Expanding Contracting Opportunities for Small Businesses Act of 2019

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 43 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 43, providing for consideration of H.R. 268, making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.

The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a structured rule. The rule makes in order 15 amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. The rule also waives the requirement for two- thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of January 23, relating to a measure making or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019.

Madam Speaker, I rise now in support of the rule for H.R. 268, our emergency disaster relief bill, to provide $12.14 billion in recovery and relief assistance for millions of Americans suffering from the damage caused by recent hurricanes, typhoons, mudslides, flooding, earthquakes, and wildfires.

These national disasters follow decades of scientific warnings to Congress that accelerating climate change would bring us extreme weather events characterized by unprecedented ferocity and violence, and here we are in the middle of the global crisis of climate change dealing with profound natural catastrophes like these.

Last year, Hurricane Michael, the most intense hurricane ever to strike the Florida panhandle brought winds surpassing 125 miles per hour and gusts of up to 200 miles per hour, killing 45 people who were crushed and drowned by the hurricane, and inflicting $40 billion in economic damages, and $5 billion in insured losses.

In 2018, the people of California, who have lost 10 million acres of forest in the last decade to wildfires, experienced the deadliest and most destructive wildfire season in recorded history with more than 8,500 fires burning an area of 1,893,913 acres, the largest area of burned acreage ever recorded in a fire season in the United States of America.

An astonishing 7,100 structures burned to the ground. In July and August, it seemed like the entire State was ablaze with the worst damage taking place in northern California which was declared a disaster area. Millions of people in San Francisco and the bay area were forced to wear gas masks to go to school or to go to work.

In November, yet another round of wildfires visited massive destruction of life, limb, and property on the people of California. One fire, the so-called Camp fire, displaced tens of thousands of people and killed at least 86 men, women, and children, burning many of them to death in their cars or as they sought refuge and tried to flee from their cars and run down the road.

The fire, which lasted many days, annihilated more than 18,000 structures and buildings and destroyed the entire town of Paradise, turning it into an inferno, a hell on Earth. This was in our country.

The same kinds of astonishing events that destroyed entire communities in Florida and in California were experienced by people all over America last year: hurricane devastation in Puerto Rico, Texas, and the Carolinas; unprecedented flooding and drought all over America; and typhoons in the territories, a catalogue of climate-change intensified misery and suffering that the entire Congress should see as calling upon the decency and resources of the American people to address.

The $12 billion legislation the majority brings forward today in H.R. 268 will ensure that communities across the land can recover from these disasters with the resources that they need to rebuild.

The bill helps farmers suffering from crop and livestock losses, coastal communities rebuilding their infrastructure and preparing to weather future storms; dislocated workers, veterans, students, and other Americans displaced and uprooted by these catastrophes.

The bill invests in restoration of disaster-damaged forests. It sends aids to local communities to restore more than 250,000 acres of watershed. It funds restoration of rural communities. It offers $600 million to continue disaster nutrition benefits to the hard-hit people of Puerto Rico, still reeling from Hurricane Maria, and it allocates critical funding for social services, mental health, education, nutrition assistance, and infrastructure resiliency in communities across the land.

We will rebuild our transportation systems with this legislation. We will repair housing. We will repair businesses and public infrastructure. We will repair and reconstruct hurricane-damaged Veterans Administration and Department of Defense bases and facilities across the country.

But the majority is not stopping there. We are not just offering aid to States and local communities across the land to rebuild and renew. We are reopening the Government of the United States so we can actually send this aid, so we can offer the expert

technical assistance these communities need, and so we can use the full apparatus of our government, including the currently closed down Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard where our hardworking personnel are not being paid, to get America moving again

The National Governors Association, a bipartisan group of Governors from the 50 States called for an immediate reopening of the government that will allow for the release of $85 billion in Federal aid and loan assistance that is being held up because a third of the government has been shut down. That is the Governors of our States, the people closest to surveying the damage on the ground.

