The effects of the first two wage hikes in 582, rather than the actual effect of this bill, which is increasing the minimum wage by 107 . As my colleagues well know, the first two wage hikes will not be as damaging as the increase to 15. So the result of the proposed g. A. O. Study are rigged to avoid using the damaging 107 hike as the appropriate benchmark. Second, this amendment has no teeth, it merely says that congress can make recommendations after the first two wage hikes have gone into effect. But theres no requirement that congress do anything in response. And theres no Fast Track Authority in this amendment. Again, i will say this amendment is not necessary. I urge my colleagues to see this amendment for what it is, an attempt to provide political cover to Democrat Members who are justifiablely concerned about the negative justifiably concerned about the negative impacts of a 15 minimum wage in their districts. Vote no on this bill. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman yields. Pursuant to the rule, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from arizona, mr. Ohalleran. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The gentleman from arizona. Mr. Ohalleran i ask for a recorded vote. The speaker pro tempore a recorded vote is requested. Those favoring a recorded vote will rise. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes y electronic device. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15minute vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be followed by fiveminute votes on a motion to recommit, if offered, and passage of the bill, if ordered, and agreeing to the speakers approval of the journal, if ordered. This is a 15minute 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 248, and the nays are 181. This amendment is 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 provide for increases in the federal minimum wage, and for other urposes. The speaker pro tempore the ouse will be in order. For what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. The speaker pro tempore is the gentleman opposed to the bill . I am in its current form. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman qualifies. The clerk will report the motion. The clerk mr. Meuser of pennsylvania moves to recommit the bill h. R. 582 to the committee on education and labor with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment the speaker pro tempore the speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. The clerk will read. The clerk add at the end the following the amendments made by this act, as defined in section 3 of the fair labor standards act of 1938, 29 u. S. C. 203 that, one, employees fewer than 10 individuals or, two, whose annual gross volume of sales made or Business Done is less than 1 million. The speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. Mr. Meuser mr. Speaker, this motion will not delay passage of this bill or return it to committee. It is our last opportunity as the house to amend this legislation. Mr. Speaker, i am here to offer a motion to recommit that is about Small Business survival. It is about protecting the eight million minority owned Small Businesses, the 9. 9 million womenowned Small Businesses, and the 2. 5 million veteranowned Small Businesses around the country from the devastating repercussions of h. R. 582. With this motion to recommit, employers with fewer than 10 employees or annual sales under 1 million will not be forced to implement a 15 per hour minimum wage. If this amendment is adopted, mom and pop shops across the country will be protected from this bills extreme and unnecessary onesizefitsall washington mandate. Small businesses employee mploy almost half of all jobs. 99. 9 of Small Businesses are small. We know they are vulnerable to this radical increase in the minimum wage. The National Federation of independent businesses estimate businesses fewer than 500 employees will account for 57 of jobs lost to this bill, and businesses with fewer than 100 employees will account for 43 of jobs lost. Yet, my democrat colleagues have done nothing to protect these job creators from a 107 minimum wage hike. Instead, this legislation treats big and Small Businesses exactly the same. Without the Financial Resilience needed to absorb the increase in bottom line costs that this legislation will bring about, Small Businesses in towns in every Congressional District will be forced to make very tough choices. Do they lay off workers, raise prices on their customers, replace workers with robotics, or shut their doors completely . Congress should not force our nations smallest and most vital job creators to make those kinds of decisions. Small business workers and their families will also take a significant hit. The nonpartisan c. B. O. Backs up this reality reporting that mandating a 15 minimum wage would, and i quote, reduce business income and raise prices as higher labor costs would be absorbed by Business Owners and then passed onto consumers. From coast to coast, weve already seen realworld examples how workers and employees will be punished by this socialist policy. One study found that seattles 15 the house is not in order, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. The house will be in order. The gentleman will resume. He house will be in order. Mr. Meuser thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have seen realworld examples of how workers and employers will be punished by such a socialist policy. E study found the speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. Mr. Meuser washington knows best mandates that stretch across our nation, or better , wn as socialist policies and we have realworld examples showing they simply do not work. There was a very thorough study by Washington State university which showed in seattle a 15 minimum wage law reduced total income paid to the citys lowwage workers by 120 million per year in that one city alone. E cost of living in seattle, los angeles, and new york city, where 15 minimum wage is already in place or soon to be, is much higher than my district in pennsylvania. With such disparities and in the cost of living across the country, imagine what a raise hike will do to rural communities. Mr. Speaker, despite todays booming economy and rising wages, supporters of h. R. 582 thinks its best to force a punishing washington onesizefitsall wage hike on Small Businesses across america. A Small Business owner in the state of washington actually said it best. Congress should not and cannot mandate its way to wage growth and prosperity because those mandates hit Small Businesses hardest. Mr. Speaker, even the liberal Washington Post said yesterday, there is a tradeoff in raising the minimum wage so substantially. The Washington Post went on to say those who would lose out in the form of no job at all would wind up not with less pay but with no pay. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this modest but important amendment to h. R. 582, the Small Businesses and their workers back home in each and every one of our districts will thank us for protecting their livelihood. Yield back. The speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition . I rise in opposition to the otion to recommit. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Speaker. You know, theres been an awful lot of talk recently about what it means to be a patriotic american, and the fact is the answer for each of us is deeply personal. Wasnt blessed to be born an american citizen. I was born in vietnam. When i was a baby, we fled vietnam by boats, running out of fuel in the south china sea, when a u. S. Navy ship came to our rescue, helping us reach a malaysian refugee church. Mrs. Murphy a Lutheran Church sponsored our passage to america where we became proud citizens. Although we were eternally grateful to be here, life wasnt always easy. My mom worked as a seems tress d my dad at a seamtress and my dad at a power plant. My parents didnt speak english well or have a community of close friends, but what they did have, like so many immigrants, was a strong work ethic. My dad also had a labor union in his corner, and the union spoke for him and fought for him. My parents worked hard to make ends meet so that their children would have opportunities they themselves never had. And thats the american dream. Which brings me back to the question of what it means to be a patriot. For me, it starts with gratitude for this country and an appreciation for its exceptional qualities. This country saved my familys life. It gave us refuge and opportunity as it has done for so many across generations. But i think patriotism goes beyond love of country. Its also about striving to make this country even stronger. Its about trying to make life a little bit easier for americans to work hard and play by the rules. Folks like my parents and so many of my constituents. I support this bill for a simple reason. In the greatest country on earth, nobody with the dignity of a fulltime job should suffer the indignity of not being able to provide for hemselves or their loved ones. For a decade, the minimum wage has been stuck at 7. 25 an hour while the cost of living has skyrocketed. Theres no part in this great country where 7. 25 is a living wage anymore. Its past time we gave hardworking American Families a raise. Theyve earned it. This bill gradually increases the minimum wage in seven steps, reaching 15 by 2025 at the earliest. This is a reasonable bill, not a radical one. C. B. O. Estimates the bill will raise wages for nearly 30 million workers and lift millions out of poverty. Theyll have more money to spend in the local economy because workers are consumers, too. And theyll be less reliant on government programs. And given that our deficit will exceed a trillion dollar this is year, that should be music to my republican colleagues ears. I oppose this m. T. R. Because every american who works hard deserves a fair shot at the american dream. Whether you live in pennsylvania or arizona or minnesota or florida, you deserve a raise. And whether you work for a Large Corporation or a Small Business, you deserve a raise. You deserve a living wage. And you certainly deserve 15 an hour. Public polling shows strong bipartisan support for increasing the minimum wage. Make no mistake, this m. T. R. Is simply a republican attempt to defeat this bill because they oppose any increase to the federal minimum wage. Some oppose the con soacht a minimum wage at all. Well, the American People disagree. As democrats, we stand with the American People. The contrast is clear. Our republican colleagues made working families pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and consider races corporations. Yes, you did. And now youre opposing our efforts to give those working families a raise. And thats not just bad policy, thats shameful. When i vote yes on final passage, ill be thinking about my parents, and my hardworking constituents, and thank god families like these have labor unions fighting for them in the workplace and in the halls of congress. This will be one of the proudest votes i cast. I urge my colleagues to oppose the m. T. R. Lets pass this bill. Lets continue this fight in the senate and in state capitals across this country, thank you nd i yield back. The speaker pro tempore without objection the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The noes have it. The meigs is not agreed to. Mr. Speaker i demand a recorded sprote. A recorded vote. The speaker pro tempore a recorded vote is requested. Those favoring a recorded vote will rise. A sufficient number having risen, a recorded voterdered is ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a phiminute 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 ote the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 207, the nays are 218. 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 bill is passed. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized. A recorded vote is requested. Those favoring a recorded vote will rise. A sufficient number having risen, a railroaded a recorded 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 231 and the nays are 199. This bill is passed. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Rder in the house. The chair will remind persons in the gallery they are here as guests of the house and any manifestations in the house is in violation. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the the Unfinished Business is the question on agreeing to the speakers approval of the journal. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it and the journal stands approved. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition . Mr. Scott i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h. R. 582. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina seek recognition . I ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h. R. 962, the born alive 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. The chair lays before the house a communication. The clerk the honorable, the speaker house of representatives, madam this is to notify you pursuant to rule 8 of the house that Jennifer Miller have been served for a subpoena in a criminal in the Western District of new york. This criminal trial is in relation to alleged threats made congressman Steve Scalise and his family received through congressman sca lists official government office. After consultation with the office of general counsel, compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. Signed sincerely, Jennifer Miller. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition . Mr. Scalise i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of inquiring to the majority leader the schedule for next week. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Scalise i would like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from maryland, the House Majority leader. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. On tuesday, the house will meet at 12 p. M. With votes postponed until 6 0 p. M. On wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10 00 a. M. And 12 p. M. For legislative business. On friday, the house will meet at 9 00 a. M. And last votes on the week will be expected no later than 3 00 p. M. We will consider several bills. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. The house will consider h. R. 397, rehabilitation for multi employer pension act. Many americans have played into pensions deserve to know they will receive the benefits. The bill will help secure retirement for these workers and retirees. In addition, the house will consider h. R. 220 , Homeland Security improvement act. This legislation introduced by representative escobar will ensure that the Homeland Security addresses border issues in a responsible and humane manner. It fosters greater accountability when it comes to handling children at all levels within the department of Homeland Security. The house is expected to consider additional legislation related to the current humanitarian crisis on the southern border. Members are advised that the additional legislative items are expected. As you know its the last week before we adjourn and there is an effort to try to get things done that can in fact be done within the time frame we have available to us. It is my hope that an agreement is reached to reach the budget cap and the debt limit. The speaker and secretary mnuchin and others have been working hard and im hopeful they can reach an agreement that we can agree on as a house and senate. And we will consider that assuming an agreement is reached, we will consider that as soon as they reach it and hopefully that will be next week. And i yield back to my friend from louisiana. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for giving that update on the schedule. I know that we have been in talks on a budget caps agreement that the Vice President earlier this morning talked through some of the things that may be included. Obviously, there is no final agreement and hope those talks go on and reach an agreement where we can give certainty to our department of defense that we look at what sequestration would do to dens as we have been able to rebuild our defense. We would like to see that progress. A lot of other other issues are at issue and we encourage the talks to move forward and if there is an agreement reached with the white house, i did not hear mention of anything regarding the d. D. S. Legislation. We heard there might be some movement on standing up against that movement. I know that when we looked at a number of bills and some resolutions that are out there, some good, some bad, but as we know, there is time for talk and then theres time for action. And the resolutions are only talk. The legislation h. R. 336 by mr. Mccaul is the only bill out there as s. 1 moves through the senate with a large overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, not just words, but words followed up with action, real teeth to not only help this country and states that are standing up against the movement to give them some muscle, some ability to stand up. Is there any indication that there might be movement on h. R. 336 to actually follow up the words with real action against the movement . Mr. Hoyer in response to my friend, i will tell him that the committee did, in fact, mark up bills this past wednesday, yesterday, and those bills are being looked at to possibly move to the floor. Mr. Scalise specifically, if i could my friend, h. R. 336 was not one of those bills that was marked up and only bills that were marked up were resolutions. Again, while some of those resolutions might have some good language, there is no teeth, no policy, no change in law to give us more tools as a country to stand up to the movement to defend our friend, israel. It is rooted in antisemitism to undermine israels economy, which none of us want to see. But there is a movement to do that. And if we are going to stand up against it, words are not enough, we need action. And h. R. 336, it reflects similar legislation that passed the senate with an overwhelming vote, overwhelmingly democrats and republicans to give real tools to stand up to this movement and support our friend israel. Would that bill be considered, because it was not part of the package of bills that were brought up in committee this week . Mr. Hoyer i will tell my friend as he has articulated, that bill has not been marked up. There were two bills marked up in committee and there is a possibility that we will consider those. But the other bill was not marked up. Mr. Scalise again, i appreciate my friend yielding back. I would just encourage that we go back and look. This committee can do better. If we are going to stand up against this movement and support our friend israel against this attempt to undermine their economy, we need real tools. And h. R. 336 is the only instrument out there. S. 1, we would love to see s. 1 passed. There have been questions raised whether it has an origination problem so thats h. R. 336 was filed. H. R. 336 is the same language that passed with 77 votes in the senate. 77 votes. Erwhelming democrats and republicans together. Follow that lead of bipartisanship standing with israel. And im disappointed that its not included in the package. I would hope we go back and consider bringing that bill to the floor. Again, words are nice, but words without action dont give us the tools we need to stand with our friend israel against this undermining attempt known as b. D. S. Hire hire let me make the comment. Unfortunately, three of the Component Parts of the bill to which the gentleman refers, we are strongly for and unfortunately they were held up in the senate. Want to see the m. O. U. Ial assistance which we strongly support and which we strongly support in terms of the amount f money available not only general basics, but also the basis for support of israels defense against rockets and would be tions that sent to israel and we support the sanctions in the jordan m. O. U. And i hope they will move. I will reiterate, there have been two bills marked up and the possibility of considering those for next week is there. Mr. Scalise what is in h. R. 336, that language in 336 is the same language that was in s. 1 that passed the senate with 7723 vote. Doesnt