H.R. 4872House115th Congress (2017-2019)In Committee

End The Shutdown Act of 2018

AI-Generated Summary

Updated April 15, 2026 at 7:59 PM UTC

The End The Shutdown Act of 2018 updates the 2018 continuing appropriations law. It moves the deadline for the appropriations to January 23, 2018, and adds several funding provisions to keep key government programs operating and avoid a shutdown. The changes affect the Department of Defense, USDA nutrition programs, NASA, the Department of Energy, the Small Business Administration, and HUD’s Section 8 housing vouchers.

Key Provisions

Sets the appropriations deadline to January 23, 2018.
Allows DoD missile‑defeat and defense‑enhancement funds to be spent despite a restriction in the National Security Act.
Authorizes faster funding for USDA child nutrition programs so they can be fully operational by May 2018.
Provides NASA exploration programs with enough money to keep launch‑vehicle and crew‑vehicle schedules on track.
Keeps DOE Office of Inspector General staffing at June 30, 2017 levels.
Gives SBA additional funding to meet higher demand for standard business loans.
Creates a $160 million emergency fund for SBA disaster loans, usable only if the President designates it as an emergency.
Lets HUD temporarily adjust Section 8 voucher funding in areas declared disaster zones in 2017‑2018.
Removes section 1002 from the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

1 earlier action

HouseIntro Referral Latest Action

Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Appropriations Committee

January 20, 2018

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

January 20, 2018

HouseIntro Referral

Appropriations Committee

January 20, 2018

Floor Debate

22 members

What members said about H.R. 4872 on the floor

+17

11 Republicans11 Democrats

Rep. James P. McGovernD-MA-2 · Jan 13, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to…

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this restrictive rule, and I rise in strong opposition to the underlying legislation.

Because of Republican in-fighting, Congress was unable to do one of its most basic jobs last year, passing a full budget for FY17. So now House Republicans have brought this budget bill to the floor, but we all know that this is just a vehicle for them to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away health care from millions and millions of Americans.

For nearly 7 years, my Republican friends have railed against the Affordable Care Act. Their well-funded allies have spent billions of dollars distorting the ACA and lying to the American people about what it actually does. And for nearly 7 years there has not been a single comprehensive healthcare bill brought to the floor by Republicans as a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. Not one.

We have voted over 60 times to repeal the ACA on the House floor. I will be the first to admit that ACA is not perfect, but rather than work together to tweak it or to make it better, all we get from them are repeal bills, repeal bills, repeal bills. Let me again point out that not once, not once, was there a replacement bill offered.

Not only do Republicans not have a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act and protect access to health care for more than 20 million Americans who gained coverage, they can't even agree on a timeline for when they will pass their replacement. President-elect Trump says repeal and replace will be done on the same day, and he wants it to happen now. Representative Steve Scalise said Republicans will replace the ACA over the course of the next few months. Senator John Thune said it could take 2 or 3 years for the replacement to be implemented. Representative Chris Collins said Republicans have 6 months to work out the replacement plan, and Senator Mitch McConnell refused to even give a timeline, just saying that it would happen.

Well, while the Republicans fight with each other over timelines, I think it is appropriate to ask: If they did have a replacement, what would that replacement be?

Well, President-elect Trump has the answer. When asked what we should replace ObamaCare with, he said: ``Something terrific.'' When pressed for further details, and more specificity, he said: ``Something that people will really, really, really like.''

Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up. It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. It is tragic because what Republicans are trying to do is take healthcare protections away from millions and millions of families.

Now, no one in this Congress has to worry about health care if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the Donald Trumps of the world certainly don't have to worry about health care if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. If someone in their family gets really sick, they will just sell some stocks or close down another American factory or not pay their workers, as our President-elect has been known to do on many, many occasions.

But for millions of Americans, it will be a different story. Repealing the ACA would mean over 30 million Americans would lose coverage, including nearly 4 million children. More than 52 million individuals with preexisting conditions could have coverage rescinded or see their premiums dramatically increased. Millions of young adults would be unable to stay on their parents' plans until they are 26. Over 14 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid under the expansion would lose coverage, and nearly 140 million individuals with private insurance would lose access to preventive services without copays and deductibles. And millions of seniors would see their prescription drug prices increase because it would reopen the so-called doughnut hole that the ACA has begun to close.