Indeed, by reopening the Government of the United States of America, we are not just helping to address the disasters that have befallen our people across the country; we are ending the manmade disaster of the government shutdown.

And when I say it is manmade, I don't mean to use archaic sexist language, Madam Speaker. I am trying to be precise. This is the shutdown that one man, President Donald Trump, gave us and proudly claimed as his own in the December 11 White House meeting when he said, ``I am proud to shut down the government, Chuck. I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down,'' said the President of the United States. ``I'm not going to blame you for it.''

So far this shutdown that the President is proud to have delivered to his people has closed nine Federal departments: Department of State, Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the Treasury, HUD, and Department of Transportation.

It has caused 800,000 Federal workers to be furloughed or compelled to work with no pay at all. It has threatened public safety in national parks which are overflowing with garbage and backed up waste in the bathrooms. It has threatened the tax refunds of millions of Americans. It has threatened 38 million low-income Americans who depend on SNAP benefits for proper nutrition for their families, and it has unleashed profound chaos and anxiety in the land.

In my congressional district, tens of thousands of Federal workers have been denied pay; air traffic controllers, Coast Guard personnel, NIH researchers, scientists at NOAA. I have heard from scientists at the FDA who have been furloughed and prevented from working on the prevention and containment of E. coli, salmonella, and insect infestation of our food supply.

I have spoken to an Army veteran who has spent the rest of his career after leaving the Army as an air traffic controller who now must raid his own retirement plan and his daughter's 529 college plan with a 10 percent penalty in order to pay his mortgage.

I have spoken to several constituents who have been forced to pay their mortgages with credit cards or loans from other family members, and I have talked to constituents who have been forced to forego medical treatments because they can't balance their checkbooks, when they are ordered to work but receive a pay stub like many have emailed to me, showing zero net pay, zero gross pay.

Hundreds of thousands of people who work for private contractors and small businesses working with the government across America have been injured as well; many furloughed, laid off, or fired with no real promise of making their money back, unlike the Federal workers who at least, I hope, should be getting their money back because of legislation that the majority has brought forward.

But the 172,000 Federal workers in my State are losing $778 million every 2 weeks, and the State has already lost more than $60 million in taxes.

The economic reverberations are awful, and they are spreading.

Now, this shutdown is a brutal assault on the separation of powers and the Constitution of the United States:

It does not form a more perfect Union. It does not establish justice. It shuts the Justice Department down.

It does not ensure domestic tranquility. It defunds the Department of Homeland Security.

It does not provide for the common defense, but it robs our Coast Guard personnel of their paychecks.

It does not promote the general welfare, but it furloughs food inspectors.

It cheats civil servants out of their salaries; it promotes tax fraud by locking IRS agents out of their offices; and it idles environmental scientists, diplomats, air traffic controllers, and TSA agents who are calling in sick because they can't even afford to get to work now.

This policy is not in service of ``we, the people,'' and that is why every public opinion poll shows the American people overwhelmingly rejecting the Trump shutdown, this scandalous assault on the public good.

In America, we don't hold the government or the workforce or the people hostage over a policy dispute. That is an absolute betrayal of the separation of powers and how government is supposed to work in the United States of America.

Now, my good friends across the aisle should be confronting the shutdown with us. We are asking them to join us in getting the emergency aid to our people all across the land and in reopening the government.

I know it wasn't their idea, Madam Speaker. I know they were backed into this situation by President Trump and FOX News and Ann Coulter, whom the President apparently saw on TV and then changed his mind and decided to shut the government down.

But now, I am afraid that our friends across the aisle have become enablers of the President, and now they own a piece of the shutdown. The party of Abraham Lincoln, who saved the Union with malice for none and charity for all, has become the party of Donald Trump, who shut down the government with charity for none and malice for all.

Let's put an end to it right now, Madam Speaker. In the age of climate change, we have no time left for these foolish and self- destructive games. We must act as first responders for the American people.