mean that the senate has the best it shows that we can stand against this movement. If theres a better way to do it, wed be happy to work for those better ideas. None of those better ideas have been presented to us. It shut down the ability to have a bill come to the floor to actually put teeth in law to give us more tools. I would just urge that we, if theres a better alternative that the chairman of the committee or the leadership on your side has, please present that and lets negotiate it and but none of that has been presented as of now. I encourage us to do better as we give more support to our friend israel against this growing movement. I would like to ask about the agenda as we have seen it so far and the decorum. The agenda weve seen this week alone, multiple pieces of legislation whether targeted at the president , we had a resolution on the president s tweet. There was a resolution filed to impeach the president of the United States. There was a resolution to hold Trump Officials in contempt of congress with no basis for that contempt. There were multiple resolutions just this week. To target, harass different policies of the administration. Theres so much legislation that we ought to be on this floor debating to do things that would actually help real families there is a crisis at our border. Theres been no bipartisan legislation. The bills that are going to be coming to the floor next week that the gentleman mentioned dealing with Homeland Security are known by many in the Homeland Security deal a bill as the open borders bill. Not a bipartisan approach to solving our problem at the border. We need a secure border. Fix our broken asylum laws. We want tone courage asylum to work. There ought to be a way to apply for asylum but in all honesty if somebody goes through every countries and turns down asylum in those countries and comes here and reads a script because they know theres a loophole in our law, we ought to Work Together to fibblings those broken loopholes and the thing causing an overwhelming crisis at our border, thats not been tone. Bills to lower drug prices. We had a bipartisan agreement in committee, in emergency and commerce, to lower drug prices. Yet that was abandoned when that bill came to the floor, sent in a way that became a partisan bill. These shouldnt be partisan issues. I would hope we would move away from the harassment ayen da, get back to an agenda focused on republicans and democrats working together, in a partisan way to say, we passed a will in the house that Everybody Knows is going nowhere because its a partisan approach. Look what the senate has done to move bipartisan bills through the senate. We can do better than the senate, but were not. When the speaker breaks the house rules. When you see this breakdown, it just it just raises the ire. Because there is not that attempt to work in a bipartisan way to solve these problems. And there are a lot of good ideas that are bipartisan to solve these problems. The disappointment is that we dont see those coming to the house floor. The bill that deals with real policy coming to the house floor are only brought by and large from a partisan perspective. And the bipartisan approaches are being discarded. And b. D. S. Is one clear example where theres a way to solve the problem, where republicans and democrats came together and even from the gentlemans acknowledgment, theres no indication that its going to move out of committee any time soon. It ought to be out of committee. It ought to be on the house floor so we cannot only debate it but pass it and get a bill to the president s desk to allow us to stand up more against the b. D. S. Movement and in support of israel. I yield back. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, let me say that wo things. We are confronting, in my view, an unprecedented refusal of an administration to cooperate with the congress in the exercise of its constitutional duties. I refer specifically to the issuance of subpoenas either for testimony or for documentary evidence. So that the congress can properly exercise its oversight responsibilities under the constitution. I have been here for some almost four decades and i have never seen any administration essentially direct across the board a no response to the congress of the United States or to its subcommittees. Or to its committees. Yes we are pursue, the jell referred to the contempt citation dealing with mr. Barr and mr. Ross. Now the issue at center of that as the gentleman knows, the administration ultimately decided it would not pursue the policies that were the subject of that investigation. However, it is not about the specific but it is about the general constitutional responsibility that this congress has to the American People. We ask for information not on behalf of ourselves individually but on behalf of the American People. So they will know what their government is doing. It will be there will be a transparency to the operations of government. And they will be able to determine whether or not any administrative official or the administration generally is acting on its behalf personally or whether its acting on behalf of the American People. From that perspective, i think the resolutions we have offered which are there have essentially been two dealing with this issue, and maybe more, if the refusal to cooperate with continued. So that i hope that the gentleman will understand that are trying to protect the responsibilities and authority of the congress of the United States, the peoples body, the article 1 body, to do its duty properly. Secondly, yes, we did have a very difficult day yesterday. But i will tell you, my friend from louisiana, i think it is the absolute responsibility of this body to respond if it sees things being done by the administration or by others that it perceives to be contrary to the ideals of this country. Contrary to the declaration that we believe that all men and yes, all women, are created equal. Ontrary to the extraordinary wrenching war we had among the states to determine that all were equasm and a reconstruction period. And then as i grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, looking racism in the space and saying, we reject it. We reject racism. We reject prejudice. We reject simplifying, if people are a certain color or race or nationality or certain gender that somehow theyre less than other americans. I think it is our responsibility o confront that. And thats what we did yesterday. It was difficult. I understand. I was sorry it was not a bipartisan vote. Because i dont believe that members on your side of the aisle want to tolerate racism any more than we want to tolerate racism. If we see it, i think we have a responsibility to speak out. To stand up. To say this is not right