[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 117 (Friday, July 12, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5765-H5770]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader the schedule for next week.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 of Louisiana as 
they brace for Tropical Storm Barry, expected to make landfall 
tomorrow.
  This is a serious storm, and, when combined with the flooding we have 
already seen along the Mississippi, it poses a serious threat to the 
safety and welfare of many.
  We hope everyone is safe and taking the necessary steps to get out of 
harm's way, and I want the gentleman from Louisiana to know how much we 
are paying attention to his constituents in the State he represents and 
the region he represents.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the concern, support, 
and prayers that have been offered. Obviously, we are all praying for 
the people of south Louisiana as Tropical Storm Barry approaches. In 
the next 24 hours, we expect landfall. We are surely expecting heavy 
rain.
  I know, as I have talked to local officials, from the Governor to the 
mayor of New Orleans and other elected officials on the ground, they 
are prepared. They have 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. So, 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. As they protect their homes and protect their 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 it is a serious storm. And it is a storm that we are preparing 
for, but, as they say, you prepare for the worst but hope for the best, 
and we are doing all of that.
  I appreciate the gentleman's concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. I know the gentleman is concerned. We share that concern, 
and we share the concern for the people of south Louisiana.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour 
debate, 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 
6:30 p.m.
  On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-
hour debate and noon for legislative business.
  On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. 
Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on that 
Thursday.

[[Page H5766]]

  


                              {time}  1345

  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 
Act. I am pleased to say that the bill was approved by unanimous voice 
vote in committee and would authorize funding and enable congressional 
oversight of the U.S. intelligence community.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 2020 Census with the 
addition of a citizenship question meant only to deter minorities from 
participating, leading to an undercount in parts of the country.
  In addition, the House will also consider S.J. Res. 36, S.J. Res. 37, 
and S.J. Res. 38.
  Mr. Speaker, last month, the Senate passed 22 resolutions of 
disapproval related to the Saudi-UAE arms sale for which the 
administration declared an emergency, thereby bypassing the Congress of 
the United States. The House will take up three of these resolutions 
related to precision-guided munitions, the 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 American workers out of poverty.
  We believe that one should not be working a 40-hour 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.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, as we look at the calendar next week and, 
specifically, the bill dealing with the minimum wage, I would ask the 
gentleman if he has looked at some of the studies that have been done, 
as well as some of the other actions.
  If you look at the city of Baltimore, they had proposed and actually 
passed a $15 minimum wage, and the Democratic mayor of Baltimore vetoed 
that, specifically citing the job losses that would come with that kind 
of change.
  The CBO report that just came out a few days ago, as the majority 
leader knows, cited that you could have up to 3.7 million jobs lost in 
America if that bill were to pass.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a growing economy, a robust, growing economy. We 
are the envy of the world right now with our economy. People at every 
income level are receiving the benefits of that in terms of higher 
wages and 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. In fact, as 
we are seeing, people at even the lower income, entry-level 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 pass 
legislation that not only studies estimate would devastate low-income 
people--literally, the entire State of Oklahoma, 3.7 million people, 
eviscerated job losses. That many job losses would come from this bill 
passing.
  You don't need to just look at estimates. You can actually look at 
what happened in the city of Seattle.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2014, the city of Seattle instituted a similar $15 
minimum wage. So now, we have a few years of actual data to look at 
what happened in a city like Seattle.
  Mr. Speaker, the University of Washington did a detailed study of 
that minimum wage increase. What they found were similarly devastating 
numbers for low-income workers, the same people who 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 3 million 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 3-to-1, devastating low-income workers the 
most.
  If you look at not what might happen if we do this at the Federal 
level--where the estimates are we would lose 3.7 million jobs in 
America, mostly hurting lower income, 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, 3 years 
of data. The study showed it was devastating to low-income people.
  I would hope that the gentleman has looked at some of this, the 
concerns that we have expressed along the way, and the recent CBO score 
that has underlined how bad and devastating this would be to low-income 
workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations. 
He, I think, told a partial story of the CBO study and some other 
studies. Of course, he mentioned the city of Baltimore.
  The problem with the city of Baltimore, as the mayor who vetoed it 
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 mentions the CBO report on the impact of gradually 
raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The minimum wage was last 
raised in 2007. It then incrementally raised over 3 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 don't think that is right, as we see this extraordinary disparity 
of income, where presidents of corporations now are making 1,500 times 
what their average worker makes.
  Very frankly, we are a consumer-based economy. Seventy percent of our 
GDP is based upon consumers. If we raise their salaries, they are going 
to spend more, grow the economy, and, I suggest, grow jobs, not shrink 
jobs.