Our new majority in the House of Representatives is up to the task. We are ready to govern. We are ready to lead. Let's help our people recover from the natural disasters which have been exacerbated by climate change, and let's end the manmade disaster of the shutdown of our own government right now.

Americans know the truth of this situation. Let's act together to end the Trump shutdown, which the American people rightfully despise and deplore. Let's put the government back to work for the general welfare, starting with the millions of Americans still buffeted by the terrifying weather calamities of 2018.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my friend, for his very thoughtful words and that kind welcome to the Rules Committee.

I have heard nothing but wonderful things about how he operates on the Rules Committee, and we are indeed fortunate to have him serving in this capacity. I really do look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead.

And I admit that it has been a somewhat awkward process trying to reopen the government of the United States. This shutdown is unique for at least two reasons I can think of. One is it is already the longest shutdown in the history of the United States; and the second is that, when the shutdown began last year under the 115th Congress, it was the only time that the Congress adjourned during a shutdown.

So rather than stay and try to work it out, we were adjourned before recess, and the Congress went home, so it was left in the hands of the new majority and the new 116th Congress to try to get it going again, which is why, yes, it is the absolute first order of business for us to open up the Government of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Shalala), who is also a new and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State for his comments. I would urge him to stick with his original instinct to support the legislation.

He said that he finds lots of important stuff in it, aiding the victims of hurricanes and earthquakes and floods and so on. All of that is absolutely right. That is why we are voting for it. We urge him to vote for it, too.

He says that we are playing politics in a shameful way, that we are engaged in partisan politics, by adding a measure to reopen the Government of the United States that will allow us to get aid to all of these people and to allow all our workers to be paid.

What I consider shameful is holding the Government of the United States of America, the Federal workforce, private contractors, and the people hostage over a policy debate.

We have never seen anything like this before, and now it is the longest shutdown in history.

So let's reopen the government. And we are willing to debate anything you want, but we can't do it in a hostage-taking, ransom-type situation.

Since when did opening the Government of the United States become a poison pill? I just don't see that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Madam Speaker, the first thing I am afraid I need to point out is that certain of our friends on the other side of the aisle are experiencing a kind of a political speech impediment where they are unable to correctly pronounce the name of our party. We are the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.

I was reading a biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt recently called ``Traitor to His Class,'' which was very interesting. He said:

If you don't want to call us the Democratic Party, call us

the democracy.

So those would be the two choices that would be the most suitable, at least from our side of the aisle.

The second thing I want to point out is this is a clean continuing resolution. We have not loaded it up with a bunch of partisan sweeteners or ideological ``gotcha'' resolutions.

This is a clean continuing resolution to get disaster assistance to our people, the people of the United States, and it opens up our government to make that assistance possible so we can end the manmade disaster of the shutdown.

So I think that it well suits those who are saying they both want to get the aid to Americans and they want the government of the United States to be reopened.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. Lee).

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

I continue to be baffled about why some of my colleagues think that opening the Government of the United States--our government--is a poison pill and something they can't support.

Look how far we have fallen, Madam Speaker. We are voting for billions of dollars in aid to the people of Florida, and the people of Texas and California and Puerto Rico, so we can deal with the mounting natural crises and emergencies around the country. We need to open the government to do it, and there are those who say that is too high a price. They want to get the aid to the people, but it is too high a price to reopen our own government.

We can't find an example of another democratic country where the chief executive has shut down his own government the way that President Trump has done in this case.

We know that he expresses a lot of admiration for Vladimir Putin in Russia and for Orban in Hungary and for Duterte in the Philippines and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, who recently ordered out for the assassination of a journalist for The Washington Post.

Those are his friends. Those are the people he looks up to. So maybe he thinks this is a normal way of doing business.

Well, it is not in the United States of America. Let them close the government in Russia. Let them send the workforce in Hungary home. Let them put the civil servants in the Philippines at rest. Why don't they shut down the government of Saudi Arabia?

