Pay Our Military Act of 2018

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 708 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation.

This resolution, which we will present today, is necessary. It is necessary to provide the House with the flexibility necessary to address Senate Democrat's inaction while they continue to impede funding the United States Government and the important instruments of government.

Mr. Speaker, last evening, Senator Chuck Schumer from New York and Senate Democrats made what I consider to be a reprehensible decision to allow the United States Government to shut down. By voting against the bill that funds our military and the pay of men and women in uniform, they voted against a bill that would extend children's healthcare for 6 years, not because they opposed anything in the bill, because you would really be hard pressed to be opposed to anything that was in this legislation. They voted against the bill to manufacture a crisis in a purely political move based upon an unrelated issue that is not facing an imminent deadline.

I would like to thank the five Senate Democrats and six House Democrats who voted with Republicans to keep the government open.

Senator Schumer should have headed the rest of his Democrats and encouraged them to do what he did even back in 2013, when he said:

We--and I say ``the Democrats''--could say we are shutting down the government. We are not. We are going to raise the deficit ceiling until you pass immigration reform. It just would be government chaos not to do the right thing and open up the government.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, these wise words heeded more than ever now; this is just a political game. As President Trump

said last evening, Senate Democrats own this. It is a Schumer shutdown.

They put politics above national security.

Mr. Speaker, I think Republicans are on the floor of the House today to show what we are attempting to offer to the American people. Mr. Speaker, things are sensitive here on both sides. The government shut down.

Republicans are going to offer, today, advice to the American people about where we stand about getting this back to where we not only open up the government, but doing it in a way that is favorable, not only to the American people, but favorable to the people who protect this great country, including those children of this country who need healthcare, which Republicans had attempted to pass in the House and the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there was a question about the President. The President does not vote in the House or the Senate. Those people who voted ``yes'' were for funding the government, those who voted ``no'' were for shutting down the government.

The President of the United States, through what is called a Statement of Administration Policy, advised the Rules Committee on January 17 that he would be signing the bill. The President said he was for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Armed Forces Network is operated by the U.S. Armed Forces, which broadcasts popular television programs to the United States Government, civilians, and their families, especially those at bases and overseas, including ships at sea.

Because of the Schumer shutdown, Armed Forces Network services will go off the air. That means that tomorrow--the NFL championship Sunday-- our servicemen all around the globe will be unable to participate in the things that we do here in the United States, yet another example of why a ``yes'' vote would have been for the men and women of our military.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Fairhope, Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we know who voted ``yes'' and we know who voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) to defend the Republican position.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess), th distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Butler, Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman from Texas that this body passed the bill, this body did its work, and this body got its work done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Sunnyside, Washington (Mr. Newhouse), the gentleman from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. Speaker, Mac Thornberry is right. The chairman of

the Armed Services Committee cares very much about the men and women, not only of the military, where my son serves in Pearl Harbor in the United States Navy, but about every one of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Clarendon, Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we know why we are here. We are here because Republicans respectfully passed a bill that responsibly took items before the American people and answered the question--we answered the question about funding the government; we answered the question about the Children's Health Insurance Program. We made sure that we did not have a tax on medical devices that hurts so many people and so many seniors. We have made sure that we delayed for yet another year the devastating effects that would be mostly on union workers' paychecks related to the Cadillac plan.

We further, then, said, ``We are going to delay the $70 insurance tax that would be on every single American.''

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans did this because we considered this to be the right thing to do. But most importantly, what we have done is passed our bill. We convinced our body that it was important to avoid shutting down the government.

We voted ``yes.'' It was real simple: either ``yes'' or ``no.'' Mr. Schumer made sure that the answer from the Senate would be ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that we deeply believe not only in what we are doing, but we are going to stand for the people in the United States military.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following statement of Administration Policy:

Statement of Administration Policy

H.J. Res. 125--Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018--Rep.

Frelinghuysen, R-NJ

The Administration supports passage of H.J. Res. 125, the

Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018.

This legislation funds the Federal Government at current

spending levels through February 16, 2018, providing more

time for the Congress and the Administration to reach a

longer-term funding agreement. The Administration supports

the bill's multiyear funding extension of the Children's

Health Insurance Program (CHIP). It also supports the

legislation's delay of harmful Obamacare tax increases,

including the medical device tax.