  Let's look at the CBO study. The CBO study had a number of different 
averages that were perceived, three of which were zero loss of jobs. 
3.7 million was the maximum, not the average, the maximum loss.
  I am not surprised that opponents of raising the minimum wage would 
point to that as if it were the figure. It is a maximum, the worst-case 
scenario.
  We have a growing economy. I don't expect the worst-case scenario to 
occur. The fact of the matter is that we believe that this bill and 
this raise will have little, if any, adverse impact.
  What we do know is this, which the gentleman did not mention. CBO 
said the bill will give 27 million workers in America a raise, and that 
the worst-case scenario--we don't want to see anybody lose their job--
would be 3.7 million, but the average would be less than 2 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. 
It will be good not only for those workers but good for business, for 
families, for children, and, frankly, for all of us.
  The benefits of the Raise the Wage Act for America's workers, in our 
opinion, far outweigh any potential risk. We think the risk is minimal.
  More than 10 years with no increase in the Federal minimum wage, 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.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been 10 years since we Democrats were in the 
majority. I point that out because the last time we were in the 
majority, we passed and, very frankly, President Bush signed the raise 
that was to $7.25 an hour. But this is the longest time in history it 
hasn't been raised.
  The Raise the Wage Act is a critical step, in my view, toward 
restoring the value of work and ensuring that working families--we all 
say we are for working families. Well, we ought to pay them, and we 
ought to pay them a decent wage.
  By the way, this raise is probably a very, very infinitesimal 
percentage of the raises that those at the upper level, in the top 10 
percent and the top 5 percent, have received.
  This will allow working families to achieve some type of financial 
security. We believe that is essential.

[[Page H5767]]

  We are very pleased that this bill is moving forward, and we urge all 
of our Members to support it.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out it is not 
we who are paying those wages. It is small businesses, small and 
medium-sized businesses that are paying those wages to workers.
  What we have seen from the current economy, from cutting taxes, not 
from the government coming in and saying we are going to have some $15 
minimum wage that has been proven in other places to eviscerate jobs, 
to kill jobs and hurt lower-income people, with our current economy, 
because of cutting taxes, lower income people are benefiting the most. 
They are seeing wages go up. They are actually seeing wages go up, and 
the data shows that.
  That is why you are seeing such strong economic numbers right now, 
because the tax cuts are benefiting people at every income level, 
especially at the lower income levels.
  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, that is 1.3 million 
jobs lost. Don't take my number. Don't take your number. Take the 
median number in the study, 1.3 million jobs. That is the entire State 
of Maine losing their jobs.
  What we have also seen is that small businesses, as minimum wages go 
to a higher level, look at automating jobs, which means those jobs go 
away.
  It is the low-income workers, the first job for many people, their 
first entry into opportunity where they can then become a homeowner, 
then become part of the American Dream, those are hit the hardest. In 
fact, the study shows that this bill would reduce family income by $9 
billion.
  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 end up with 1.3 million jobs lost and devastation for a lot 
of people at the lower incomes.
  The Seattle study shows not theory but what really did happen in a 
city like Seattle where they did this. By a 3-to-1 margin, low-income 
people were hit the hardest and hit very hard in a negative way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would simply say that he said the entire State of Maine. Maybe he 
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 families. That, by the way, is about the 
size, perhaps, of New York. It is not quite California, which is 38 or 
39 million people. But 27 million are going to get a raise.
  My suggestion is, and I believe this sincerely, that that increase 
and raise, because they are consumers, those consumers all spend their 
spendable money. They need it to support themselves, and that is going 
to be an infusion.
  When the gentleman says small business, I understand that. We all pay 
it in the end because the consumer of services and goods is who will 
pay it. We understand that. But not paying it perhaps advantages us 
because some families can't support themselves and, very frankly, may 
be on public assistance, so we pay for it one way or the other.
  This is the right thing to do. Twenty-seven million Americans, that 
is about a sixth, I think, of our workforce, somewhere in that 
neighborhood, are going to get a raise under this bill.
  I hope that the estimate of 1.3 million is wrong. I think it is 
wrong, as I explained. If everybody is doing the same, then the 
employer that needs to have things done is going to get those things 
done. He or she will be on a competitive level because others will be 
doing the same thing, in terms of the level of pay. They won't be 
competing with people who are paying their folks at a very low level, 
and people will be able to survive.
  I understand the gentleman's position. By the way, I would say the 
gentleman's argument has been made since 1938.