Republicans want to slash Medicaid, a healthcare program that does a lot of good stuff and enables mothers to work their way out of poverty by providing affordable coverage for their children. As someone who represents Massachusetts, this is especially personal because Medicaid is one of the best tools we have in the fight against opioid addiction, providing real care for the addiction and underlying conditions that drive the opioid epidemic in our communities. Repealing Medicaid expansion under the ACA would rip coverage away from an estimated 1.6 million newly insured individuals with substance use disorders.

That is what is at stake, and that is what my Republican colleagues are so happy, giddy, and excited to do. It is sad. It is pathetic, but they are moving forward anyway with no replacement in sight. I suppose they can roll out their oldies but goodies, like health savings accounts or their other healthcare prescription, take two tax breaks and call me in the morning. But that doesn't do it.

Mr. Speaker, we have a complicated healthcare system, no doubt. I wish it were simpler. That is why I have always favored a single-payer system and that is why I favored a public option. But the problem with our system before ObamaCare was that it left all the decisions up to the insurance companies.

Do you remember the days when insurance companies could charge women more for health insurance because they said being a woman was a preexisting condition?

They can't do that anymore. Why? Not because of my Republican friends. They can't do it anymore because we passed the ACA.

This budget bill would also give Republicans a green light to defund Planned Parenthood. To my colleagues who are so anxious to defund Planned Parenthood just to satisfy their rightwing base, let me ask: Have you ever visited a Planned Parenthood clinic? Because if you had, you would understand why what you are doing is so wrong.

The fact is that Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in protecting and providing access to critical health services for both women and men. One in five women has relied on a Planned Parenthood health center for care in her lifetime, and Planned Parenthood serves 2.7 million patients each year. One of the most important statistics that my Republican friends like to ignore is that more than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does nationally is preventive care, including cervical cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, and family planning, not abortion services.

Add to this fact that Planned Parenthood clinics are often one of the few affordable healthcare options available for many women. Nearly 80 percent of women using Planned Parenthood clinics have incomes at or below 150 percent of poverty. It is easy to see why a majority of Americans don't think Federal funding should be eliminated. In one recent poll, 63 percent of voters,

including 72 percent of independents, do not agree with my Republican friends that Federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be eliminated.

In fact, we also heard very little about the consequences that defunding Planned Parenthood would have for families across the country. One of the biggest myths perpetrated by Republicans is the idea that our Nation's community health centers, which I love and adore and respect, could suddenly pick up the slack if Planned Parenthood is defunded.

For the millions of low-income women who depend on Planned Parenthood clinics, defunding them would mean the loss of affordable and accessible contraceptive services and counseling, as well as breast and cervical cancer screenings. Simply put, for the many communities served by Planned Parenthood clinics, recklessly cutting funding would wipe out access to vital health services for the people who need them the most.

Let me make something very clear. Zero Federal dollars go towards the abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood--zero. The vast majority of funding that Planned Parenthood receives comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursements for preventive care that they provide.

Mr. Speaker, it is a cruel thing to do, to take away people's health care. I will say to my Republican colleagues that they need to know that we are going to fight you every step of the way on this. There are some battles on behalf of the American people that are worth having and worth fighting, and this is one of them--making sure that their health care protections remain intact. I came to Congress to help people, not make their lives more miserable.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me comment briefly on the other piece of legislation in this rule, S. 84. General James Mattis has been praised by both Democrats and Republicans, but there is very real concern about civilian control over the military, the language of the underlying legislation, and the duties and responsibilities of the House of Representatives.

General Mattis has a distinguished career, but we are talking about changing the law here. Approving a waiver for him to serve in the Cabinet so soon after his military service is a serious decision. It is so serious that such a waiver has happened only once before in the entire history of the United States. Now, we should debate this. Instead, the Trump transition team canceled General Mattis' testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and now expects us to vote for him willy-nilly without us being able to ask him any questions.

Congress is supposed to be a check on the executive branch, but if the House is denied the opportunity to meet with and question the military officer who is nominated as our next Defense Secretary, how can we fulfill our duty and blindly just vote for him?

I would also say to my Republican friends, this is an early warning sign of the disregard that this new administration has for the House of Representatives. General Mattis was willing to testify, but the Trump team said no. They said no to the House of Representatives. Caving in on this issue will only mean continued disregard for the people's House in the future, and I think that that is regrettable.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things.