in america. This is not america. So yes, we had a resolution yesterday. This was the gentleman refers to in response to a tweet. It was not the tweet, it was what the tweet said. What it implied. What it diminished in terms of americas sense of decency and equality. And tolerance. And inclusion. For our people. Now, let me go to legislation. As the gentleman knows, we have passed substantial pieces of legislation. We passed h. R. 1. No republicans voted for that but it seeks to make it easier for people to vote in america. Make sure their vote is protected. Counted. And make sure that we have transparency and that financing of campaigns. It made sure our redistricting was fair to our citizens and that we politicians were not drawing the districts but that the districts are drawn in fairness to the American People. It also demanded ethics reform. But then we passed an antihate resolution. It was just words but it said no to hate. 173 republicans voted for that. Overwhelmingly passed bipartisan. We passed a land and Water Conservation fund that made that fund permanent. A very important bill for state like louisiana and frankly my own state of maryland, were sur rounded by water, have a lot of water. That bill got 133 republicans. It languishes still in the senate. We passed the secure act which makes it easier for people to get retirement security. That was supported by 187 republicans. We passed the violence against women reauthorization. Unfortunately, it didnt get overwhelming but it got 33 republicans. It languishes in the senate. We passed a provision that said we want to protect preexisting conditions in the Affordable Care act. We got eight republicans. I wish we had gotten more. We passed disaster relief. The gentleman knows a lot about disaster relief. Important to his state. Unfortunately we only got 34 republicans but it was a bipartisan bill. So weve also passed background checks which are supported by 90 of the American People. To try to make gun violence lessen in the United States of america. Now for that bill, we only got eight republicans. But that those two bills, supported by 98 of the American People, languishes in the United States senate. The majority leader not bringing up that legislation. Passed National Emergency resolution which said, mr. President , you cant take money that we appropriated for x and just send it over to y. That was, i thought, a protection of our constitutional authority. The constitution says we raise and we spend money and we direct the executive. We direct the executive. On how to do that. That got 13 republicans supporting it. Major piece of legislation. We passed a dreamer legislation. Weve been asked for that legislation for almost a decade. Or at least six years, i should say. And that legislation got no vote over the last five years. Got a vote this year. And we got a number of republicans, seven, to be exact, to vote for that. I can go through a number of other pieces of legislation, including lastly the minimum wage bill. This was about capitalism, not socialism. Were capitalists over here. We believe in the free market system over here. And any assertion to the contrary, madam speaker, is absolutely false. It is good political tactic to stair political tactic. Its a scare tactic, madam speaker. But i reject it out of hand. We believe in the free market system. We believe the free market system has been the system that has provided the most benefits for the broadest number of people. We believe thats one of the great facets of our democracy, our free market system. Nd i will tell, madam speaker, my friend, that it was democrats in the 1930s that saved the free market system. December of ats in 2007 who came in and made sure that the free market system did not crash. After eight years of republican leadership. Seven years eight years, to december of 2007. And i would hope that the gentleman would not make the assertion that surely he knows is not true, madam speaker, that to this side are looking support a socialist agenda. We are promoting and continue to promote a socially sensitive agenda for the American People. To make sure that they have health care. Medicare. Was called a socialist program, madam speaker. When it was adopted. That is a program that millions and millions of americans rely on. Medicare was called a socialist program when it was adopted. That program combined with medicare has millions of americans having a sense of security, a sense of independence, a sense that they are not going to fall through the cracks. So we ought not to be debating d i say, madam speaker, this phony socialism. The minimum wage is simply saying in america, we value people who work. And we want to ensure that people who work are not living in poverty and have some ability to support themselves and their families in a decent way. We passed that bill today. We are proud of passing that bill. Very frankly, 10 years of republican control of the house of representatives, we pleaded with them to bring a minimum wage bill. Of whatever number to the floor. And they didnt bring a single cent raise in a decade. The longest time since the Social Security since the minimum wage was adopted in the 1930s to make sure that americans were lifted out of that deepest recession that this country has ever had. I say to my friend, we have done a lot. I wish the senate would move it. Let me close because im very proud and close in terms of this response, im very proud of this. We have passed 10 appropriation bills. Mr. Hoyer it passed in Committee Even though the republicans were in charge and the majority of members in the committee were republican. But that minimum wage increase passed but they refused to bring it to the floor. They are not for increasing the minimum wage. We disagree with that position. We believe that in america, youre working, playing by the rules and making our economy grow, then you ought to be paid a wage that you can survive on and better than that, live on. So im proud of the legislation that we passed and im proud of the 10 appropriation bills, which by the way fund 96 of the government. Our colleagues in the senate, madam speaker, have not passed a single appropriation bill hrough committee, not one. So we are doing our job, madam speaker, we are addressing the issues of the American People. I agree 100 with the minority with the republican whip, that we need to deal with drug pricing. The president says he wants to do that. Hopefully we can get consensus. I agree with the the gentleman from louisiana. We havent gotten there. Hopefully we can strengthen the Affordable Care act so people will have the confidence it will be available to them. With that i know that was a relatively long answer, but i think we have done a lot of work. Im very proud of the six months that