                              {time}  1400

  Every time the minimum wage came up for increase, we have heard this. 
I didn't hear it in `38, I want to make that very clear. But that 
argument has been made every time the minimum wage, while I have been 
involved in 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, it has grown more, people have been better 
off, and we have had a better country.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the 27 million, let's 
keep in mind that, as you look at what they studied on the impacts, it 
is the lower income workers, as the wages might even go up.
  And, by the way, wages are already going up today. Without this bill, 
wages, real wages, are going up and especially benefiting the lower 
income, the entry-level jobs.
  What President Trump wanted to do to rebuild our middle class that 
was evaporating--it, literally, was going away. We were losing our 
middle class to foreign countries because we were not competitive as a 
nation. And now we are competitive--not only competitive, but the envy 
of the world, the economic leader of the world.
  Again, why would we want to bring a bill that would devastate?
  And so those 27 million people, if you look again at the Seattle 
study, what they showed was that the cost to low-wage workers in 
Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of 3 to 1.
  So even for those people who were getting a higher wage because other 
costs went up and their hours went down, the amount of time they were 
able to work was reduced, it actually had a devastating impact to those 
low-income workers.
  So on one hand it might sound really good: Hey, you are going to get 
a higher wage; but, Oh, by the way, we are not going to be able to give 
you as many hours to work. And you saw that over and over again in the 
study, it showed millions of hours lost.
  So somebody that is working two jobs, struggling to get by because 
they want to become part of the middle class, today they are actually 
seeing a wage increase if that was evaporated because of this.
  Even for the people who would see a higher wage, the costs to them 
would be more devastating by a 3-to-1 margin if you go by what actually 
did happen in Seattle when they did it.
  So that is why I just say that study would be important to look at, 
because it doesn't show just in theory, which the CBO 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.
  If the gentleman had anything else on this, I would yield back. I did 
want to bring up another issue, though, but I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think we have exhausted that subject. I think the positions have 
not changed since 1938, and I don't expect them to change in the next 
few minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, maybe next week as this debate continues, 
we will 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 and aired.
  Now, I do want to talk about something where I do think we have 
agreement but maybe a lack of understanding of a timeline, and that is 
the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. And we have had many 
meetings. I know we were in a meeting together with the Prime Minister, 
Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada. We know our friends in Mexico want 
this. Our friends in Canada really want this. We want this, too.
  With only 8 legislative days left before the August recess, could the 
gentleman give an indication if there is the ability to include USMCA 
on the calendar in these next 2 weeks that we have available?
  And I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We did have a meeting, and in a bipartisan fashion, I think we are 
all hopeful that 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 
experience of NAFTA. We are very focused, as the gentleman knows, on 
workers' rights, environmental protections, the price of

[[Page H5768]]