First of all, according to the Brookings Institution, without the ACA, insurance premiums would be 44 percent higher.

And the other fact I point out for my colleagues is that healthcare costs are growing at the slowest rate in the last 50 years. Families are spending over $3,500 a year less than they would have because of the ACA. I would say to my colleagues, yeah, we want to do better, but let's work to address some of the shortcomings of the ACA rather than repeal it and put in danger all these healthcare protections that people have.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

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

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow for the consideration of Representative Pocan's amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor, to create a point of order against any legislation that would cut benefits under Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid or that would attempt to privatize Social Security. All are things that my Republican friends have advocated for in previous budgets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

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

Let me respond to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, by saying that I don't know what he is talking about. The Pocan amendment is pretty clear. It says that there will be a point of order against any legislation that would cut the benefits under Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid or would attempt to privatize Social Security.

Now, I know my Republican friends want to privatize Social Security, because they tried that in the past; and I know they want to privatize Medicare and turn it into a voucher system, because that is what their budgets continually do. I mean, that is what we are trying to prevent.

If you want to privatize Social Security, if you want to privatize Medicare and turn it into a voucher system, then stand with them. But if you want to protect these programs--and the vast majority of Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents want to protect the integrity of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--then oppose this budget.

By the way, this budget, basically, is the green light to go ahead and destroy the protections that people value in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

I just want to help the gentleman understand the benefits of the ACA in his home State of Georgia:

There are 468,000 individuals in the State who have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented, and now they could lose it if he gets his way.

478,000 individuals in the State who were able to purchase high- quality marketplace coverage now stand to lose that coverage if the gentleman gets his way.

In 2016, 427,000 individuals in the State have received financial assistance to purchase marketplace coverage; they are at risk of losing that.

65,000 kids have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented in the State of Georgia.

74,000 young adults are able to stay on their parents' health insurance until they are 26 because of the ACA.

That is all in Georgia. So I would hope the gentleman would understand what is happening in his own State before he votes to repeal it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts. The facts with regard to the process in which the Affordable Care Act was developed, I think, are worth repeating here.

In the House of Representatives, we held nearly 100 hours of hearings and 83 hours of committee markups. The House heard from 181 witnesses, both Democrats and Republicans. 239 amendments were considered in the three committees of jurisdiction, and 121 of them were adopted. The bill was available for 72 hours before Members were asked to vote on the floor.

In the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee held more than 53 hearings. The committee also spent 8 days marking up the legislation, the longest

markup in the 22 years of the committee. The Senate Health Committee held 47 bipartisan hearings, roundtables, and walkthroughs on the healthcare reform bill.

So to say that this was not a thoughtful process is just wrong.

Compare that to the way this budget bill is being brought to the floor. There is no committee consideration, no deliberation. It is just given to us. In fact, most of the committees aren't even organized yet in the House of Representatives.

So there is a contrast there, and I stand with the way we approached the Affordable Care Act as opposed to the way the Republicans have approached this budget deal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).

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

We have been willing to work with our Republican friends to try to improve the Affordable Care Act for nearly 7 years. They have been unwilling to work with us in a bipartisan way. Instead, they just want to repeal, repeal, repeal.

Now, I don't know what their motivation is. Maybe it is because they don't like President Obama. Judging from some of the rhetoric that we have heard on this House floor over these years, I think some of the Members over there actually hate the President of the United States, and this is all driven by this personal animosity.

Let me just say to the gentleman that the Affordable Care Act may have started out with a different bill number, but the facts remain that there were hundreds of hours of hearings on the Affordable Care Act, 181 witnesses testified; hundreds of amendments were considered in committee.

The process of using a different bill number is very common in both Chambers. In fact, the House Republicans have done it several times in the past 3 years. Regardless of the bill number, the work that went into forming this legislation was one of the most open processes in the history of the Congress, and it has resulted in providing protections and health care for millions and millions of people in this country. All of that is at risk with this budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, we believe healthcare protections ought to be enshrined in the law and not left up to insurance companies.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Medical Association, a letter from 120 interfaith groups, a letter from the Consumers Union, a letter from the Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association, a letter from a number of labor organizations in my home State of Massachusetts, and a letter from UMassMemorial Community Healthlink, which is a provider of comprehensive health care in my district. They are all opposed to undoing the Affordable Care Act.

