection, the title of. R. 2500 is amended. For what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition . Mr. Smith mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of h. R. 2500, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, the assertion the insertion of appropriate headings and to provide instructions that amendment number 234 printed in part b of house report 116143 be sirnted at the end of subtitle g of title 28 and that the instruction in amendment number 64 printed in a part, b of house report 116143 be changed from page 387 after line 7 to page 387 after line 15. And i hope you understood that because i certainly did not. The speaker pro tempore without objection, so ordered. Mr. Smith thank you. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h. R. 962, the bornalive abortion survivors protection act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. The speaker pro tempore 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 leaderships. The gentleman is not recognized or debate. For what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition . Mr. Scalise mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of inquiring to the ma the gentleman reserves the balance of his time leader the schedule for next week the majority leader the schedule for next week. The speaker pro tempore without objection, so ordered. Mr. Scalise i also ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, so ordered. Mr. Scalise mr. Speaker, i would like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished majority leader of the house. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from maryland is recognized. Mr. Hoyer i thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, i would like to, before i get into the schedule, i know that all of our thoughts are with my good friends in louisiana and my good friend who represents louisiana. His constituents and the people f louisiana, as they brace for Tropical Storm expected to make landfall tomorrow. This is a serious storm. And when combined with the flooding weve already seen along the mississippi, it poses a serious threat to the safety and welfare to many. We hope everyone is safe and taking the necessary steps to get out of harms way and i want the gentleman from louisiana to now how much we are paying attention to his constituents and the state he represents and the region he represents. Ill yield to my friend. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding. I truly appreciate the concern and support and prayers that have been offered and obviously were all praying for the people of south louisiana, as Tropical Storm barry approaches in the next 24 hours. We expect landfall, were surely expecting heavy rain. Hopefully, i know as weve talked to local officials from the governor to the mayor of new orleans and other elected officials on the ground, they are prepared, theyve asked for different things, including the governor had asked for an emergency declaration. I spoke to President Trump yesterday and he did in fact issue that emergency declaration. All of the federal agencies from fema to the corps of engineers to other federal agencies are working well with state and local officials to make sure they have the tools they need. Our first priority, of course, is the safety of the people of south louisiana and, as they protect our homes and protect our property, we just encourage them to listen to their local officials and if evacuation orders are issued, we ask those folks to heed those warnings, because its a serious storm and its a storm that we are preparing for, but as they say, you prepare for the worst, but hope for the best. And were doing all of that. And i appreciate the gentlemans concerns and with that id yield back. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman. I know hes concerned. We share that concern. We share the concern for the people of south louisiana. On monday, mr. Speaker, the house will meet at 12 00 p. M. For morning hour debate, 2 00 p. M. For legislative business, with votes postponed until 6 30 p. M. On tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10 00 a. M. For morning hour debate and 12 00 p. M. For legislative business. On thursday, the house will meet at 9 00 a. M. For legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 00 p. M. On that thursday. Mr. Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including h. R. 748, middle Class Health Benefits Tax repeal act of 2019. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. The house will consider h. R. 3494, the intelligence authorization. Im pleased to say the bill was aproved by unanimous voice vote in committee and would enable congressional oversight of the u. S. Intelligence community. The house will also consider a resolution to hold attorney general barr and secretary ross in contempt over efforts to ignore congressional subpoenas and subvert the census with a citizenship census which could lead to an undercount in parts of the country. The house will also consider h. J. Res. 37, h. J. Res. 38. Last month the Senate Passed resolutions of disapproval relating to the saudiu. A. E. Arms sale for which the president declared an emergency, thereby bypassing the congress of the United States. The house will take up thee of these resolutions related to precision guided munitions this most controversial and significant sales contemplated. Lastly, the house will consider h. R. 582, raise the wage act. This legislation, authored by chairman scott, would gradually increase the minimum wage to 15 by 2024. This bill is an important step toward lifting millions of americans millions of American Workers out of poverty. We believe that one should not be working a 40hour week and still remain under the Poverty Level in our country. We raise the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, essentially 10 years. I yield to my friend. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding and as we look at the calendar next week and specifically the bill dealing with the minimum wage, i would ask the gentleman if hes looked at some of the studies that have been done as well as some of the other actions that even if you look at the city of baltimore, they had proposed and actually passed a 15 minimum wage and the democrat mayor of baltimore vetoed that, specifically citing the job losses that would come with that kind of change. The c. B. O. Report that just came out a few days ago as the majority leader knows decided we could have up to. 7 million jobs lost in america if that bill were to pass. So weve got a growing economy, mr. Speaker. A robust, growing economy. We are the envy of the world right now. In our economy. And people at every income level are receiving the benefits of that in terms of higher wages. More jobs. In fact, more job openings today than there are americans looking for work. This is the kind of opportunity we want for all people and in fact as were seeing, people at even the lower income, entrylevel job levels are the ones benefiting the most from the tax cuts and the growing economy we have as a result of it. So why, i would ask, would we want to reverse course and actually pass legislation that not only studies estimate would devastate lowincome people, literally the entire state of oklahoma, 3. 