biologics, and the length of time that they would be protected from 
generic competition and bringing prices down.
  But we are, as we discussed in the meeting to which the gentleman 
referred where 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. And, as the gentleman knows, 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 that he is one of those people who both sides of the aisle 
believe is credible, knowledgeable, straightforward and an honest 
broker. So we are working very hard with him.
  Almost every Democrat has said we are trying to get to ``yes'' on 
this. I don't think you have heard many Democrats, if any, say we are 
not for this agreement.
  So I am hopeful that we can get there, personally. I think this is an 
improvement over the existing NAFTA.
  I would say, however, that I think it would be a mistake if, in fact, 
we don't 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 and Mexico, as well. So I 
think that would not be a good policy. But I think a good policy would 
be, if we can get enforcement and the assurances that the agreements 
that are made will, in fact, be carried out by all parties, then, 
hopefully, we can get this done.
  Whether we can get this done by the August break, can't make that 
representation to the gentleman, which does not surprise him, I am 
sure. But I can tell you, yesterday, as you know, there was work being 
done on it, and I trust that there will be work being done on it in the 
coming days. And if we can get to an 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, and I share the same sentiment 
that Ambassador Lighthizer has done a great job of working with Members 
on both sides to address questions, concerns, find ways to make sure 
that those concerns are addressed, whether they are 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 that I have put together on our side that is 
ready to go and, hopefully, your side will be able to get there.
  It would be ideal if we can do that before we recess. Clearly, that 
is not the only way to get this done, but we do have to respect, as 
well, that the other countries, our friends, Mexico and Canada, have an 
interest in this, as well.
  Canada has elections coming up. We don't want to have this 
jeopardized and become something that gets pushed behind their national 
elections. Ideally, we can get it done well in advance of their 
elections and respect the fact that they would like this done, as well, 
and the good will that is being created between our three countries.
  So I am hopeful that we can get through these final issues, get a 
bill that we can bring to the floor, work together to pass, and then 
see the benefits in our economy, see an improved NAFTA, a bill that is 
better for American workers and opening up more access to markets in 
Canada and Mexico that right now are closed.
  So I thank the gentleman for the encouragement, and I remain hopeful, 
as well, and would continue to encourage that we get this done as 
quickly as possible.
  Finally, on the NDAA bill that we just finished, we had, of course, 
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, the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act by our 
colleague,   Joe Wilson.
  When you all took the majority, you created a new mechanism for 
Members to bring bills to the floor called the Consensus Calendar. This 
was the first bill that actually met that criteria, in fact, far 
exceeded the 290 signatures--he had 365 cosponsors, incredibly 
bipartisan--to address a real 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, and 
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 Consenus 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 in respect of 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.
  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, 8 years ago, and it 
languished. It was not brought to the floor. It did not pass.
  I understand the gentleman's concern, but he ought to also reflect 
upon the fact that   Joe Wilson introduced it four Congresses ago, so 
that we have now included it in the bill. We think it was a proper 
provision to have in our bill.
  Of course, all your people voted against that bill, and I would 
observe, they voted against a bill that, frankly, the chairman of your 
committee, now the ranking member, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street 
Journal that said the appropriate level of funding was exactly what we 
put in our bill. The Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the figure for 
2020 was 733.
  I was 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 it. 
And it was the largest--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 have had the two largest raises, and that was 
included in your MTR.
  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 can't pass this bill, and if we all 
vote against it, we will say: Look, the Democrats don't 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 weapons systems, for 
operations, for training to strengthen our national security.
  It was turned into, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a partisan issue, and 
that is sad and unfortunate because, at least on the national security 
of 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 MX missile, which was somewhat controversial in my 
district. I did it because I thought America needed to be strong and to 
make sure the world knew we were going to be strong.

  When you talk about   Joe Wilson's 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 that we did not have a bipartisan vote on the 
defense bill.
  With respect to his specific question, I respond to the whip, Mr. 
Speaker: We hope this bill is signed. If not, we hope it goes to 
conference. We hope we have a conference agreement, Mr. Speaker, and we 
hope that the Wilson amendment is kept in the conference report.

[[Page H5769]]

  

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, let's be crystal clear about what happened.
  The chairman of the Armed Services Committee made this a political 
bill by putting poison pills in the bill that undermined our national 
security. That is not a partisan issue.
  And so if you go back to the funding levels--I yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman specify what they were?
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I will absolutely be happy to specify what 
those are, but first of all, let's talk about funding levels.
  It is not just about funding levels. If you have a funding level and 
then you put policy underneath it that limits our men and women in 
uniform's ability to train safely and to do their job safely and 
effectively, that is a poison pill approach.