American Medical Association,

Chicago, IL, January 3, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles E. Schumer,

Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker

Ryan and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the physician and

medical student members of the American Medical Association

(AMA), I am writing regarding our ongoing commitment to

reform of the health care system and potential legislative

actions during the first months of the 115th Congress.

The AMA has long advocated for health insurance coverage

for all Americans, as well as pluralism, freedom of choice,

freedom of practice, and universal access for patients. These

policy positions are guided by the actions of the AMA House

of Delegates, composed of representatives of more than 190

state and national specialty medical associations, and they

form the basis for AMA consideration of reforms to our health

care system. (A summary of key AMA objectives for health

system reform is attached.)

Health system reform is an ongoing quest for improvement.

The AMA supported passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

because it was a significant improvement on the status quo at

that time. We continue to embrace the primary goal of that

law--to make high quality, affordable health care coverage

accessible to all Americans. We also recognize that the ACA

is imperfect and there a number of issues that need to be

addressed. As such, we welcome proposals, consistent with the

policies of our House of Delegates, to make coverage more

affordable, provide greater choice, and increase the number

of those insured.

In considering opportunities to make coverage more

affordable and accessible to all Americans, it is essential

that gains in the number of Americans with health insurance

coverage be maintained.

Consistent with this core principle, we believe that before

any action is taken through reconciliation or other means

that would potentially alter coverage, policymakers should

lay out for the American people, in reasonable detail, what

will replace current policies. Patients and other

stakeholders should be able to clearly compare current policy

to new proposals so they can make informed decisions about

whether it represents a step forward in the ongoing process

of health reform.

We stand ready to work with you to continue the process of

improving our health care system and ensuring that all

Americans have access to high quality, affordable health care

coverage.

Sincerely,

James L. Madara, MD,

Executive Vice President, CEO.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and that would allow us to vote on an amendment by Mr. Pocan which would create a point of order against any legislation that would cut the benefits under Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, or attempts to privatize Social Security.

So if you want to protect those programs, and if you are against privatizing Social Security, then vote against the previous question so we can bring this up.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this is a sad day because what we are doing here by voting for this budget is setting in motion a process to deny millions of people healthcare protections. I can't imagine why anybody would want to do that.

Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? No, and we are the first to admit it. We want to work in a bipartisan way to strengthen it, to make it better, and to make it less onerous on certain businesses. But my colleagues don't want to do that. They are determined just to vote for an outright repeal, and that is going to hurt countless people in this country, people who have now benefited from no preexisting conditions, people who have benefited from allowing their kids to stay on their insurance until they are 26, and senior citizens who have benefited from closing the doughnut hole. I could go on and on and on. All of that is about to be eliminated.

We are told that there will be replacement someday, somehow. For 6 years--over 6 years--you have been talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act and a replacement, and you haven't brought one bill to the floor--not one.

Now, we believe that health care ought to be a right; I know you don't. We believe that healthcare protections ought to be in law; you believe they ought to be up to the insurance company. But this is a lousy thing to do. As I said in my opening statement, we are going to fight you on this. This is a fight worth having. Protecting people's health care is something that we all should be dedicated to, and we're going to fight you on this.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Rep. Rob WoodallR-GA-7 · Jan 13, 2017

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend, 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 may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 48 provides for consideration of S. Con. Res. 3, the FY17 budget resolution, as well as consideration of a bill to move forward on the process of confirming our civilian Secretary of Defense, former General Mattis.

Mr. Speaker, the rule is a structured rule today to move expeditiously on both of these measures, and in the time we have gotten to spend together, Mr. Speaker, you know I am a fan of the festival of democracy that can be the Committee on Rules process, particularly the appropriations process. But there are times where moving expeditiously is required, and today is one of those days.

You are not going to see a rule like this come very often because we are considering the FY17 budget resolution today. Historically, as you know, in this Chamber, when we get ready to consider budget resolutions, Mr. Speaker, we are considering every single one that any Member of Congress would have an opportunity to write. That process takes place every spring to meet the statutory deadline of passing budgets by April. This is not that budget today, Mr. Speaker.