7 Million People, eviscerated job losses. That many job losses. Mr. Speaker. Would come from this bill passing. And you dont just need to look at estimates. You could look at what happened in the city of seattle. In 2014, mr. Speaker, the city of seattle instituted a similar 15 minimum wage. And so now we have a few years of actual data to look at what happened in a city like seattle. So the university of washington, mr. Speaker, did a detailed study of that that minimum wage increase. What they found were similarly devastating numbers for lowincome workers. The same people that would be hurt by the bill that the majority is going to be bringing up next week. In fact, what the university of washington study found was that you had roughly three million hours, work hours, lost. 5,000 jobs lost. They in fact found that the cost to low wage workers in seattle outweighed the benefits by a margin of three to one. Devastating low income workers the most. So if you look at not what might happen if we do this at the federal level, where the estimates are wed lose 3. Million jobs in america, mostly hurting lower income, those entry level jobs, those jobs where we want people to be able to get started, to become part of the middle class, to become part of the american dream, and taking that away from them, go look at what they did in seattle when they actually did this not when they talked about it. But when they did it. Three years of data and the study showed it was devastating to low income people. I would hope that the gentleman looked at some of this and has looked at the concerns we have expressed along the way and the recent c. B. O. Score thats underlined how bad and devastating this would be to lowincome workers and i would yield to the gentleman. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for his observations and he, i think, told a partial story of the c. B. O. Study and some other studies. Of course he mentioned the city f baltimore. The problem with the city of baltimore as the mayor indicated was that next door, the minimum wage was lower. Had the minimum wage been the same there would not have been the same transfer, i suggest to the gentleman that aside, he mentioned the c. B. O. Report the impact of fwradge yulely raising the wage to 15. Minimum wage was last raised in in 2007. And it then incrementally raised over three years to the present 7. 25. It has not been raised in a decade. The poorest workers in america have not had a raise in 10 years. We dont think thats right. As we see this extraordinary disparity of income. Where president s of corporations are now making 1,500 times what their lowest average workerer makes. Very frankly, we are a consumerbased economy. 70 of our g. D. P. Is based upon consumers. And if we raise their salaries, theyre going to spend more and grow the economy and i suggest grow jobs, not shrink jobs. Lets look at the c. B. O. Study. The c. B. O. Study had a number of different averages that were perceived, three of which were zero loss of jobs. 3. 7 was the maximum. Not the average. The maximum loss. Now im not surprised that opponents of raising the min many of raising the minimum wage would point to that figure as if it were the figure. Its a maximum, the worst Case Scenario. Now we have a growing economy. I dont expect the worst Case Scenario to occur. E fact of the matter is that we believe that this bill, this raise, will have little if any adverse impact. But we do know what we do know is this, which the gentleman did not mention. B. O. Said the bill would give 27 million workers in america a raise. And that the worst Case Scenario, we dont want to see anybody lose their job, would be 3. 7, but the average would be less than two million. That was their average estimate, and three of them were zero. We believe that 27 million americans, which will lift 1. 3 million americans out of poverty , is something that will be good for america. Will be good not only for those workers, but will be good for business. Will be good for their families, will be good for children, and will be good, frankly, for all of us. So the benefits of the raise the wage act for americas workers in our opinion far outweigh any potential risk. We think the risk is minimal. But after more than 10 years with no increase in the federal minimum wage, which i might point out, mr. Speaker, is the longest period since the adoption of the minimum wage in 1938, the longest period we have gone without raising the minimum wage. I might say, mr. Speaker, its been 10 years since we democrats were in the majority. I just point that out. Because the last time we were in the majority, we passed and very frankly, president bush signed, and the raise that got us to 7. 25 an hour. But this is the longest time in history it hasnt been raised. Raise the wage act is a critical step in our view toward restoring the value of work and ensuring that working families, we all say were for working family, we ought to pay them. We ought to pay them a decent wage. And by the way this raise is very, very infinitesimal percentage of the raises those at the upper level and top 10 , top 5 , have received. This will allow working families to achieve some type of financial security. We believe that is essential and were very pleased that this bill is moving forward and we urge all of our members to support it and i yield back to my friend. Mr. Scalise thank you for yielding back. I would like to point out. It is not we who are paying those wages, its Small Businesses. Small and mediumsized businesses are paying those wages to workers. And what weve seen from the current economy from cutting taxes, not from the government coming in and saying were going to have some 15 minimum wage that has been proven in other places to eviscerate job, kill jobs and hurt lower income people work our current economy, because of cutting taxes, lower income people are benefiting the most. Theyre seeing wages go up. Theyre actually seeing wages go up and the data shows that. Thats why youre seeing such strong economic numbers right now because the tax cuts are benefiting people at every income level but especially at the lower income levels. So when you talk about the jobs that would be lost if we split it in the middle if we go with the median of the study, thats 1. Million jobs lost. Dont take your number, dont take my number, take the median number in the c. B. O. Study. Thats the entire state of maine losing their jobs. Losing their jobs. And what weve also seen is Small Businesses as minimum wages go to a higher level look at automating jobs which means those job goes awayful its the lower income workest, the first job for many people, their first entry into opportunity where they can then become a homeowner, become part of the american dream, those are hit the hardest and in fact the study shows that this bill would reduce Family Income by 9 billion. So i know we can look at it from different sides but again if you just took the median, split the difference between your numbers and mine, you wind up with 1. 