Why are they doing this to the people of the United States of America?

We are not playing games. He is playing a game with us. He is holding us hostage over his pet obsession, and the American people know it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, our beloved colleagues across the aisle have asked us to come back to the negotiating table and to compromise.

Madam Speaker, we have compromised. The bills that we started out passing were bills that were overwhelmingly or unanimously passed by the Republicans in committee or on the floor of the Senate, so we are passing their bills to reopen the government. The very first order of business is to reopen the government.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for conceding the fairness of the amendment process that we have adopted here today, and I do hope that it will be the beginning of a new era in Congress where we can work together and bring in the best ideas from everybody.

Having said that, we still have a disagreement, and the disagreement is this: We brought forward four continuing resolutions that incorporated the language that came from Republicans in the Senate, and were voted out on a 92-6 basis, in order to pass it.

Now, my distinguished colleague says, well, maybe the Republicans in the House would have felt differently about that. Well, of course, they controlled the House in the last session, but they adjourned without us ever taking it up. They adjourned into Christmas break and into a shutdown.

We were left with this mess when we got into power. That is why our first order of business must be to reopen the Government of the United States. We have offered multiple continuing resolutions in order to do that. In fact, I think a dozen of my Republican colleagues have already voted for different CRs in order to keep the government going.

So when the gentleman kindly asks: ``Well, how can you expect us to do this?'' lots of Republicans understand the urgency of reopening the government.

One position says: We will reopen the government if you do what we want. Our position is: Let's reopen the government.

You see the difference there? We are not holding anybody hostage. There is no political ransom. We are not making any demands. We are saying: Let's pass this legislation that has overwhelming, if not unanimous, support to get disaster relief to our people, and let's reopen the government so we can get them the relief.

Instead, we get accused of playing political games. They call reopening the Government of the United States a poison pill. That has to be making some history in itself.

The word ``emergency'' has been bandied about a lot, Madam Speaker, over

the last few weeks. The President even threatened to invoke emergency powers that he thinks he has in order to impose his fantasy wall on the government when it is very clear that he didn't get it through 2 years of a Republican-controlled House and Senate. And he is not getting it through this Congress, and he didn't get the funding from the Mexican Government, which was what the original promise was.

So now he wants to see if he can find emergency powers to do it, but he has delayed the emergency. Think about that. It is as if you saw an emergency in your neighborhood, and you say: Well, instead of calling the police or the fire department, I will wait a few weeks to do it.

That is not a real emergency. What is a real emergency?

Well, climate change is obviously a real emergency. The entire weight of scientific evidence tells us that is a real emergency.

The government shutdown is an emergency for more than 800,000 Federal employees who now have to explain to their kids why they don't have a paycheck and why they are borrowing from their own retirement funds or from the kids' college funds.

Where people can't get needed medical care, they are not able to pay for medically indicated conditions they have because they don't have the money to do it, that is an emergency.

Hurricanes Florence and Michael, those are emergencies, and that is why we want to get aid to the people there.

That is what this legislation is all about.

The California wildfires, which killed dozens of Americans, that is an emergency. That is why we are trying to get aid out to the people of California.

But a legislative debate over the proper means of homeland security when we spent more than $9 billion on homeland security over the last decade, and our side is fighting for the best innovations, the best technology to invest in border security? That is not an emergency. That is a legislative debate that we can have.

So we go back to the basic point: Let's get aid to our people, from Puerto Rico to North Carolina and South Carolina, from Florida to Texas. That is what this bill does. It gets aid to our people. It reopens the Government of the United States. It puts us back in the business of promoting the general welfare.

That is what we have been sent here to do, to promote justice and the general welfare and domestic tranquility, not shut down the government. Let's open it up, and let's get aid to the people of the United States of America. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my good friend, for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my friend on his recent appointment to the Rules Committee, where we have already had the opportunity to interact with one another. And I want to again congratulate him for bringing his first rule to the floor as well. I know we are going to have a good relationship in the next couple of years as we work together.