This is a budget, as you know, to move us forward on a reconciliation process to finish up the FY17 budget process, and rather than considering all the amendments that one might have to offer, we have made in order just one. It is the Democratic substitute. It is offered by my good friend, the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, Mr. Yarmuth, and it is absolutely worthy of the Membership's consideration. But it is not going to be a vote-a-rama on every budget known to mankind. It will be the underlying budget from the House Committee on the Budget as well as one substitute from the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to consideration of the measure to waive a statutory prohibition on naming a civilian Secretary of Defense who has been out of the military for less than 7 years, we are also offering that under a closed rule today. No amendments are going to be made in order. You may not know, Mr. Speaker, but that is the

only statutory change that has passed the United States Senate in 2017.

When we talk about having to move expeditiously, when we talk about whether or not we are going to have an open process or a closed process, understand that while this body has passed dozens of statutory changes in just these first 9 days of legislative activity, the Senate has passed but one. This is in anticipation of an inauguration of a President on January 20. This is in anticipation of trying to fill out a Cabinet. This is in anticipation of trying to make sure that civilian leadership is in place on day one to lead and to serve the men and women of the United States military.

This is not the time to have that vote-a-rama. This is the time to move expeditiously, again, with a bill that has passed in a bipartisan way in the other Chamber. I look forward to getting back into the business of leading the Senate, not following the Senate. I look forward to getting back in the business of voting on absolutely every idea that Members bring to this floor.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we can move expeditiously on two of our priorities: passing that FY17 budget resolution and ensuring the speedy confirmation of the civilian leader of the Department of Defense.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who probably knows more about the Health and Human Services Appropriations bill than anyone else in this Congress, the cardinal from that committee in the 114th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to thank my colleague for her admonition to reject divisive and self-serving rhetoric because I think that is absolutely something we should take to heart.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee and a new member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Reluctantly I recognize that we are, apparently, not going to have an end to divisive, self-serving rhetoric. I am still optimistic, as it is a long year ahead of us.

What the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) is suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we ensure the failure of Social Security going forward. The only guaranteed benefit in Social Security is that it is guaranteed to fail. Those are not my words. These are the words of the actuaries who are in charge of protecting Social Security. The nonpartisan actuaries who govern Social Security say that there is not enough money today to pay the benefits that folks are expecting. The law of the land, as it exists today, requires that, when that day comes, benefits will get cut dramatically. Only a 75 percent realization of benefits is what the law requires that befalls our senior citizens. If we pass the amendment that is suggested by my friend, we would be prohibited from considering any solutions to that problem. Means testing, which my colleagues have advocated for years, is off the table under that scenario.

Mr. Speaker, to suggest that anyone on this side of the aisle wants to undermine the commitment that this country has made to our seniors is ludicrous; but to suggest that I go to a 22-year-old, whose polling today suggests he or she believes they are more likely to see a UFO in their lifetime than a Social Security check in their lifetime--to suggest that going to that 22-year-old and my thinking that maybe his retirement age would be a year or two higher than his great- grandparents' since he is now living decades longer--I will remind my colleagues we came together in a bipartisan way to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 in 1983, not because one of us hated seniors and one of us loved seniors, but because we all believed in our commitment to seniors.

Mr. Speaker, don't let the Record reflect anything other than that this budget resolution provides the framework to begin this discussion, to begin the discussion of what comes next. There is not a single line of authorizing language in this budget resolution. Any suggestion that the law will change tomorrow because of this budget resolution is false. The law will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. The difference is we have begun a path--we will have created a framework; we will have provided the tools--to have a discussion about how to solve very real problems in this country.

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

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

The gentleman from Massachusetts said in his opening statement that he didn't come to Congress to hurt people; that he came to help people. I want to stipulate that that is 100 percent true. There is no one in this Chamber who I believe has a bigger heart for men and

women than the gentleman from Massachusetts, which is why I know that he does not support what I see happening to my constituency.

He says people are paying less for their health care today. I dispute those numbers writ large, but I know it is true in my district because the free healthcare clinic has doubled since the passage of ObamaCare. Folks once had access to small plans that they chose for their families. Those plans were outlawed. Now they have high deductible plans that are worthless to them, so they seek care at the free clinics. I know that ripping the plans out from under those men and women in my district was not the gentleman's intention when he passed the Affordable Care Act, but it is absolutely the result.