3 million jobs lost and devastation for a lot of people at the lower income. The seattle study shows not theory, but what really did happen, in a city like seattle, where they did this. By a 31 margin, low income people were hit the hardest and hit very hard in a negative way. I yield back to the gentleman. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. I would simply say he said the entire state of maine. Maybe you missed the fact that i said 27 Million People under this bill are going to get an increase in their salary and in their ability to support themselves and their if family. That, by the way, is about the size, perhaps, of new york. Its not quite california which is 38 or 39 million, but 27 are going to get a raise. My suggestion is, and i believe this sincerely that that increase in raise, because youre consumers, those consumers all spend their spendable money. They need it to support themselves. And thats going to be infusion and when the gentleman says small business, i understand that. But we all pay it in the end because a consume over services and goods is who will pay itle we understand that. But not paying it, perhaps advantages us because some family cant support themselves and very frankly are mayben public assistance so we pay for it one way or the other. This is the right thing to do. 27 million americans, thats about a sixth, i think, of the work force, somewhere in that neighborhood, is going to get a raise under this bill. I hope that the estimate is wrong of 1. Million, i think it is wrong, as i explained, everybody is doing the same, then the employer who needs to do things, have things done, is going to get those things done and he will be or she will be on a competitive level because others will be doing the same thing in terms of the level of pay. They wont be competing with people who are paying their folks at a very low level and people will be able to survive. So i understand the gentlemans position. This argument has been made, by the way, i would say the gentlemans argument has been made since 1938. Every time the minimum wage came up for increase, weve heard i didnt hear it in 1938, i want to make that very clear, but that argument has been made every time the minimum wage, that ive been involved on this floor over the last 30 years, has been made and i suggest to you as a result of the raising of the minimum wage our economy has been better, its grown more, people have been better off and weve had a better country. I yield to my friend. Mr. Scalise thank you again for yielding. When we talk about the 27 million, lets keep in mind that as you look at what they studied on the impacts, its the lower income worse ericest workers. The wages may go up, wages are already going up, without this bill, real wages are going up, especially benefiting the lower income they are entry level jobs. What President Trump wanned to do to rebuild you are middle class was evab rated. It was going away. We were losinging our middle class to Foreign Countries because we were not come tet competitive as a nation. Now we are competitive. We are the economic lead ore they have world, again, why would we want to bring a bill that that would devastate and to those 27 Million People if you look at the seattle study, what they showed was that the cost to low wage workers in seattle outweighed the benefit by a reashyow of 31. Even for those people getting a higher wage because other costs went up and their hours when down, the amount of time they were abe to work, was reduced. That had a devastating impact to those low income workers. So on one end it might sound really good, youre going to get a higher wage, but oh, by the way, were not going to be able to give you as many hours to work, you saw that over and over again in the study, it showed millions of hours lost. So somebody thats working two jobs, struggling to get by because they want to become part of the middle class. Today theyre seeing a wage increase. If that was evab rated because of this, even for the people that would see a higher wage, the cost to them would be more devastate big a three to one margin if you go by what actually did happen in seattle when they did it. Thats why i say the study would be important to look at because it doesnt show just in theory which the c. B. O. Has a lot of good underlying data to back up with, but then seattle is where it really did happen and it was devastating to lower income workers. I would yield. Mr. Hoyer i think we exhausted that subject. I think the positions have not changed since 1938. I dont expect them to change in the next few minutes. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding. Maybe as this debate continues, well see if i can be more persuasive with my friend but likely not but at least we ought to have that debate and at least get these sides out. Now, i do want to talk about something where we do have agreement but maybe lack of understanding of the timeline and thats the United States mexicocanada trade agreement. We met with our friend, Prime Minister trudeau. We want this. With only eight legislative days left before the august recess, could the gentleman give an indication if there is ability to include usmca on the calendar in these next two weeks that we have available . And i would yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. We did have a meeting. On a bipartisan fashion, i think, were all hopeful we can pass the usmca. I was here when we passed nafta, as was the speaker. There were a number of promises made, as the gentleman knows from his knowing the experience of nafta. A number of promises were made that werent kept. Were very focused, as the gentleman knows, on workers rights, environmental protections, the price of bilogics and the length of time biologics and the length of time they would be protected in generic competition and bringing prices down. We met with the Prime Minister of canada, mr. Trudeau, and many of his cabinet, we are very concerned about enforcement. We want to say, if we make this agreement that it will in fact be enforced. As you know, there were meetings as late as yesterday on this issue. The good news is, as the gentleman probably knows, ambassador lighthizer has Great Respect and confidence on both sides of the aisle. I would say hes one of those people who both sides of the aisle believe is credible, knowledgeable, straightforward, and an honest broker. So were working very hard with him. Almost every democrat has said were trying to get to yes on this. I dont think youve heard many democrats, if any, say we are not for this agreement. So im hopeful we can get this, personally. I think this san improvement over the i think this is an improvement over the existing nafta. I would say i think it would be a mistake if in fact we dont get to an agreement, which i hope we will, to back out of nafta, as the president has indicated. I think that would cause chaos in our economy and with respect to canada, me could he as well. Canada, mexico as well. I dont think that would be a good policy. To ensure the agreements are made will be carried out by all parties, then hopefully we can get this done. Whether we can get this done by the july break, by the august break, im not i cant make that representation to the gentleman, which does not surprise him, im sure. I can tell you yesterday, as you know, there was work being done on it. I trust there will be work being done in the coming days. If we can get to agreement, we will move it as quickly as possible. But we may need to make sure that the protections that are referenced in the document will in fact be the protections that are affected and enforceable. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman. I share the same sentiment that ambassador lighthizer has done a great job working with members on both sides addressing questions, concerns. Find ways to make sure that those concerns are addressed, whether theyre already inside the agreement or if there are other things that can be done to double, underscore, and highlight those concerns, but in the meantime, hopefully we can move beyond trying to get to yes and actually have a bill where we can whip that and get to yes. I know we have a whip team i put together on our side thats ready to go and hopefully your side will be able to get there. It will be ideal if we can do that before we recess. Clearly thats not the only way to get this done, but we do have to respect, as well, the other countries, our friends, mexico and canada, have an interest in this as well. Canada has elections coming up. We dont want to have this jeopardize and have it become thats pushed behind their national elections. Ideally we can get it done before their elections. And the good will thats being created between our three countries. So im hopeful we can get through these final issues, get a bill we can bring to the floor, Work Together to pass and then see the benefits in our economy, see an improved nafta, a bill thats better for American Workers and opening up more access to markets in canada and mexico that right now are closed. I thank the gentleman for the encouragement, and i remain hopeful as well and would continue to encourage we get this done as quickly as possible. Finally, on the ndaa bill we just finished, we had, of course, a disagreement on a number of fronts in terms of the priorities of our military, but i would want to bring up one point and that was the piece of legislation, military surviving spouses equity act, by our colleague, joe wilson. The majority, when yall took the majority you created a new mechanism for members to bring bills to the floor called the consent calendar. This was the first bill that met that criteria. Exceeded the signatures. Over 300 cosponsors. To address a serious problem for spouses of men and women in uniform who died fighting for our country to make sure that an inequity is corrected, that we both agree needs to be fixed. Here is a bill that can quickly get to the president s desk. Maybe it gets included in other pieces of legislation that might come months away, but here is a bill where a member worked in good faith under the rules that were created and it was unfortunate that the rule to bring the ndaa bill to the floor turned off the consent calendar, specifically for that bill, that one bill, which happened to be the first bill that met that requirement. I would just ask if the gentleman could maybe look again at bringing that bill to the floor as a standalone bill and respect the hard, bipartisan work that congressman wilson made to address a serious problem for spouses, widows of our men and women who die in uniform. And i would yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for his comment. Joe wilson, of course, a member of his party. Joe wilson filed that bill five congresses ago. Eight years ago. And it languished. It was not brought to the floor. Did not pass. I understand the gentlemans concern, but he ought to also reflect upon the fact that joe wilson introduced it four congresses ago. So that we have now included in the bill, we think it was a proper provision to have in our bill. Of course, all your people voted against that bill. I would observe they voted against a bill that frankly the now man of your committee, the Ranking Member, wrote an oped in the wall street journal that said the appropriate level of funding was exactly what we put in our bill. The joints chief of staff said the figure for 2020 was 733 billion. Deeply regretful that a bill, which was the figure that mr. Thornberry put forward in an editorial in the wall street journal, and i might say i had conversations with him subsequent to that, recently, which confirmed to me that he still held that view. Notwithstanding that, every one of your republicans voted against that i think am i correct on it . Mr. Scalise everyone. Mr. Hoyer everyone voted against it. There was this complaint about the size of the military pay raise. It was the largest raise for our military in 10 years. Now, we were in charge 10 years ago and we are now back in charge, which means we had the two largest raises. That was included in your m. T. R. Mr. Chairman mr. Speaker, i would hope the whip would, as we do so often, work in a bipartisan fashion on these issues. The committee did work in a bipartisan fashion. I am very disappointed that this was made a political issue. Mr. Speaker, it was made a political issue on the theory that maybe the democrats cant pass this bill. And if we all vote against it well say, look, the democrats dont support defense. Mr. Speaker, we did pass that bill. We passed it with over 218 votes. 220, to be exact. And it included some very, very important things for our men and women in uniform, for weapon systems, for operations, for training to strengthen our National Security. And it was turned into, in my opinion, mr. Speaker, a partisan issue. That is sad. And unfortunate. Because, at least on the National Security, for which i have been supportive for 38 years, i supported much of the reagan buildup. I supported the deployment of missiles in europe. I supported the m. X. Missile, which was somewhat controversial in my district. I did it because i thought america needed to be strong and make sure the world knew we were going to be strong. When you talk about joe wilsons amendment, which we included in our bill, which you were supportive of and i think the level of funding was also, frankly, intellectually supported, if not politically supported, i regret we did not have a bipartisan vote on the defense bill. With respect to your specific question, i respond to the this mr. Speaker, we hope bill is signed. If not we hope we go to conference. Go to we will conference. I yield to my friend. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding. Lets be Crystal Clear what happened. The Armed Services committee, the chairman of the Armed Services committee made this a political bill by putting poison pills in the bill that undermines our National Security. Thats not a partisan issue. So if you go back to the funding levels mr. Hoyer will the gentleman specify what those were . Mr. Scalise ill be happy to specify what those were. First of all, lets talk about funding levels. Its not just about funding levels. If you put policy underneath it that limit our men and women in uniforms ability to train safely and to do their job safely and effectively, that is a poison pill approach. Its a partisan approach. It should have never happened. Mr. Speaker, its been 58 years where republicans and democrats have worked alike together to pass a National Defense authorization act. Not making it political, specifically, in committee. And theres no member of our congress that works better with people on both sides of the aisle to support our men and women in uniform than mac thorn thornberry, and mac worked overtime to make sure there was a bill that was bipartisan. In fact, the senate did this. The gentleman knows this. The senate did not make it political. The Senate Passed a bill with an 868 vote with all the leadership of the republican side and democrat side voting together, and that was the approach we wanted to take, mr. Speaker, and if there was a better way, we should have done it together, but your side went against even what Senate Democrats did and chose an approach that, for example, undermine our Nuclear Missile defense, that, for example, went against the aumf agreements that would have made it harder if your bill were to become law would have made it harder for us to counterterrorism activities in the middle east. Why would we want to do that in legislation and hamstring our men and women in uniform . In fact, the bill you just passed would undermine the gains weve made in making our men and women in uniform be able to train more safely. Before we came up with the twoyear budget agreement, we were seeing our men and women in uniform die in Training Missions more than they were dying in combat. It was by a 51 margin, men and women in uniform were dying in Training Missions. Planes falling out of the sky because they didnt have enough spare parts. We started to address that and this bill undermines that, making our men and women in uniform less safe. Thats not the approach we should be taking. If you want to call that bipartisan look at the fact that no republicans voted for that bill and eight democrats voted against it because it was a partisan approach. It was a bill that undermine ours National Security. The senate didnt do that. The senate came together the right kind of way, the way we should have done it here. If you want to talk about the pay raise, lets be very clear an upfront about it. If we didnt even have this bill, our men and women in uniform get that pay raise. Its current law. Its like you putting a provision in a bill saying the sun will come up tomorrow and if it does you take credit for it them pay rizz was already going to happen, so you put it in the bill and say you got the pay raise . We got that into law when we were in the majority working with you. We didnt just say its our way or the hi. Or the highway. That ndaa every year we were in the majority was worked on with republicans an democrats and they didnt send it out of committee until they had complete agreement. That was an area where with dehavent where we didnt have political differences. Wore going to have political differences on minimum wage and other issues but we shouldnt have our men and women in uniform become part of the political divide in washington. The senate didnt do it. Our members didnt do it and tried to Work Together nesm chairman wanted to go his own way thats not the approach we should be taken. Taking. Its not the approach weve taken for 58 years. Its not the approach that Senate Democrats took when they worked with republicans to come up with a bill that put our men and women in uniform in priority. You can look at the bill and you can talk about whats in it. Ill tell you whats already current law anyway but ill tell you what the senate did to make sure they didnt have those poison pill provisions that shouldnt have been in the bill. Ultimately theyre not going to be in anything that becomes law. You know it, i know it. I shouldnt have happened, what happened today. But maybe its a lesson that when we get beyond this and see what the final product is going to be, it will be a bill where we come together. And we ultimately will come together to make sure our men and women in uniform have the tools they node to train safely and defend our nation safely but the bill this came out of the house today did not achieve that and it felt very it fell very short of where this house should have been in representing our men and women in uniform. I yield back. Mr. Hoyer obviously we could debate a bill we just passed, a bill thats been debated on this floor for three days, a bill that was chairmanned and supported by somebody equally, if not more, bipartisan in terms of his work over the years on this matter of defense, adam smith, period. It is a good bill, mr. Speaker. It takes care of the men and women. It provides for the necessary resources. And yes, it says we ought to have an aumf. T is now 18 years old. Now with respect to the pay raise that was going to happen anyway, i presume the gentleman refers to the recommendation of the president of the United States and republicans. We took the recommendations of the president of the United States and put it in our bill. And it is higher than any figure that was put in for our men and women in uniform in the previous 10 years the republicans controlled the house and controlled and controled this bill. There were poison pills from my perspective in the defense bills in years past. And i now note i have voted against those bills when theyve passed the house, i voted for the Conference Committee when it came back. Im hopeful that the republicans will decide that the rhetoric they use if you vote against this bill, meaning the defense bill, to our side if you vote against this bill, you vote against the men and women in the armed forces, the men and women in uniform, the men and women at the point of a spear. I hope you remember that language, mr. Speaker. I hope my republican colleagues will remember that language. Now apparently it doesnt apply. This was a good bill. This was a bill worked on in a bipartisan fashion. And i will tell the whip, mr. Speaker, that i had conversations with some of the Top Republican leaders on that committee. Ith respect to funding levels. And i was told that the funding levels that were in our bill as the joint chiefs said and as the Ranking Member said in an editorial in the wall street journal, were appropriate levels. That will fund the priorities of our country and the needs of our National Security, mr. Speaker. And i hope certainly that the senate and the house can work on this and by the way, the Senate Number is the same as our number as it relates to compensation. I believe for the members of the armed forces. So i would hope, mr. Speaker, when this bill comes back from conference that we will have agreement. Well pass it. Well send it to the president for signature. Thats the way it ought to be. Im sorry that we didnt get significant support as is almost always the case except when political games were played, not that just items were put in that republicans didnt like. Or the democrats didnt like. Because there were a lot of things in the defense bills that i voted for that i didnt like but i thought the overall bill was a bill that supported our troops and supported our National Security. As i think this bill did. So well see. I yield to my friend. Mr. Scalise as we continue this debate, as the bill moves through the process, and you look at where