H.Res. 28

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

I rise in opposition to this bill today because this is just another one of the Democrat Party's political stunts.

The 116th Congress continues now under this cloud of a partial government shutdown, and it is for one reason and one reason only, and that is that the Democrats continue to put their political agenda ahead of the security of our country.

So here we find ourselves, the very first act of the new majority is to bring a Senate bill forward without any hearings, without any debate, and certainly without any amendments.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Democrats that bring the bills to the floor this week are really bypassing the entire process, bypassing every Member's responsibility here in Congress, and that is to put their mark on each and every bill.

It also may be to distract from some of the President's ideas as well. In fact, the President's funding request is completely normal, and it is necessary. It is not extreme. It is not divisive. It is not political in any way whatsoever.

What is extreme, what is divisive, what is political, and what is unnecessary is the Democrats' refusal to actually negotiate with the President, their refusal to hear the facts and understand the facts as presented by the experts.

They are more committed to satisfying their political base than securing the border and opening the government, which we could do very quickly if they just chose to meet with the President and negotiate on good terms and in good faith.

If that is not bad enough, there are serious problems with this bill. The underlying measure itself is certainly not perfect. After all, it is a Senate bill, might I remind you, Mr. Speaker. It is identical to the bill that they passed last year, and it does not include any of the House priorities.

Democrats are not allowing any amendments here today, so there is no way even to improve this bill, to perfect this bill, and we know we are the body of perfecting the Senate's legislation.

Our constituents have elected us each here to represent them in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, not to abdicate our responsibilities and simply accept something from the Senate.

In fact, today is beginning a process that I see as very dangerous and, in fact, is just asking this body, under this new majority, to have every Member of the House of Representatives vote on nearly $300- plus billion of spending without one committee hearing, without one bit of debate, without one amendment, and without any bit of perfection, and, yet, stand before our constituents and say we have given this full and thorough thought.

Now, there are many House priorities that both Democrats and Republicans support that would certainly improve this legislation. For example, the bill that we passed out of the House last year had many great bipartisan elements to it. We passed it back in July, and it contained nearly $276 million for the Calexico, California, land port of entry, fully funding what was necessary there at that land port of entry. Yet, the Senate bill is $100 million short.

Additionally, the bill that passed the House last year included 20 pieces of legislation that were bipartisan financial reforms that were approved by this Chamber during the last Congress with a vote of 270 votes or more.

Mr. Speaker, you don't find that very often and you certainly haven't over the last couple of years, yet it was included in what we passed last year. Might I add, it is completely omitted by the Senate.

So Democrats and Republicans, including Chairwoman Waters herself, sponsored many of these provisions--I know she is here with us today, and I hope she speaks to the fact of their absence in this bill today-- that were building upon the JOBS Act from 2012.

These provisions facilitated capital formation, enhanced our capital markets, and provided targeted relief to various institutions. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, it provided consumer protection, which I think and I would hope is a bipartisan quest for us.

The Senate bill also shorts the Small Business Administration's Entrepreneurial Development programs, something that has been bipartisan in this House. They short it by more than $10 million compared to what we passed last year. It shorts the SBA's Women's Business Centers by $1 million and their veterans outreach by $400,000.

Mr. Speaker, those are things we included last year that the Senate has found are not a priority. The question I would have before this House today is: Do we no longer hold those as priorities?

If we pass what is proposed today, we are, in fact, saying it is no longer a priority that we focus on veterans' or on women's businesses.

If that is not bad enough, the Senate bill is more than $31 million short on SBA's disaster loans program. Many areas of this country, including my State, including many of the States represented in this room as we speak, are still reeling from last year's disasters. So do Democrats really want to cut this lifeline short?

Mr. Speaker, I would hope not.

By abandoning the bipartisan House bill, Democrats are underfunding programs for women, veterans, and disaster victims.

Additionally, this Senate bill contains nothing--and I say, Mr. Speaker, nothing--for community development financial institutions to assist those with disabilities.

Are we standing here today, Mr. Speaker, and saying that those with disabilities are no longer a priority of this House? A ``yes'' vote today would confirm that.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am certainly not supporting this bill.

But I know that I have worked with my friend, Mr. Quigley, who is now the chairperson, and we are going to have a great working relationship. But this Senate bill is deficient of even his priorities.

I know it is very difficult for him today to introduce a bill that he didn't craft, that he didn't originate other than by name only. I know it is probably even more difficult that he is introducing a bill that was originally introduced by Republicans in the Senate.

It doesn't include even his priorities that I worked on long and hard with him, including the Elections Assistance Commission, which was a strong priority of his. They cut it by more than $1 million over what we had included last year.

The Consumer Protection Safety Commission is also $1 million below what our House bill was, and it does not fund the grants for pool safety, which I think we all know is a longtime House priority for many Members of this body.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act created an entirely new structure for the Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. They need another $6 million, just $6 million to meet the requirements of this new authorization, which will help protect all of our Nation's interests.

I guess I should say it one more time. The Senate has let us down, and they don't even include that in this bill as well.