                              {time}  1415

  It is a partisan approach. It should have never happened.
  Mr. Speaker, it has 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.
  There is no Member of our Congress who works better with people on 
both sides of the aisle to support our men and women in uniform than 
Mac Thornberry. Mr. Thornberry worked overtime to try to heal this 
divide, to make sure a bill could come out of committee that was 
bipartisan, reflecting those 58 years.
  In fact, the Senate did this, and I think the gentleman from Maryland 
knows this well. The Senate did not make it political. The Senate 
passed a bill with an 86-8 vote, with all the leadership of the 
Republican side and Democratic side voting together.
  That was the approach we wanted to take, Mr. Speaker. If there was a 
better way, we should have done it together.
  But the majority side went against even what Senate Democrats did and 
chose an approach, for example, that undermined our nuclear missile 
defense and that went against the AUMF agreement that, if your bill 
were to become law, would have made it harder for us to counter 
terrorism 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 that the majority just passed would 
undermine the gains we have made in enabling our men and women in 
uniform to train more safely.
  Before we came up with the 2-year budget agreement that we got 
together, Republicans and Democrats, when we were in the majority, we 
were seeing our men and women in uniform die in training missions more 
than they were dying in combat. It was by a 5-to-1 margin that men and 
women in uniform were dying in training missions, planes falling out of 
the sky because they didn't have enough spare parts.
  We finally started to address that. This bill undermines that, making 
our men and women in uniform less safe. That is not the approach we 
should be taking. If the gentleman wants to call that bipartisan, then 
go look at the fact that no Republicans voted for that bill and eight 
Democrats voted against it. It was a partisan approach. It was a bill 
that undermines our national security.
  The Senate didn't do that. The Senate came together the right kind of 
way. It is the way we should have done it here.
  If the gentleman wants to talk about the pay raise, let's be very 
clear and upfront about it. If we didn't even have this bill, our men 
and women in uniform get that pay raise. It is current law. It is like 
they are putting a provision in their bill saying the Sun is going to 
come up tomorrow, and then if it does, they take credit for it.
  The pay raise was already going to happen, so they put it in the bill 
and say they gave the pay raise. It was already there. We got it into 
law when we were in the majority working with the Democrats. We didn't 
just say it was our way or the highway.
  The NDAA bill, every year we were in the majority, was a bill that 
was worked on with Republicans and Democrats, and they didn't send it 
out of committee until they had complete agreement. That was an area 
where we didn't have political differences.
  We are going to have political differences on minimum wage and some 
of these other issues, but we shouldn't have our men and women in 
uniform become part of the political divide in Washington. The Senate 
didn't do it. Our Members didn't do it and tried to work together.
  If the chairman wanted to go his own way, that is not the approach we 
should be taking. It is not the approach we have taken for 58 years. It 
is 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 as a priority.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority leader can look at the bill and talk about 
what is in it. I will tell the gentleman that is already current law 
anyway. I will also tell him what the Senate did to make sure that they 
didn't have those poison pill provisions.
  They shouldn't have been in the bill. Ultimately, they are not going 
to be in anything that becomes law. The gentleman knows it, and I know 
it.
  What happened today shouldn't have happened. Maybe it is a lesson 
that when we get beyond this and we see what the final product is going 
to be, it will be a bill where we come together.
  Ultimately, we will come together to make sure our men and women in 
uniform have the tools that they need to train safely and defend our 
Nation safely, but the bill that came out of the House today did not 
achieve that. It fell very short of where this House should have been 
in representing our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, obviously, we could debate a bill we just 
passed, a bill that has been debated on this floor for 3 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 them the necessary resources. And, yes, it says we ought to 
have a new AUMF that is now 18 years old.
  With respect to the pay raise that was going to happen anyway, I 
presume that the gentleman refers to the recommendation of the 
President of the United States, a Republican. We took the 
recommendations of the President of the United States and put it in our 
bill. It is higher than any figure that was put in for our men and 
women in uniform during the previous 10 years that the Republicans 
controlled the House and controlled this bill.
  There were poison pills, from my perspective, in the defense bills in 
years past. I now note that I voted against those bills when they 
passed the House. I voted for the conference committee when it came 
back.

  I am hopeful that the Republicans will decide that the rhetoric they 
used, ``If you vote against this bill,'' meaning the defense bill, to 
our side, ``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 the 
spear,'' I hope you will remember that language, Mr. Speaker. I hope my 
Republican colleagues will remember that language. Now, apparently, it 
doesn't apply.
  This was a good bill. That was a bill worked on in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  I will tell the whip, Mr. Speaker, that I had conversations with some 
of the top Republican leaders on that committee with respect to funding 
levels. 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.
  Certainly, I hope that the Senate and the House can work on this. By 
the way, the Senate number is the same as our number as it relates to 
compensation, I believe, for members of the Armed Forces.
  I would hope, Mr. Speaker, when this bill comes back from conference, 
that we will have agreement, will pass it, and will send it to the 
President for signature. That is the way it ought to be.
  I am sorry that we didn't get significant support, as is almost 
always the case, except when political games were played, not just that 
items were put in that the Republicans didn't like or the Democrats 
didn't like. There were a lot of things in the defense bills that I

[[Page H5770]]

voted for that I didn't 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. We will see.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, as we continue this debate as the bill 
moves through the process, and we look at where the Senate started with 
a very large 86-8 vote, Republicans and Democrats working together and 
coming together, we can agree on funding levels. But if the underlying 
policy undermines the actual money that is being spent, undermines the 
mission, the ability for our men and women to train safely and defend 
our country safely, then the funding levels are not being spent 
properly.
  It is 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. That is an issue. We will 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 of 
those problems that were identified earlier. We will continue that 
debate as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman if he has anything else.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I only want to say that I do not accept the 
premise that anything in this bill we just passed with a majority vote 
undermines training, operations, or acquisitions, period.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________