the senate started with a very large vote, 868, republicans an democrats working together and coming together, we can agree on funding levels. But if the underlying policy undermines the actual money thats being spent, undermines the ability for our men and women to train safely and defend our country safely, then the funding levels are not being spent properly. Its about not just the money but how the money is being spent. The policies behind it that allow our men and women to train safely to defend our country safely. Thats an issue, well continue debating that. I would predict in the end a final product that goes to the president s desk is going to look a lot more like the senate bill than the bill that came out of the house. And hopefully addresses all those problems that were identified earlier. But well continue that debate as well. I yield back to the gentleman if he has anything else. Mr. Hoyer i only want to say that i do not accept the premise that anything in the bill we just passed with the majority vote undermined either train, operations, acquisitions, period. I yield back. Mr. Scalise with that, i yield back, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition . Mr. Hoyer mr. Speaker, the reason i rise is to ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday next when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2 00 p. M. For legislative business. The speaker pro tempore without objection, so ordered. The chair will now entertain requests for oneminute speeches. For what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for one minute. On sunday, mississippi lost a talented young woman when she tragically died in an airplane accident. She had accomplished a great deal in her lifetime. She was an honors student, a skilled athlete and a volunteer in her local community. Blake had a bright future, she held dreams of serving her country in the United States air force and had already enlisted in the Mississippi Air national guard. Mississippi is proud of the life that blake lived and we are grateful for the positive impact she had in her community and on our state. Today, blakes friends, family, and community have gathered to remember her and celebrate her life. Mr. Guest mr. Speaker, i would ask for a moment of silence on the house floor at this time as we join her loved ones in honoring her memory. Mr. Guest thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for onemen. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise today to highlight the trump administrations latest efforts to combat the skyrocketing housing costs in the United States. Mr. Lamalfa theres likely no state feeling the effects of unaffordable housing more so than my home state of california. Thats why i applaud the president s recent order creating a board on housing. There have been countless regulations in california that make building a home so expensive many people cant afford to buy them or even rent. The cost of building a home is nearly six times the price per square foot than it was 30 years ago. Due to regulations. Im now therell be a council tasked with looking into the true reasons behind these cos instead of continuing to offer federal subsidize to simply mask the problem. In my home area of the first district, housing is a critical issue with the loss of the town of paratice and so many people displaced there and the housing that needs to be put in place back in paradise or in surrounding communities to help these people. The mandates put upon them make it almost impossible to afford. I look forward to working with h. U. D. Secretary ben carson and his White House Council to examine and hopefully alleviate the housing crisis in california. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. For what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, i rise to recognize a special guest who is here with us in the gallery today, jesse burleson, the head koch though harr tin Simmons University cowboys Football Program located in the big country, abilene, texas. Coach is joined today by his wife lois and his daughters laney and mariska. Under his leadership, the cowboys enjoyed unprecedented success, going 364 in the past four seasons, making four con techtive consecutive playoff appearances and graduate 14g allamericans and two remington trophy winners. Mr. Arington coach stresses the importance of hard work, discipline and the necessity of making sacrifices to achieve your goals. The most important thing these cowboys will learn playing football at Hardin Simmons is that god loves them and has a plan for them and if they follow him theres nothing they cannot overcome or achieve in this world. Hooya cowboys, go west texas. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. Under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. Gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. Mr. Mr. Gohmert thank you, mr. Speaker. Its been an interesting day. Its amazing we voted on a National Defense authorization act thats normally a bipartisan action here in the house. Its normally quite a compromise. But this ndaa didnt end up being that way because it had so many different leftist dreams inserted into it. It had nothing to do with the National Defense. Its rather a shame. Its something that has to be worked on. We got to be able to defend ourselves and properly pay those who are doing so. Or trying to do so. So it was a sad day that we did not pass that with the same same bipartisanship we have in the past, and i hope that changes for the future. There are only a few areas like that where we have had bipartisanship in the past, and i hope we can get back to it. One area where there hasnt been a lot of bipartisanship at all has occurred in the area of the great tragedy, crisis, emergency now thats occurring on our southern border. Its amazing because we heard for months that there was a manufactured crisis. Wasnt really a crisis on other southern border. That President Trump was just making it up, that republicans were making it up. There was no crisis there, nothing to see. We can keep moving along because theres no problem on the southern border. Well, there was a crisis. There wasnt a disaster occurring there. And by virtue of the fact that people in other countries saw that the majority of the house of representatives was sending them messages by what they were doing and saying here, that there was not going to be any wall, there was not going to be the kind of Border Security that we should have and in fact more and more people seem to be advocating that we have no border at all. The fact is, if a nation has no borders, its no longer a nation. And yet, i know there are those here that think america is horrible, that is this imperialistic gem eny, they havent faced the fact there hasnt been a more generous nation than the United States. If we were imperialistic, they would not be speaking german in germany or french in paris, in france, would not be speaking japanese in japan. This is not an imperialist nation. Its amazing how some that would accuse us of that, theyre doing what has become so common here in washington and that is projecting. Somebody does something inappropriate, harmful, hateful, and then they accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they did. And well be getting into some of that type of projecting as we continue in our Judiciary Committee in the next couple weeks, taking up continuing to take up the Mueller Report because we continue to have ople they know now, theres no question, the Clinton Campaign paid a foreign , nt to gather information from what he has since admitted, probably worked for putin. Could have worked for putin, that is, and gave false information that was used in whats called a dossier. Of course, giving dossier is a bad name. And that was used to try to stop a president ial candidate. And at the same time it was used by a newly weaponized department of justice and f. B. I. And Intelligence Community at least part of it to try to win an election. We hadnt had that before. Now, we had weve known for some time now that j. Edgar hoover was at the f. B. I. So long that he began to use the f. B. I. , not as a political weapon to win for one party or another but just as his weapon to be able to get what he wanted from president s, regardless of their party. F. B. I. All seeing interviewed, retired, talking about hoover sending them to watch the apartment of a woman with whom president kennedy was supposedly having an affair and they watched it be burglarized and they didnt report it, didnt file charges. In fact, they wanted to make sure find out exactly what was stolen during the burglary. And they never reported it because their job was to gather information for the head of the f. B. I. And the head of the f. B. I. Could then use it to prevent a president from doing anything the f. B. I. Director didnt want him to do. Which, as i understand it, gave rise to the term limits for an f. B. I. Director. I think that was a very good thing. I thought it was a bad thing when president obama extended Robert Muellers term by two years. He was a fiasco. He was a disaster. He ran off thousands and thousands of years of experience, and i cant help but think if mueller had not incity tuitted a policy instituted a policy, personnel policy that ran off thousands and thousands of years of experience, some of his best people around the country and world, that there would not have been the atmosphere that existed with mccabe as acting f. B. I. Director, people like strzok, director of counterintelligence, at least paige, people that used the f. B. I. As just a Political Tool, a weaponized Political Tool and people in the d. O. J. That were finding more about all the time, whether its loretta lynch, before that, eric holder. But if mueller had not run off so many of our best, longserving f. B. I. Agents, i still continue to believe there would have been people around when strzok, mccabe, and others were trying to use the f. B. I. As a political weapon, there would have been longer serving people that would have said you cant do this, this is not what the f. B. I. Is about. But mueller wanted nothing but yes people around him. People that would salute him, figuratively speaking, do exactly what he said without reservations. So we got much younger agents in charge all around the country and world. People that would not be able to say, sir, i know that seems like a good idea, but i was here 20 years ago when we tried that and it was a disaster. I would recommend looking back at the failure before before you push us into this new type of activity. Of course, nobody he wouldnt listen to anybody when he wasted millions of dollars on computer and Software Programs but that, to me, was not near the biggest problem. The damage he had done biggest problem the damage he had done with the f. B. I. He comes out with a report. Hats just abysmal when i was an assistant district attorney, fresh out of law school, and i was asked to put something together about what i or that case, put together was a lot better than anything mueller put together. That was a political document. I know i have some republicans friends, media friends that think the new horowitz i. G. Report is going to be just breathtaking. But the trouble is, he already had one report. As i told him in our hearing, he spent about 500 pages documenting the most outrageous and unbelievable bias and prejudice against a candidate, donald trump, and in favor of a candidate, hillary clinton. He documents just outrageous, blatant bigotry against a rty, a candidate, and as i told him at the hearing, i think you realize, as you gathered all of that devastating evidence of outrageous prejudice in the f. B. I. And the d. O. J. And realize, whoops, democrats got me here. This is not going the way my friends would want it to go, so perhaps i better get throw them a bone. Which he didnt just throw him the bone. He him the whole through him the whole ribeye. And we have the most outrageous, ridiculous, prejudice, and bias, and even though every investigation ended up with a conclusion that was totally consistent with all the bigotry and bias and prejudice, i find that there was no relationship between the outrageous, prejudice, and the conclusions to the cases coming out exactly consistent with the bias. It was ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. So he showed up that he was not capable of giving us the proper conclusion in the first horowitz Inspector General report so i would just encourage people, dont get your hopes up that he will do the right thing or women up, whichever you prefer, in the next horowitz report. I pray he does the right thing, but that remains to be seen. And mr. Speaker, i see my dear friend from texas is here, and i know were about to have a tribute to a Great American and so i would yield back at this ime. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. Under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2019, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas, ms. Granger, for 30 minutes. Ms. Granger i rise to honor a texas legend, an american original and historic icon, h. Ross perot. Theres not enough time in the day or enough words in the world to talk about the remarkable life and man. Born and raised in texarkana, texas, he delivered paper on horseback before dawn. And that same entrepreneurial spirit led him in the 1960s to start electronic data systems, a company that would revolutionize the Business World and make him a household name. It would be enough if perots life had been devoted to his business, but as a believer, he knew from scripture to whom much is given much is expected. And so his life became about much more than making money. It became about making a difference, and what a difference he made. He spent his life and much of his fortune on other people. He gave to philanthropic causes, supported countless people in need and even purchased the magna carta, which in true perot fashion, he gave to the National Archives so all americans could see it. He also worked tirelessly to help support and honor american prisoners of war in vietnam. When some of his own e. D. S. Employees got caught in the iranian hostage crisis in 1979, he organized and supervised a rescue mission to get them out. What made perot so unique, so successful, so enduring . Having known him, i can answer that question, it was his relentless devotion to