The Administration believes that looming defense spending

cuts are harmful to our national security and military

readiness, and supports responsible efforts to undo the

defense sequestration in the context of a two-year budget

agreement. As funding discussions continue, the

Administration will continue to reject arbitrary demands for

lower priority domestic funding that jeopardize critical

defense funding.

The safety and security of our Nation depends on a strong

military. Short-term funding measures are not ideal, but a

lapse in funding for the Federal Government would be even

more harmful for our military and our national security.

If H.J. Res. 125 were presented to the President in its

current form, his advisors would recommend that he sign the

bill into law.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows

An Amendment to H. Res. 708 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

4871) making continuing appropriations for military pay and

death benefits in the event of a Government shutdown. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points

of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 4871.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yielded back the balance my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership. I also thank all of the members of the Rules Committee for the time that they put in bringing rules to the floor that relate to a vast array of legislation that we deal with here.

Today, we are talking about martial law so that we will be prepared to take up something that will open up the government and meet the needs of the American people.

It is interesting to see the enthusiasm on both sides on these subjects because we have a long history on some of these issues. We have a long history and a commitment to CHIP. When we brought it to the floor when I was Speaker, when we first had a Democratic President who would sign the bill, 144 Republicans voted against that bill. But that is then. This is now.

I think that now we are closer than the debate here would indicate. I think there is a path forward. I think that is how we have to be thinking about what is next.

We all have our, shall we say, reputations for where we have been on certain votes about CHIP, about shutting down the government, and the rest, but let's put that aside. The challenge that we have right now is what is that path.

That path has four corners to it. One of them is the caps parity. We have talked about parity. Other Members have talked about it. I am sure Mr. Hoyer did again today. It is about parity. If you are going to have increases in defense, we need the same increases in domestic. If that is what the Defense Department decides its missions require, then we want to be respectful of that.

But we also know that in the domestic budget, one-third of the budget--34 percent--are security functions: Homeland Security, antiterrorism activities at the Department of Justice, Veterans Affairs, the Department of State. That is 34 percent of the domestic budget.

We are saying that the strength of our country is not measured just in our military might--as important as that is and respectful of it that we are--but also in these security functions in the domestic budget. In addition to that, in the health, education, and well-being of the American people, which are also on the domestic side.

So I think on the caps, we just have to get in a room and make those decisions. The challenge that I see is that it has been reported to me that there are those on the Republican side who have some unease in increasing the domestic budget because they know that they already had a big increase in the deficit in the tax bill and are reluctant to add any more investments for fear that it would increase the deficit.

However, these investments in research and development, in education, and in infrastructure, really bring revenue to the Treasury, so they help decrease the deficit. In fact, I think most economists will tell you that nothing brings more money to the Treasury than the investments in education, early childhood, K-12, higher education, postgrad, and lifetime learning for our workers.

So in that spirit of saying they want more in defense, and we are respectful of that, we need more in domestic, and hopefully you will be respectful of that. I think that we can come to terms on that.

And then there is the question of pay-fors: How is that--or is it-- paid for?

So that is one thing. That is just you sit down, you negotiate, and you get it done.

I am not an appropriator. Mr. Hoyer is an appropriator; Mr. Clyburn is an appropriator; Mrs. Lowey, as our ranking member with such distinction; and Mr. Frelinghuysen on your side. Appropriators know how to get it done. They know the numbers. They can do the math, left to their own devices. It is when other factors weigh in that it becomes more challenging.

Let's just say: let's see if we can get that done, because that will be more dispositive of shortening the time between where we are now and if we get a solution.

The DREAMers are a value to us. We told the President right from the start that it is not an issue, it is not a bill, it is a value of who we are as America. I think that we can come to terms on that subject as well.

But make no mistake, if there never were one DREAMer in our country, we still would have this challenge on the money side of the debate. Let's not try to assign responsibility to the DREAMers for the fact that we don't have the increase in defense. We are willing to go to that place as we go, honoring parity. That is what we agreed to in the budget agreement. That is what the Speaker agreed to as chair of the Budget Committee.