I know that when the gentleman set up those exchanges, which all Americans were supposed to be able to go to to buy their healthcare plans, he did not intend for those plans to get canceled year after year after year after year, because they were unsustainable. We all know, of the constituents in our districts who did what the government told them to do, they lost the plans their employers used to provide; they went to the exchanges to buy a plan; and, 1 year later, those plans were canceled. They went through the process again: they picked out other plans; they went through the exchanges and paid their money; and, 1 year later, those plans were canceled again and again.

We all know those constituents; so to suggest that the only reason someone would come to the floor today would be to solve a nonexistent problem is ridiculous. We all know that there are problems. What is ridiculous are the folks who would come and defend the status quo. The status quo is indefensible, Mr. Speaker.

When we get together, we can do amazing things. There are vast experiences of the Members in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, and our bringing those to the table leads to better solutions. We have spent 6 years being stuck in the status quo, and this bill represents an opportunity to turn the page on that status quo, and I know every single Member has constituents in his district who will welcome it.

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

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

I was not in Congress at the time the Affordable Care Act passed, but I remember it, watching from home. We talk about this as if it was some sort of thoughtfully crafted piece of legislation that folks are so tremendously proud of. I happen to have the numbers here, Mr. Speaker.

It was H.R. 4872 that moved through the House, that was the authorizing part. We had three votes in the U.S. House of Representatives on that bill. We had a motion to recommit, as it was not actually a healthcare bill to begin with, and a vote on final passage.

Then it went over to the U.S. Senate where they worked their will on it. They had 43 votes on it, amendments offered, ideas, and changes.

Then it came back to the House where we changed it not at all. There was one straight partisan vote on the Affordable Care Act. Not one idea from the U.S. House of Representatives added, not one change from the U.S. House of Representatives, not one alteration of any kind.

As you recall, Mr. Speaker, they had a filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate, so Democrats could work their will any way they wanted. When they lost that filibuster-proof majority--they only had 59 votes out of 100 instead of 60--they ended debate, they ended discussion, they ended collaboration and jammed what they had passed at midnight on Christmas Eve right on through the U.S. House of Representatives. I can't imagine who defends that as the proper outcome of the legislative process. We have a chance to change that, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that my friend from Connecticut has some constituents that have benefited. I have some constituents that have benefited. But I have constituents who are being failed, and I know my friend from Connecticut does, too.

I am glad that my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about all of their success stories, but I want my friends to join me and grapple with all of the failures.

I will not deny the way the conversation about health care has changed since the passage of the Affordable Care Act--folks talking about preexisting conditions, folks talking about lifetime caps, folks talking about keeping young kids on their policies until they are 26.

I just don't understand why my colleagues would deny that folks who used to have care, now don't. Folks who used to have affordable plans, now don't. Folks who used to be able to take care of their employees through their small business plans, now can't. This is undisputed, and we have an opportunity to do better. I hope my colleagues will join me in doing that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to share with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that one is not entitled to their own facts, but one is also not entitled to share just half the story and leave it as if it is the entire story.

Everything the gentleman from Massachusetts said was true, until the U.S. House abdicated any responsibility whatsoever and passed exactly what the Senate did with no amendment whatsoever. All of the work product the gentleman talked about, all of the work that the gentleman talked about went for naught in this U.S. House of Representatives.

To deny that this is not the bill that folks wanted to have crafted is to deny reality. To deny that this is not the bill that folks wanted to have crafted is to deny the nine different times the Republican House and Senate sent to the President repeals of ObamaCare, things that were so broken even the President couldn't live with it and he signed those repeals into law.

Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to denigrate any of the motives of my friends on the other side of the aisle. I just can't understand, for the life of me, why they don't want to try to do better.

That pride of authorship, that arrogance, it has a real impact on the men and women that I serve, and I am asking my friends to partner with me to help me fix it. But if they won't partner with me, I am going to move forward and fix it anyway.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say absolutely none of that is true. Absolutely not one word of that is true. This bill does not one of those things. This bill does, in fact, nothing to change the law at all in any way, shape, or form. It is not true. This bill provides a process for debating the law, and I certainly hope we will pass it so we can have that debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Massachusetts I do not have any further speakers and would be happy to close when he is prepared.

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

I am fond of telling folks back home, Mr. Speaker, when they tell me they know exactly what is going to happen over the next 2 years, that I don't think they are telling me the truth. Because I confess to you, I have absolutely no idea what is coming over these next 2 years. I think these next 2 years are going to be unlike any we have seen in the history of self-governance in this land; and, candidly, I am excited about that because the status quo isn't working for the 700,000 people that I represent.