we have had or a little over six months. Spent the first 35 days trying to open up government. First congress in the history of the United States in which the government was shot down. It was shut down before, but this is the first time. Took us 35 days to get it open and when we did get it open, we started an agenda which im proud. Do we have more work to do . We do. Madam speaker, we will continue an agenda that continues that work. Mr. Scalise there is a lot to cover there. Lets start with the big debate and that is what the gentleman alluded to and that is government control versus freedom. Thats going to be the debate over the next year, where there is already a president ial primary debate process going on. And when you see every candidate for president on one side saying that they want to give Health Care Benefits to people that are here illegally, yet many embrace a plan that would end private insurance for families that enjoy the Health Care Plans they have in the private marketplace, the medicare for all proposal. There are so many different areas where we see this debate about government control versus freedom. And yes, to the gentleman, there are some on your side who refer to it themselves as socialist democrats. If they want to call themselves that, then at least own the hings that go with sosme socialism and recognize the damage done by socialism and to think one party has ownership of the free market system, i would like to engage in the debate about capitalism because there are some other side that attack it. How you look at republican policies have gotten us to where we are with the most booming economy in the world, peoples wages are rising, lowincome people are benefiting the most and you are seeing the increase in the rebuilding of our middle class that was evaporating because of eight years, eight years in a row under the Previous Administration, every single quarter, our economy had less than 2 growth in eight years in a row. The economy wasnt that bad during the great depression. When we came in with the republican majority and republican president , we were able to pass actual policies like the tax cuts and jobs act and reversing so many of the radical regulations that we saw that had nothing to do with health and safety but carry out an agenda to shut down industries in this country like the fossil fuel industry, providing jobs, helping our friends around the world, lowering Energy Prices for families in america, those policies have been increasing ages for lowincome. Today the government was going to come in and set artificial rates for what people ought to make as opposed to letting this great market that is working incredibly well to raise wages for families. We have seen the study from the university of washington and look at real examples of communities that have had high artificially high wages like seattle and put in place 15 an hour minimum wage and what it resulted in is over five million lost for workers. In fact, the lower income families in seattle were hurt the most by that policy by a margin of 31. It damages lowincome families. It sounds good that the government is going to tell everybody what they can make, most of us who believe in the free market system reject that idea. Theres a bar in new york that was closed because of the increase in the minimum wage that one of our colleagues used to work, closed because of an artificially priced minimum wage. If you look them going to other communities, that ought to tell you how the policies are working, but we have a growing economy, not because we had a lot of government control out of washington, but in fact, because we allowed freedom and allowed people to keep more what they earn and make their own choices and its a successful formula. If we can get to the issue of e harassment agenda, the subpoenas, lets talk about secretary ross and the work that was done to comply with the committees request. If you look and this is reading from a document sent by secretary ross and attorney general barr, quote, the departments engagement with the committee is a good faith accommodation process is rooted in the separation of powers. As part of that process, both departments have made witnesses available for voluntary interviews and reduced 30,000 pages of documents to the committee. Before the committee abruptly nd terminated the process, the department of justice provided additional number of documents identified as responsive to the committees subpoena. They go on to talk about how they were complying with the committee producing over 30,000 pages of documents just related to the crens us and the committee abruptly decides they want to hold them in contempt. The attorney general would have broken the law if he turned them over. You saw a department complying and going overboard to ensure that the separation of powers and the oversight that existed would continue. When we were in the majority and the Previous Administration of the other party was there, we had a lot of oversight hearings exercising our article 1 powers as we all should, but we didnt go week after week. Just this week alone, a resolution condemning the president , impeachment, three resolutions of disapproval on policy. That was just this week. The American People dont want to see us over power but fighting for their needs, the needs of hardworking families. I identified so many things and just to finish up on the resolution that was discussed earlier and the gentleman said, well, you need to respond to things that violate this countrys principles. We reject racism wholeheartedly. We reject hate. We reject antisemitism. There have been comments made by members of the gentlemans party that have not been addressed on this floor that violate those principles. We can all bring resolutions broadly stating things, but if the intention is to identify people by name, it is conspicuous that when people of the other party say those things, they are not addressed on this floor by name. So we know that happened. The way that the speaker violated the rules of the house and then a vote was brought to this floor to say that those rules dont apply to the speaker. And if the rules dont apply to the speaker, then who do they apply to . They ought to apply to us. If any of us break the rules and called out on it and in violation of the rules, we accept that. We ought not to have a vote that say the rules dont apply to the speaker. They ought to be in place equally and not have a free pass to break those rules. If we are going to talk about what we reject, lets be fair and equal about it. I would yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding, madam speaker, i want to go back to the free market and the minimum wage. The gentleman, madam speaker, projects that let the free market operate. We