Why are we departing from that and then blaming it on the DREAMers?

And the security, we all believe in securing our borders, North and South. We can come to terms on that, if we really believe that we should.

None of us believes in a--well, I can only speak for our side of the aisle--shutting down the government. We believe in a government role in meeting the needs of the American people. We subject any initiatives to do that to the harshest scrutiny because we know that the American people need effective initiatives to meet their needs.

Let's take a deep breath. Let's calm down.

Now, for example, Mr. Welch led the way with a large number--100-some Members of the House--signing a letter to the President.

I think it is really important for you to realize this. When we said we wanted more domestic investment, here is what we were talking about. We were very clear to choose only those initiatives that are bipartisan that would pass on the floor with strong bipartisan support.

That means preserving the Bipartisan Budget Act, as I discussed, and delivering urgently needed resources to communities fighting the opioid epidemic. That is what we said to the President. This is one of the increases on the domestic side: addressing the opioid epidemic.

Rescuing heroic veterans, who are facing a dire shortfall at the VA.

Opioids. Veterans.

Supporting access by funding CHIP, community health centers, medical education for primary care doctors--the package that always went together.

Preserving America's endangered pensions. We had bipartisan support for that. That needs more discussion, but we want to do it.

Providing additional disaster recovery for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Texas, Florida, California--States impacted by wildfires.

There is nothing partisan about this, in addition to protecting our DREAMers, which, again, has bipartisan support in the House and in the Senate. We would want to pass the Dream Act, as well as then engage in the discussion on the borders, which we are completely open to.

This is not a: Just give us some money. It is shared values-- Democrats and Republicans--and we are saying to the President: Help us on this money side of the debate because it is so very important.

We can talk all day about who said what about what and all the rest of that. I don't think shutting down the government is cool, as Mr. Mulvaney said, but let's leave him to that.

We do know that government by CR is not the best way to go.

I think that we could take one day--take this evening--sit down: Caps parity; pay-fors--probably easy; there is not a whole lot of opportunity there, but whatever it is--and DACA, the DREAMers.

Again, if there never were one DREAMer, we would still be having this discussion about the money side of it.

My view--and correct me if I am wrong--is that there is a resistance on the Republican side of the House--I can't speak for the Senate, and I haven't seen evidence of the Senate--to resist parity when it comes to increasing funding, even for these priorities that we spelled out, because it will increase the deficit, which has been greatly increased by the tax bill.

So I would see, for some remaining, if existing, deficit hawks, that you might have that concern.

Let me just also add that if there were not one DREAMer in America,

America would be at a loss. These young people have come to this country with their parents. They have made us so proud with their diligence, with their attendance at school, service in the military, working. I have heard from champions of industries, many of whom celebrated the passage of the tax bill, saying: The people who work in our firms are exemplary. They are stars in our company.

So why don't we not use them as an excuse not to face the reality that we have domestic responsibilities that we must deal with.

But there is a path. Our appropriators are used to working together. The leadership has to make these decisions. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to do this by tomorrow and then give the appropriators the time to write it up, but to come to those terms.

So let's all take a deep breath, let's understand our responsibilities to the American people. Let us withhold, as I have done, some of the--I have curbed my enthusiasm about certain other things I have heard said and done here. I haven't even brought the President's picture out saying, on his one-year anniversary: ``What this country needs is a good `shutdown.'''

He said it earlier, but now he got one for his anniversary. Well, it didn't completely curb my enthusiasm in that regard, but I do say that we have more common ground than is reflected in how this has proceeded.

Let us find a better course so that we can stay on that course as we meet other challenges that face our country.

God has blessed us with the privilege to serve here. We respect each other. If we don't respect each other, respect the people who sent us here. We owe them a lot more than the government being shut down.

So let's take a path to open it up, understanding that it will involve compromise. It is going to involve bipartisanship, transparency, and openness in how we get it done, but in a way that brings unity to our country. I think that that is something we all subscribe to. I certainly hope so.