transforming a dream into reality. Whether it was freeing prisoners in iran or building one of the greatest companies in history, ross perot would not be denied that relentlessness was the light house that guided him through the stiff winds and stormy seas of 89 years. When his longtime friend and lawyer, tom, was working for him, perot once asked him to call a competitor about a business deal. The next day perot asked him if he had talked to the man. I left him a message, was his unfortunate response. Youre going to go broke leaving messages, perot responded in rebuke. It was a message he never forgot and its an example of the relentless drive that made perot so successful so long. For me, im grateful to have known mr. Perot. As a friend he could be loyal and loving. He gave advice when he was asked for it and sometimes when he wasnt asked for it, but it always came from his experience and his heart. If you were his friend, he was on your side and wanted you to succeed. His greatest accomplishment was his family. He was married for more than 60 years to his wife margo, and he was a proud father of five and gruffer of 16. Each of them will continue in their own ways to continue on the great legacy of a great man. America has lost an amaze heeg roe. Those who knew him lost an amazing friend. Ross perot will be missed but hell never be forgotten. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the entlelady yields back. Does the gentlelady yield to the gentleman . I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise to speak on the occasion of the passing of a Great American hero. A gentle giant, a man who spoke his mind when he needed to, stood for what was right, and now i am convinced, knowing his faith, he is among the angels. Ross perot was a man who cared about america. He was a Great American. A great texan. Ith a heart as big as texas. And the things that ms. Granger said were absolutely true, a great story about ross perot. Mr. Carter an untold story because he pretty much kept it untold is how many times ross perot, we hear about a wounded soldier, a misfortunate american wherever they may be with problems with health care, medical bills, in my district, a wounded soldier who was totally incapacitated and had no way to get around except in a wheelchair and ross perot, without any public acknowledgment, looking for no fame for his good, kind heart, he would provide the needs, pay the hospital bills, in the case of the young man, the young soldier in round rock, provided him with a fan which was wheelchair accessible, without disclosing who gave the gift, other than wanting to make sure this young man can get around. Those stories are go on and on in every state in this union. Mr. Perot was a man who cared about the american citizens and ur soldiers, sailor, airmen, marines, coast guardsmen. Wherever they may be, if they were in need of his help he was there for hem. There for them. Today we last an american hero, a great human being. He will be missed by many and hell be missed by me. He left a legacy of a wonderful family who has the same kind of things art that makes happen in this world and cares about america. Many of us wonder if what we did in our life would really matter. Ross perot doesnt have to worry about that. Everything he did mattered. Not only to our country, but to a lot of individuals who were in need. We were blessed by the life of ross perot. And he will be missed. Yield back. Thank you. I met ross perot when i was student at texas a m. Mr. Gohmert i owed the army four years for the scholarship i got sing at the time and i to meet this guy that had gone to the Naval Academy, served his country, loved his country, nobody could rival the love he had for the United States of america. He was willing to lay down his life if called upon to do it for his country. But then again, ross perot was willing to give everything he had for anything that he felt should be done. Having grown up in the town of mount pleasant, just down the road from tex ar ka in a and new boston, i had heard about him for years before i met him in college. He was a legend even then. Even though e. D. S. Had not grown to near the heights that it would under his leadership. But everything that he was involved in, whether it was charitable, whether it was business, he demanded truth, he demanded the best that anyone could give, and hearing from so many people that worked for him, he rewarded truth, he rewarded hard work. And he has a lot to show for it. They say, were told in scripture, that where your heart is, there your treasure will be. Its really uplifting to see a man who has been able to store up treasure without dollar value and yet have done so well in business. His son, ross jr. , has been a friend, has been helpful, and i know we all grieve for the family, but as a family of believers, i know that well all get to see him someday. The question to me is, in heaven will we all have the same accent . It would be a shame to lose his. I hope we still get to hear that same sound. But some, and i was one of them in 1992, wondering about him running for president , but you ultimately realize, this man never changed. Truth means everything to him. Not harming the country that he loved and he served was uppermost in his mind. It never went away. Thats why he did so much for soldiers and sailors, marines, coast forward. Hed do anything for those serving our country, including invest massive amounts to try to free p. O. W. s. He was an extraordinary man and if he saw somebody was not being as truthful as he thought they should be, then he was going to get involved. Hes a man that will be sorely , ssed but my, what a legacy what a history, and what a love for god and this country that we miss already. With that, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore does the gentlelady yield back . Ms. Granger i yield back. The speaker pro tempore does the gentleman have a motion . Mr. Gohmert i move we do now hereby adjourn. The speaker pro tempore the question is on the motion to adjourn. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on im holding my feet, i had holes in the bottom of my shoes, i had cardboard in the bottom of them so my socks wouldnt get wet. I had a rough upbringing. I got involved with some people who were selling drugs, it was the thing to do. Sunday night at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspans q a. President trump and outgoing labor secretary alex acosta spoke to reporters outside the white house as the president was depart far trip to wisconsin. This morning, mr. Acosta offered the president his resignation because of a plea deal mr. Acosta made with a sex offender when he was a prosecutor 12 years ago. This week, the same sex offenders was indicted on charges in new york for allegedly abusing underage girls. Reporter how do you think your labor secretary did . President trump i think he was a great labor secretary. Not a good labor secretary. Hes done a fantastic job. Hes a friend of everybody in the administration. And i got a call this morning early from alex and i think he did a very good job yesterday under a lot of pressure, he did a fantastic job. And he explained it. He made a deal that people