do not allow employers to hire people under a certain age because we want to protect children. I suppose thats interfering with the free market, because we know that throughout the world, we have eight, nine, 10yearold children are being asked to work 10 to 14 hour days. Perhaps he believes we ought to have people work 80, 90 hours a week, trying to manage tear families and their lives and not have a 40hour week because the free market the individual can decide whether they are going to work 80, 90 hours a week. We know that in history. Perhaps we ought to have a free market that doesnt worry about whether workers are safe on the job, whether its in a minor its in a factory, we require places to be safe. So that we can protect workers. We dont believe that undermine the free market system. We think it improves the free market system. Mr. Scalise if i could interject, i agree with those. We disagree that on. Mr. Hoyer my point to the gentleman is, yes, we think people ought to be paid a decent wage and we know there are people in our workplace and in r country have no Bargaining Power whatsoever. They dont have fancy college educations, they dont have fancy skills, but they are needed in our economy. Theyre needed to do things that the Community Needs done. When you go to a hotel, you hope that bed is made up. You hope the bathrooms are clean. When you go to the grocery store, you hope that the peas and corn have been picked. We believe those folks are necessary for our community and need to be paid. Just as they need to be safe. Im glad the gentleman agrees on that we thought he did. But the point is theres an analogy here to safety, to hour, working conditions. And yes, to wages. I dont know that the party that the gentleman represents has ever offered an increase in the minimum wage. Im going to check on that, i dont know. Since ive been here, they have not. Its always been us offering the increase. Now george bush, president bush, to his credit signed the minimum age in 2007. Which was still less than it was in 1968. In fact, its 40 less today than it was in 1968. 40 less, workers are being paid. Lastly i will say, annapolis, one thing our party agrees with is men and women have a right to come together and bargain for their wages and working conditions and benefits. And they need to be on some degree a parity of parity. We know big employers and even small employers, youre not on parity. You either do this or dont. If there are no rules, then people are subjected, in my iew, and in my observation, to unfair tactics which they have no defense against other than us. So i say to my friend, i think he and i agree on hopefully hours, ages at which people can work certain hours. On safety conditions in workplaces. Im not sure about bargaining collectively in union, i think theyre critical to the creation of a middle class and the maintenance of a strong middle class. But we also very strongly believe in the free market system. I can go and pick out one of your members or two of your members who may have some differences of agreement, wont mention any names but i can think of some names on your side of the aisle. Im sure you can as well. And in fact have. And perhaps disagreement with from your perspective. Some people on my side of the sle. But we intend to continue to be supportive on building jobs. You know i have an agenda, make it in america. Its about growing jobs, fwring enterprises, helping entrepreneurs, making sure people have good wages and good future through the Free Enterprise system. The gentleman has nothing further, i will yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding. Clearly if you talk about what make this is country great and the freedoms and the economic success that weve seen, for families, businesses, families, for everybody. The reason people come here from all across the world. What weve done to create this great free market system is unleashed potential for anybody to come here and be anything they want to be. Ive been proud to help pass policies to have that have actually increased wages for families. Not through government price controls but through economic growth. Through giving people more of their money back. Instead of them having to come to washington to get an amount or come to a union boss to get the amount they can earn. They can do it on their own. Its playing out in reality. Not in theory but in reality where were seeing the lowest income workers today benefiting the most of our policies of cutting taxes. Not telling people how much they can make but by letting them go out and make even more on their own and theyre doing it. Its the lower income people that are benefiting the most from those policies. We ought to encourage more of that when we see that the Unemployment Rate amongst africanamericans and amongst hispanics is at the lowest rate in our countrys history, not through government controls but through cutting taxes, letting them have more of their money and seeing businesses grow and hire more people. Seeing more job openings today than there are people looking for work. Thats whats so exciting. When you see that womenowned businesses are up 20 of the over the last few years because of the conservative policies i have helped pass, yes, i would say, i dont pass when i support right to work laws, if a person wants to go work for a company and it happens to be in a unionbased industry or a unionbased state, and they say they dont want their dues to be forced out of their paychecks to go give to somebody to go and give them to somebody that believes in things they dont agree with, they shouldnt be forced to do that. But in many places they are. So i want more individual freedom. I want more ability for people to go out and live that american dream. To start up their own business in their garage and one day maybe become a billionaire because there was that opportunity provided to them. Not us telling them how much they can make but us allowing them, in a safe way, the ability to go and be the best they can. Ill use an example. Because i know the gentleman and i share the belief that people need to be safe in their workplace. We need to do all we can to ensure that. And you can go look. At the deepwater drilling in the gulf of mexico, which is based a of parts of my district, port in louisiana is the hub of the deepwater drilling that we saw. There was a horrible tragedy. The deepwater horizon. People died. The environment was polluted. It was done not because there werent enough laws in place but because a company broke the laws. A company went around those Safety Standards we put in place. And we went and hammered them. We fined them. I actually passed a bill out of this house in a very bipartisan way called the restore act that number one, ensured that they paid