I call upon my colleagues to join us in sitting down and getting it done. I call upon the Speaker to be willing to bring some legislation to the floor that will do this and which would have bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 1-year anniversary of a complete Republican control of Washington. The majority runs the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. And what do we have to show for it?

First, a tax bill for corporations and the wealthy. Now, the great Government of the United States is closed for business.

The impacts will be severe. Just look what happened during the last Republican shutdown in 2013, which cost our economy an estimated $24 billion:

We lost progress on reducing the massive backlog of veterans' disability claims;

Two-thirds of the Centers for Disease Control and three-fourths of the National Institutes of Health were furloughed;

Flu season surveillance and monitoring was severely limited, and we are in a crisis, this year, with the flu where more than 20 children have died;

Lifesaving FDA food safety inspections were delayed;

1.2 million private sector loans to individuals and small businesses were disrupted;

Billions in tax refunds were delayed;

Head Start centers serving 6,300 children were closed; and

120,000 private sector jobs were destroyed.

Why is the government shut down today?

Because the majority was so obsessed with handing out tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations that they ignored their responsibility to the American people. They failed to renew, before they expired, community health centers.

They failed to permanently renew the Children's Health Insurance Program, which the CBO--Congressional Budget Office--had found would save the government over $6 billion over 10 years.

That is despite the fact that the majority made their tax cuts for corporations permanent.

That was a tax bill, by the way, that was sold as a middle class tax cut. But we know today that it was anything but. It is a tax cut for big corporations and the superwealthy, and it seems designed to target blue States. I live in one.

Action on these items shouldn't be some extraordinary exercise. Republicans and Democrats agree that we need to address them. But the majority has been missing in action.

All the while, we have been forced to limp along, funding the government in month-long tranches. That is no way to run a business, and it is certainly no way to run the Government of the United States of America.

President Trump tweeted last May: ``Our country needs a good `shutdown.'''

In 2011, years before he assumed office, President Trump said, during an interview, as another Republican shutdown loomed: ``If there is a shutdown, I think it would be a tremendously negative mark on the President of the United States. He's the one that has to get people together.'' We would like to have him do that and play that role now.

The President should not treat this like a reality show, and the majority should stop treating government like a game where the truth is so easily discarded.

The majority's short-term CR failed last night in the other body because it didn't get the job done. It was written behind closed doors without a single bit of input from the minority party.

Democrats weren't alone in making clear that this continuing resolution was unacceptable.

Members of the majority's own conference voted against it on both sides of the Capitol.

If I were in the majority's shoes with 51 seats in the other body, and I had to get to 60 votes, I would want Democrats to be in on it with me. To do that, we need to be in on it at all steps, not just at the time of the vote.

The majority is quick to invoke the name of my State Senator--that I think will not cross my lips because of what we just went through--but let me say that that Senator from the State of New York earned perfect scores on his SATs, was heard one Saturday morning on NPR on two different subjects, and I don't believe anyone could honestly say that he ever misunderstood what the President said during a meeting, or that he would leave a meeting in any way confounded or confused.

They were apparently close to a deal to avert a shutdown.

The problem is that this President apparently thinks one thing at 10 a.m. and another one at noon--somewhat like Alice in Wonderland--and that makes reaching an agreement extraordinarily difficult.

Even the Senate majority leader from my other home State of Kentucky, Senator Mitch McConnell, said this week: ``I'm looking for something that President Trump supports. And he's not yet indicated what measure he's willing to sign.''

So the majority in both Chambers should try something new for a change: we call it bipartisanship.

I am here today ready to craft a compromise that addresses the needs facing the American people. So are my Democratic colleagues.

To the majority, I say this with all of my heart: Work with us for the good of this country, and let us end this shutdown before Monday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I am sorry that the majority leader didn't mention it, but were there any Democrats in those meetings in his office?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4871, the Pay Our Military Act, to guarantee pay and death benefits for our military.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader and our great friend and a woman we are very happy about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth Republican government shutdown in the last 30 years. It is the first shutdown in modern history when one party held the House, the Senate, and the White House.

During the 2013 government shutdown, the economy lost $1.5 billion a day. I am sure it is even more now.