Madam Speaker, we are back here in appropriations; only this time, the majority has taken what was an important, likely bipartisan disaster relief appropriations bill and turned it into a partisan football.

Last night, the Committee on Rules was scheduled to meet on a $12.1 billion supplemental appropriations bill. At the last minute, the majority chose to make in order and self-execute an amendment that would tack on an additional measure, a continuing resolution to fund the government through February 8.

I don't know if I can fully convey how disappointed I am that the majority is seeking to play politics with this important issue and use an otherwise noncontroversial disaster appropriations bill as a vehicle to pass a controversial spending bill that is going absolutely nowhere.

Last year, the Nation faced a wide variety of disasters, from wildfires in the West to hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and the

Southeastern United States, and the volcanoes in Hawaii.

When disaster strikes, we have an obligation to help each other. I don't think there is a single Member of the House who would disagree with that fundamental principle.

Before the Rules Committee acted last night, we were on our way to a bipartisan bill that fulfilled that principle. But today, we are considering a partisan bill that will not resolve the shutdown, and it holds up crucial aid for disaster victims.

To that end, Madam Speaker, I have to say that the original version of the bill was actually very good. It took roughly what the House had passed at the end of the last Congress and added to it.

In December, we passed a bill that provided $7.38 billion in disaster relief. The original bill up today would provide $12.1 billion in disaster relief, with additional money going mostly to increase existing accounts and to provide nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico. Frankly, I was prepared to be fully supportive of that measure.

Moreover, I was especially pleased that the majority took the steps toward an open process. They issued a call for amendments, considered them, and made some very good amendments in order.

I want to commend Chairman McGovern for taking these steps and giving Members on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to present the case for their amendments to the Rules Committee and, in many cases, to the full House.

But instead of moving forward on a joint disaster relief bill, the majority decided at the last minute to turn this noncontroversial piece of legislation into a controversial one by attaching a self-executing manager's amendment which adds a continuing resolution to fund the government through February 8.

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear. I want to end the government shutdown as well. I have said countless times on this floor and elsewhere that the primary responsibility of legislators is to fund the government and keep it open. Our constituents deserve no less than the full amount of government services we have promised them.

At the end of December, I voted in favor of a bill that would have done exactly that. It would have funded the government through February 8. It would have funded disaster relief, and it would have provided funding for border security. A majority of the Senate favored that bill, and the President had said he would sign it. Unfortunately, the Democratic minority in the Senate blocked consideration of the bill, a bill that could have stopped this shutdown before it ever happened.

This, now, is the fourth proposal by my friends across the aisle to reopen the government. Tomorrow, we will be likely considering a fifth proposal. Unfortunately, each of these items has in common the same flaws.

The Senate made it clear that it will not take up any spending bill that the President cannot sign, and the President has made it clear that he will not sign any bill that does not address border security. Yet my friends across the aisle continue to put forward measure after measure that simply do not provide funding for border security.

Today, the majority is seeking to one-up itself. They have taken a disaster relief bill to provide funding for victims of hurricanes, wildfires, and volcanoes, and they are attaching to it the same funding bill the House previously passed. The House may have passed it, but the Senate won't, and the President won't sign it.

Why, then, does the majority insist on using disaster victims as leverage to avoid addressing border security?

Madam Speaker, I want to reopen the government. I want us to provide for disaster victims, and I want us to provide for border security. We can accomplish all three of these things. The House can do all three of these things. In fact, the House has done all three of these things as recently as December. Why the majority only wants to accomplish one of those and wants to do so by using disaster victims as leverage is beyond me.

I know my friends think they can force the Senate and the President to bend to their will, but they cannot, and they will not. In divided government, negotiation and compromise are indispensable in governing. So far, my friends have engaged in neither.