billions of dollars back to actually go and fix the damage they had done. To hold that Company Accountable for what theyd done. Not to shut the whole industry down. Because there were every other company that was out there had done things the right way. What you saw from the Previous Administration was a rule that came out called the well control rule that wasnt rooted in safety. It basically said after industry went and did an even better job to put well containment in place so if Something Like that ever happened again they could quickly move to stop it, and instead of government working to help expedite that process, government sat back an sat back and waited until industry came up with a better way to solve the problem on their own and they came up with a rule that would have undermined the new Safety Standards they put in place. Would have made it difficult. Because washington would have been able to tell them how to manage a well in the middle of the gulf of mexico instead of them understanding that pressure changes instantly and theyve got to be able to respond to it. Goff was setting a standard that would have undermined safety. But we reversed that. That reversal. That obama era rule would have actually made things less safe. Lets not think that every regulation is about increasing safety. We ought to stand together and support safety dan stards standards and strengthen them where we can but if theres a rowl that undermines safety because some people dont want drilling for oil. Some people support the Green New Deal kind of approaches that i dont and many dont. But dont try to undermine safety just to shut an industry down because people dont believe in it. After september 11, our government came together in many ways. Politically, policywise, to address what had happened. We didnt shut down the entire airline industry. We made Safety Standards at airports better so that people that get on a plane feel more comfortable that somebody doesnt have box cutters or a gun or a knife that can undermine the safety of those people and of our country. Then we got planes back up and run very quickly. So Safety Standards are something we both share but when government gets in the way, just because they dont agree with what somebody is doing. Thats a different story. And thats the kind of government control versus freedom battle that youre seeing playing out and will continue to see playing out im sure over the next year and a half between now and next november. Would yield back. Mr. Hoyer we could go for another many minutes. But im going to comment on one of the things he said about the person who wanted to go to work for a company but didnt want to join the union and the right to work. The probability is you want to go to work for that company because the wages are good, the benefits were good, safety conditions were good. Thats the union. But he or she doesnt want to pay dues to the union. They dont have to join the i think thats somewhat ironic but i think demonstrative safety n you say that a regulation, very frankly you spent a lot of time, when you were in charge, passing reductions of regulations that we think undermine safety of consumers, of workers, of individuals. We have a disagreement on that mavepls. But thats what we believe. And thats the tension here. That we represent. An attitude that we need to make sure everybody plays by the rules so that people are safe. But in any event well discuss that further, im sure, in the coming days and weeks and maybe years. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Scalise i appreciate the gentlemans comments. I respect our ability to have these disagreements. But to disagree in a civil way where we can at least talk about the policy and keep it focused that way and one day hopefully address those areas of concern that we both share, that we can both solve working together. With that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. Mr. Hoyer madam speaker. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition . Mr. Hoyer i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet at 9 30 tomorrow and further, when it adjourn on that day, it adjourn to meet on july 23, 2019, when it will condition veen at 12 00 for morning hour debate and 2 00 p. M. For legislative business. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The chair will now entertain requests for oneminute speeches. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition . Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. Ms. Kaptur madam speaker, pensions have afforded millions of middle class americans the opportunity to enjoy their golden years with economic peace of mind. Congress did not assure this security for all retirees when it passed the multiemployer pension reform act in december, 2014, attaching it to an unrelated mustpass legislation. For the past five years, i listened to the anxiety of thousands of retirees from ohio and across our nation and fought for a better solution for them. Next week, this body will consider the rehabilitation for multiemployer pensions act, better known as the Butch Lewis Act. This bill is long overdue and a great step toward restoring Economic Security for other 1,300,000 pensioners in our country. Congress can provide relief for these 1. 3 million workers and retirees in plans running out of money through no fault of the workers. Many of these hardworking individuals worked 30 years or more but now every day they live with economic uncertainty. Some facing drastic cuts, as much as 70 to their earned pensions. Many of these individuals are too old to return to the work force. This is criminal. Madam speaker, this congress should improve our constituents lives. It is great anticipation next week that we offer a glimmer of hope for millions of pensioners on the edge of financial disaster. The Butch Lewis Act is overdue and a reasonable solution to address this multiemployer pension crisis and end the economic terror that affects these retirees lives. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore frup does the gentleman from washington seek recognition . Without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. Madam speaker, i rise today to honor the memory of clyde owen of moses lake, washington. An individual who dedicated his life to serbing the country and improving his community before passing on july 1 at the age of 100. Mr. Newhouse he was a pilot during world war ii and the only member of his air crew to escape enemy fire during the landing at anzio in 1943. Surviving these adversities, he continued to serve in the air force, traveling the world before settling in moses lake in 1961. There he served as the last commander of the Larson Air Force base, overseeing crucial tanker and bomber floats before its closure in 1966