We need to work across the aisle, and the majority needs to work with us, and let's solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's set the record straight about the Children's Health Insurance Program, funding for community health centers, stopping the cuts on our low-income hospitals, and extending the Special Diabetes Program for Native Americans.

As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I can tell you that we did our work. We held hearings, we held markups, we brought a package to the floor and approved it on November 2. Tragically, only one dozen or so Democrats voted for that package at that time. It was fully funded. Community health centers would have 2 years of funding, the Children's Health Insurance Program 5 years, and the largest funding amount ever accorded to CHIP. The Special Diabetes Program was funded.

We care about these programs as a conference, yet it was a partisan divide, tragically, and it went to the Senate where they couldn't find the votes to pass it.

So we have come back consistently thereafter to approve children's healthcare. The Children's Health Insurance Program provides insurance coverage for 9 million American children and pregnant women. We all support that as a Congress.

We have had to emergency extend the funding in various continuing resolutions, most of which my colleagues on the Democratic side have opposed.

Today, we find ourselves with seven States about to run out of money and cancelation notices going out to about 2 million people. This is unnecessary, it is unconscionable, and it should not happen, but it is. That is why the Children's Health Insurance Program now can be funded for 6 years in the CR we all voted on, and nearly every Democrat voted against; but we can do 6 years of funding for CHIP, and with the changes in other law in the Tax Code, we did not have to identify ways to pay for it. That is already taken care of.

That is why it is troubling to me to hear the remarks of some of my colleagues who say they are all for this, and they want to vote for this when we have given the entire House this opportunity on numerous occasions to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program, to fund community health centers, and to fund the Special Diabetes Program.

We didn't have to be here, and you sure as heck didn't have to shut down the government. Our choice yesterday was vote to fund the government or not and vote to fund children's health insurance for 9 million children. By the way, in States like mine, that also includes DACA kids. So when you voted against that yesterday, you voted not to provide insurance to children and pregnant women in our States. That is wrong. We are here to govern. We are governing as Republicans, we will get this government up and running, and we will take care of those children.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this discussion because the prevention fund, which the gentleman from Maryland referenced, is a

very important fund--to do what? Provide preventive healthcare.

What do you think children's health insurance is about? Providing healthcare.

So you don't think providing insurance for pregnant women and children is about good health? Holy smokes. No wonder you voted ``no.'' No wonder you voted ``no.''

You have used the prevention fund in the past.

I thought I was, Mr. Speaker. I guess I was just steering a little to the left.

Both parties have used the prevention fund to do things they thought were important. I can't think of anything more important than to use a portion of the fund that gets replenished by $2 billion every year. The appropriators--God bless them--decide how those funds get appropriated every year. We thought it made sense to use a portion of that fund for children's health. There was still going to be an enormous amount of money left to be appropriated.

We also thought that people on Medicare making $500,000 a year-- $40,000 a month roughly--could pay $137 more for their Medicare so we could take care of pregnant women and children and keep our health centers open. That was one of the pay-fors. We were open to negotiating because we knew we would have to in the Senate on how else we pay for it.

But the long and the short of it is: Why are they pitting one group of kids in America against another?

Governor Sandoval from Nevada said as much. He supports what we did yesterday. Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts--I talked to him yesterday--wants the CHIP bill funded.

Can't we put the politics behind us and take care of America's children?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut's strong words.

Here is the deal. The Democrats have used money out of the Prevention Fund to fund tax cuts over time. That is a true statement.

They have used it for all kinds of things. But the long and short of it is that we brought two clean CHIP bills; one that fully funded community health centers and the Special Diabetes Program, and teaching hospitals that stopped--you know the only thing that did against ObamaCare that I think a lot of you wrote and asked me to do?

We turned off the cuts to DSH hospitals.

That is a requirement under the existing ObamaCare law.

You told us: You got to turn off these cuts to our hospitals that serve the low-income people.

We said: You know, you are right.

That is actually bipartisan. Most of what we did was bipartisan that you all and we all agreed on.

Then, when they didn't like that--and I think only 15 Democrats voted for that whole package. They are all for community health centers; they are all for the Special Diabetes Program; they are all for turning off the DSH cuts; they are all for CHIP, until they have an opportunity to vote for it, and then they voted ``no.''