Madam Speaker, today, we should be happy to provide needed relief to disaster victims. Instead, we are here on the fourth proposal from the majority on government funding and a fourth proposal that does not address fundamental problems, does not negotiate with the majority, and does not put forward a bill that can become law.

To quote the baseball legend and philosopher Yogi Berra, ``it's deja vu all over again.''

So I would suggest my friends go to the bargaining table with the United States Senate and with the President of the United States and see if they can actually work with the other bodies and help us come to some resolution, the differences between the two.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend and former member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend and a new member of this body.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida

(Mr. Rutherford), my very good friend and former law enforcement professional and sheriff.

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

I wish to notify the House, Madam Speaker, that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will bring up the appropriations package the House passed in December, including full funding for the government through February 8, $7.8 billion for disaster relief, and $5.7 billion for border security.

Madam Speaker, that is a bill that the Senate will actually take up and pass. That is a bill that the President has said he will actually sign.

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend again for the time; I thank him for participating in the debate; and I congratulate him on being close to finishing his first rule.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to respond to a couple of things that my good friend said. First of all, he said he brought ``their'' bills to the floor, meaning our bills, I presume. He didn't bring our bills to the floor. He brought Senate bills to the floor.

Actually, those bills are nothing like the bills that the House had passed and, in many cases, are quite inferior to the product that had been jointly compromised between the two bodies.

Just speaking from something I know very well, which is Indian healthcare, the bill that he presented to us had absolutely no House input from either Republican or Democratic Members, had $135 million less for the Indian Healthcare Service, had $26 million less for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I can go on and on and on.

The bills actually that, frankly, we were pretty close to having conferenced and done were, honestly, quite superior. They had many Democratic and Republican suggestions in them and many Member suggestions. If we passed what the majority is presenting, all we are doing is just turning over the appropriations function of the United States House of Representatives to the United States Senate and saying: We don't really need a House; anything you guys do is fine.

That is the product that has been presented to us. It is not acceptable to our side to simply throw away House prerogatives and positions.

Again, my friends have the majority here. We respect that. They will almost certainly prevail on the rule and on the vote, and I certainly accept that. That is the way this institution works.

But what he fails to tell me is whether or not he is ever going to get the Senate to ever pick this up. So far, he hasn't. This is the fourth attempt. We will see another one tomorrow. Whether or not he can actually produce legislation that the President of the United States will sign, so far, he hasn't. And they are the majority.

Under our constitutional system, passing legislation through the House is simply not sufficient. It has to be able to pass the United States Senate. It has to be signed by the President of the United States, unless two-thirds of the House and the Senate are willing to override his veto. Frankly, I don't think my friends have two-thirds majority here either, and they certainly don't in the United States Senate.

So I have a modest proposal. Probably the people who are producing this legislation here should sit down and talk with the United States Senate ahead of time and say: Can we split the difference here? Can we find some common ground?

Actually, the President did that in December, literally sent the Vice President to the negotiation to say: We would like to get $5 billion. We think that is the appropriate amount. But what if we settle at $2\1/ 2\ billion? The answer was no.

That is a normal, reasonable compromise. It is called splitting the difference. The President tried to do that.

I do commend my friends, because I know they are serious about wanting to reopen the government. We would love to work with them on getting that done, but it is going to entail some compromise.

Frankly, over the next 2 years, if my friends want to get anything done, and I know they do, they will have to compromise.

Been there before. We were in a situation where we were the majority in the United States House of Representatives with a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Democratic President. It took, I will say, some of my colleagues a long time to figure out that we had to have help in the United States Senate, and we had to have a President that would sign bills, and we were going to have to compromise on some things that we thought were fundamentally very, very important.

I suggest my friends learn from our experience in that regard.

Again, I respect the effort to reopen the government. I would love to participate in it. This bill, quite frankly, could have been something that I think would have started us down the right direction, and it almost was.