I don't know what's going to happen over these next 2 years, but I believe that, for the first time, we are going to grapple with some really, really, really hard problems that folks on both sides of the aisle have been ignoring for too long.

Mr. Speaker, I don't question the commitment of my friends on the other side of the aisle to the American people. I question the legislation that they use to deliver it. You heard my friend from Oklahoma talk about premiums going up 67 percent for his constituents. That is indefensible. It is not okay. We can do better, and, with the passage of this budget resolution, we will have the tools to do that. I say again, the law will be the same tomorrow as it is today, but we will have the tools to grapple with these problems.

Eight million Americans were so failed by the Affordable Care Act that they paid a tax penalty instead of accessing care. That is not okay. I don't believe a single Member on the other side of the aisle decided they just wanted to tax young people instead of provide young people with quality care. This budget will give us the opportunity to have the tools to fix that problem.

Billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, have gone into State-based co-ops that have failed, gone bankrupt, and terminated all of their plans which not only ripped health care out from under the American people, Mr. Speaker, but threw billions of dollars away in administrative costs at the same time. That is not okay. That is indefensible. We can do better. Passing this budget resolution will give us those tools.

Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment in the Rules Committee last night to do everything I could to stop poisoning the well of public discourse. Then I re-

upped for the Rules Committee, and I realized that is going to be a tough promise to fulfill. We have difficult work to do, and we are passionate about the quality of that work.

But, Mr. Speaker, we all know the status quo has failed. We all know that we have the opportunity to deliver, and we all know that a vote of ``yes'' on this budget resolution will give us more tools to deliver that success than we have today. We need to do this. We need to celebrate doing this.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the rule and support the two underlying measures that it will bring to the floor.

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

Rep. Pete SessionsR-TX-32 · Jan 20, 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…

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.

Rep. Nancy PelosiD-CA-12 · Jan 20, 2018

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…

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.

Rep. Louise McIntosh SlaughterD-NY-25 · Jan 20, 2018

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…

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.

Show 8 more

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in HouseIssued January 20, 2018

115th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4872

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 20, 2018

Mr. Hoyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

Making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes.

101.

The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (division D of Public Law 115–56) is amended—

(1)

by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting January 23, 2018; and

(2)

by adding after section 147 the following:

148.

Funds appropriated by the Department of Defense Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriations Act, 2018 (division B of Public Law 115–96) may be obligated and expended notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3094(a)(1)).

149.

Amounts made available by section 101 for Department of Agriculture—Food and Nutrition Service—Child Nutrition Programs to carry out section 749(g) of the Agriculture Appropriations Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–80) may be apportioned up to the rate for operations necessary to ensure that the program can be fully operational by May 2018.

150.

Amounts made available by section 101 for National Aeronautics and Space Administration—Exploration may be apportioned up to the rate for operations necessary to maintain the planned launch capability schedules for the Space Launch System launch vehicle, Exploration Ground Systems, and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle programs.

151.

Amounts made available by section 101 for Department of Energy—Energy Programs—Office of the Inspector General may be apportioned up to the rate for operations necessary to sustain staffing levels achieved on June 30, 2017.

152.

Amounts made available by section 101 for Small Business Administration—Business Loans Program Account may be apportioned up to the rate for operations necessary to accommodate increased demand for commitments for general business loans authorized under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)).

153.

For an additional amount for the Small Business Administration—Disaster Loans Program Account for the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business Act, $160,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That the amount designated under this heading as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall be available only if the President subsequently so designates such amount and transmits such designation to the Congress.

154.

For 2018, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may make temporary adjustments to the Section 8 housing choice voucher annual renewal funding allocations and administrative fee eligibility determinations for public housing agencies in an area for which the President declared a disaster in 2017 or 2018 under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq.), to avoid significant adverse funding impacts that would otherwise result from the disaster and that would otherwise prevent a public housing agency from leasing up to its authorized level of units under contract (but not to exceed such level), upon request by and in consultation with a public housing agency and supported by documentation as required by the Secretary that demonstrates the need for the adjustment.

102.

The Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (division A of Public Law 115–96) is amended by striking section 1002.

This Act may be cited as the End The Shutdown Act of 2018.