And then we brought a clean CHIP bill to the floor as part of keeping the Federal Government open, and they didn't like that. They were for a 5-year CHIP bill until they wanted 10. We gave them 6. They can't figure out how to vote ``yes.'' They vote ``no.''

What is it we have to do here to get this done, to get you on board to stop the partisan politics?

Mr. Speaker, you know this. You are on appropriations. This is important work. Seven States, including my own, are on the cusp of running out of funds. Two million Americans are about to get notices from insurers that this cannot be extended because the money is running out. We have performed as Republicans. We should perform as Republicans and Democrats. We should put the health of America's children first, and they never should have shut down the government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Nation finds itself in a grave situation. Our government has shut down. Military men and women in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and around the world are still risking their lives for our country and are not being paid. Opioid treatment centers have had their funds cut off. Children in States across America will start losing their health insurance.

How did we get to this place?

The Nation assumes there must be a good reason. The House passed a bill--a clean government funding bill with no strings attached and no gimmicks because States are running out of money. We even included funding for a bipartisan extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program for 6 years without any offsets that our Democratic colleagues have objected to in the past, the longest that CHIP has ever been reauthorized for.

So we passed that bill and it went to the Senate. We all know the rules, but, Mr. Speaker, at times it sounds like some people need a little greater knowledge of how the system works. It is incorrect to claim otherwise.

Republicans may have majorities in both houses, but it takes 60 votes in the Senate to move legislation. That means the Senate needs Democrat votes to keep our government funded, but Senate Democrats said no, just as more than 90 percent of those on the other side of the aisle in this House did as well. Senate Democrats shut this government down. This is a Schumer shutdown.

Once upon a time, Chuck Schumer called shutting the government down a ``politics of idiocy.''

Senator Feinstein even said: ``Shutting down the government is a very serious thing.''

You know what she said?

She said: ``People die. Accidents happen. You don't know. Necessary functions can cease.''

So how did they change their minds? Why did they do it?

I would like to know, because nobody knows.

It wasn't the bill. The funding bill is clean.

It wasn't CHIP. The children's health insurance legislation we passed came straight from the bipartisan deal in the Senate.

They say it is about immigration, about DACA. They are shutting down the government, cutting off funds for our troops, cutting off funds to opioid treatment centers, and cutting off health insurance for American children over immigration, over something that has nothing to do with this funding bill or with putting the American people first.

So I think that it is only reasonable that we ask: What exactly are their demands? Why are they holding our government, our troops, and American children hostage?

Why would you hold it hostage over DACA if the President brought the House, the Senate, the Republicans, the Democrats together?

I was in that meeting.

Do you know who else was in that meeting?

The American public, because the President allowed the media to be there.

Do you know what happened at the end of that meeting?

Based upon the President's leadership, he brought us together and we all decided we would focus just on four ideas--DACA, border security, chain migration, and the lottery--because we wanted to solve the problem, but we didn't want to have to come back to it a few years from now.

We took the President's lead.

Do you know what?

Every day we have been having those meetings.

Do you know how I know?

Because I am in those meetings and they are in my office.

Just a day before we shut down, the quote from those on the other side of the aisle and even in the Senate was:

This is the most productive meeting we have had.

So why shut it down now? Why even shut down the meetings by shutting down the government?

If they want something different than a bipartisan deal, if they want to force one-sided immigration policy through Congress that the American public doesn't want, then they should have the courage to say it straight, have the courage to say that they are shutting down our government to make the illegal immigration situation in this country worse instead of making the hard choices to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, the American people don't want to see temper tantrums. They don't want to see anyone stomping their feet demanding they get their way. That is not just an embarrassment, it has profound consequences for good people across this country.

Now, this House stands ready to pass another clean spending bill. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, if this side of the aisle has to do it alone, like we have done it in the past, we will.

We stand ready to keep our government open and pay our troops with no strings attached, but we will not negotiate a bad deal for America, especially not when Senate Democrats are holding our government hostage.

This is too important. History is watching. History will not be kind to those who put themselves above the American people.