We had Members on both sides of the aisle that very much wanted to vote for this legislation. Frankly, and again, I commend the chairman of our committee, Mr. McGovern. He set up a process so that we could provide amendments, Member input. We had full consideration of those amendments in the Rules Committee. I would have liked a few more to be made in order, but I can't complain about the ones that were. I think it was a fair process.

Only the Democratic leadership's insistence on putting something that they knew the Senate would not pick up, and they knew the President would not sign, stopped that disaster relief bill. That is all. That literally could have been passed out of here today, could have been passed immediately by the United States Senate, would have been signed by the President, would have gotten us out of this cycle at least a little bit, would have shown us what functioning government actually looks like. But I guess the theater of the moment is more important than actually getting disaster relief to people, so we will go through this exercise yet again.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying measure. The majority has taken a noncontroversial, bipartisan, supplemental disaster appropriations bill and has turned it into a political football. Today's bill was originally intended to provide relief for disaster victims, and, instead, the majority has turned it into yet another continuing resolution that is not going anywhere.

This is the same continuing resolution that the House previously passed and that the Senate refused to consider. Whether the Democrats like it or not, they need to engage with Republicans on border security. Instead, they are now bringing up their fourth attempt to pass a government funding bill without border security. And this time, they are using disaster victims as leverage to push their policies.

The majority would be better served to undertake serious negotiations with Republicans over the need for border security and find a way out of the crisis of their making, rather than pushing the exact same bill again.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, due to a scheduled medical procedure, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives from January 10, 2019 to February 5, 2019. During that time, I missed 44 recorded votes. Had I been present for those votes, I would have voted: on Roll Call No. 22 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 267, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 23 on the Passage of H.R. 267, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 24 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 265, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 25 on the Passage of H.R. 265, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 26 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 266, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 27 on the Passage of H.R. 266, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 28 on the Passage of S. 24, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 29 on the Passage of H.R. 221, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 30 on the Passage of H.R. 116, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 31 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 27, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 32 on the Passage of H. Res. 41, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 33 on the Passage of H.R. 135, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 34 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 43, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 35 on the Adoption of H. Res. 43, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 36 on the Passage of H.R. 190, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 37 on the Passage of Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. McGovern (D- MA), I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 38 on Ordering the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 39 on the Passage of H.R. 268, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 40 on the Adoption of H. Res. 52, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 41 on the Passage of H.R. 150, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 42 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 30, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 43 on Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 44 on the Passage of H.R. 676, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 45 on the Passage of H.R. 328, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 46 on the Passage of H.J. Res 28, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 47 on the Passage of H. Res. 61, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 48 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 49 on the Passage of H.R. 648, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 50 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 51 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 31, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 52 on the Passage of H.R. 624, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 53 on the Passage of H.R. 502, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 54 on Approving of the Speaker's Journal, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 55 on the Motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 56 on the Passage of H.R. 428, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 57 on the Passage of H.R. 449, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 58 on the Passage of H.R. 769, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 59 on the Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider H. Res. 77, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 60 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 87, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 61 on the Passage of H. Res. 87, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 62 on the Passage of Amendment No. 3 offered by Mrs. Trahan (D-MA), I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 63 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 64 on the Passage of H.R. 790, I would have voted ``Nay;'' and on Roll Call No. 65 on the Passage of H. Res. 79, I would have voted ``Nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 190) to amend the Small Business Act to eliminate the inclusion of option years in the award price for sole source contracts, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 190, the Expanding Contracting Opportunities for Small Businesses Act of 2019.

The Small Businesses Act sets forth a governmentwide 23 percent goal of Federal contracts that should be awarded to small businesses. Each Federal agency is charged with setting its own small business goals, which are to reflect the maximum possible opportunity for small business within that agency.

Regrettably, small firms face barriers in securing Federal contracts. According to the SBA, small businesses won $105.6 billion in contracts during fiscal year 2016, representing 23.88 percent of total Federal contract dollars. That is why the Small Business Act gives agencies the ability to limit, or set aside, contracts for small businesses to bid and compete against one another.

The SBA administers several set-asides that are designed to increase the participation of several socioeconomic categories, including the 8(a) program, HUBZone program, women-owned, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business programs.

While most contracts are awarded through competition, sole source contracts also exist if certain criteria are met. However, current sole source awards have become complex and underutilized in recent years. They do not represent the changing nature of Federal contract awards and have become outdated. H.R. 190 raises the dollar amount of sole source awards to reflect modern contract awards.

I applaud Mr. Marshall and his cosponsor, Mr. Schneider, for introducing this bill providing flexibility to contracting officers when awarding sole source contracts under SBA contracting programs.

By promoting the use of sole source contracts to small businesses, this bill adds to the government's pool of suppliers. This results in higher quality goods and increased job creation for the economy, as these direct awards require the small business to do the majority of the work and not subcontract out.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), who is a cosponsor of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Kansas as well as the gentleman from Illinois for introducing this important legislation to provide flexibility to contracting officers when awarding sole source contracts.

H.R. 190 promotes the use of sole source contracts to small business concerns through the SBA contracting programs by raising the dollar threshold of these contract types to account for inflation.

It promotes and preserves a strong, competitive marketplace for our Federal agencies while also strengthening the ability of women, service-disabled veterans, and socioeconomic businesses to participate with the single largest purchaser of goods and services in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support for H.R. 268, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, which provides funding for disaster recovery and provides for a short term continuing resolution that would reopen the government.

My thanks to the leadership of Chairman McGovern for allowing the inclusion of a short-term Continuing Resolution that would reopen the Federal government and allow back pay to over 800,000 federal employees.

A compassionate and commonsense amendment by Chairwoman Lowey to the Disaster Supplemental will end the Trump Shutdown, reopen the government through February 8, and immediately provide back pay to all impacted federal workers.

The Federal Government can reopen allowing the Congress and the White House time to negotiate on border security and an agreement on immigration policy.

I can attest to the importance of Emergency Disaster Supplemental Appropriations to the efforts of communities to recover following Hurricane Harvey.

Texans, especially those living in the Houston area impacted by Hurricane Harvey continue working towards recovery, which would not have been possible without Federal emergency appropriations.

We are in the midst of a government shutdown that is unnecessary and wasteful and would impede the use of the very funds provided by this bill.

Americans who have been affected by natural disasters caused by Hurricanes Florence and Michael and the California wildfires must be able to count on a federal government that is fully open and operating.

This appropriation measure also includes much needed funds for Puerto Rico, which was not provided with sufficient funding to effect the recovery following the catastrophe caused by an inadequate response by the White House to the disaster.

Caught in the crosshairs of the government shutdown are 800,000 hardworking government employees who want nothing more than to do an honest day's work, and be fairly remunerated for their efforts.

More than anyone else, this government shutdown imperils their financial freedom and security, which makes our country less strong.

Mortgage and rent payments are going unpaid; credit ratings are being damaged; families are being made more insecure.

This situation requires each member of the House to vote for the Rule and the underlying bill to reopen the government, while providing vital assistance to fellow Americans recovering from major disasters.

Instead of President Trump ending his shutdown, he is threatening to take Emergency Supplemental funding provided by the 115th Congress to assist with Hurricane Harvey Army Corps projects to address flooding risks posed by future storms, and divert the funding for the construction of his border wall.

Those disaster funds were appropriated for recovery efforts associated with Hurricanes Harvey, Jose, and Maria.

This President is so easily consumed by concerns over a wall to the point that he cannot see real threats such as the vulnerability of coastal communities to powerful hurricanes.

The people along the Texas Gulf Coast face real threats from hurricanes that are increasingly more violent, and result in catastrophic losses.

The only defense against hurricanes is improving resilience and survivability of communities from wind, storm surge and rain.

For this reason, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for the Rule for H.R. 268.