So I lay a lot of blame on the Senate bill itself and the components of the Senate bill, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that it is being introduced in this House today by the new majority.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the presentations that were given on opening day last week as we were all sworn in, and I was hopeful that there would be a very open, deliberative debate process that we would engage in, in this House. I know there will be those that will claim there is urgency and there is haste, and we must move fast. But we should never move fast and hastily and disregard the constituencies that we each represent or their voices, or putting our fingerprints on legislation in the name of efficiency or in the name of where we are today and the political differences.

We must embrace this political debate. We must allow every Member's voice to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let's give this a chance. Let's open up this process. Let's come to the table.

We can do this. In fact, Mr. Quigley and I have shown that that can be done even as we worked through last year.

We can fund border security. We can secure our Nation. We can reopen the government. We can incorporate the priorities of Republicans and Democrats in the House today, because, after all, we are closest to the people. Don't their voices deserve to be heard?

The American people are counting on us, Mr. Speaker, so they have elected us to do this. I hope we can do it. I rise in opposition and will be opposing this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the State of Texas (Ms. Granger), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend and wonderful Representative.

Mr. Speaker, let me just point out really quickly that I hear the argument on the other side that passage of this bill will reopen the government right now, today, and get it all working again. Let me remind everyone, that will not happen. This is not the bill that fully funds what is outstanding at this point. This is one little component.

But I love the passion of my friend from Georgia. He and I worked well together on the committee, and h has taught me much. One thing he taught me was to fight for what is important, fight for those priorities that are important, and one of his number one priorities is omitted in this very bill that he is advocating for passage of.

Fight for your priorities, House Members. Republicans and Democrats alike, fight for what you believe in and don't let go, because the Senate passed something and it is easier.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, a great champion for free markets and capitalism, and my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a few points.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has already been voted on. As I recall, last week, the majority party put this on the floor, passed it out of the House, and, guess what, the government is not open. This is not the solution. So I don't get why we are here today doing this in such a closed, lockdown process.

What is a solution, potentially, could be if the chairwoman's bipartisan efforts from last year were given the opportunity to be voted on today with a simple amendment. So what we are talking about, maybe, is that 15 or 20 more minutes of our precious time today is too much to ask to perfect Senate imperfections.

That is really what today's debate should be about. It is not about this legislation. We have already voted on it--we voted on it last week--and I think the minority voted ``no,'' the majority voted ``yes,'' and, guess what, the government is still not open. Why? There is only one reason and one reason only: Democrats are unwilling to negotiate with a President they just don't like.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

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

Mr. Speaker, largely, in this debate, you are hearing two different elements. You are hearing a little bit of a policy argument on the Democratic side, the other side of the aisle, and from our side you are hearing a process argument. I think this is really important.

We, in essence, are in the third day of the 116th Congress and shutting the process down, 435 Members' voices being silenced. Extrapolate that across 800,000 constituents we each represent. Those are the voices that are being silenced here today in the name of expediency, in the name of political stunts, in the name of finger- pointing, but without really any resolve or desire to bring a fruitful, positive conclusion to what is a very difficult and painful time that we are in right now. I agree with that.

I think about over the holidays, and it is interesting how the other side is pointing fingers at the President here and there, but the President was here. He was in Washington, D.C. He was waiting for the other side to come and have a discussion and talk about these tough issues together, to work through them. Where were they? If I recall, maybe the incoming Speaker-elect might have been in Hawaii. Other Members were on vacations with their families.

While families of these agencies were struggling and wondering about their next day, their Christmas, and their next paycheck, the leadership of the Democratic Party was on vacation while the President was here saying: I am here. The door is open. Let's talk.

I think he still extends that invitation, and I hope they take us up on that.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if you think about the overarching discussion and issue and where the division is, it is really about the fundamental question of border security.

Some don't like the term, ``the wall.'' I would hope, maybe, that we are all for securing our country. Maybe it is just terminology that separates us oftentimes, but through this time of thinking about the words we are choosing, lives are being altered; they are being impacted.

Individuals are losing their lives because of illegal activity that occurs through our porous border, and it is just, in many cases, because of insufficient funds while we have this debate about words and terminology: What is a fence? or a wall? or a barrier? or technology? It doesn't really matter what terms we use when lives are being altered daily while we squabble, just squabble, over a few terms.

It is amazing how the other side says that they can't support this, they just can't support funding for the wall. What they are saying, really, is that they can't support this President because they don't like him.

But, in fact, on two different occasions, within the last 18 or 19 months, the new majority party did vote for wall funding. They voted for border security. It was $1.6 billion on two separate occasions. Both times have been signed into law by this same President.

I wonder: Why is it too much to ask to just put in a different number, a little bit more? Is our country not worth just a little bit more? Is a life not worth just a little bit more when national experts say it is necessary? Or are political differences going to stand in the way of that?

I hope today we can break through that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are reaching a conclusion on this, because we just went through this last week, might I remind you. Same stuff, same legislation, voted on, passed out of the House and guess what? The government is still not open and operating. So are we really trying to get to a workable solution here by the new majority or just drive another wedge in our country?

This passage today, if it were to occur, will not change anything. It will only drive us a little further apart and will not reopen the government. Let's not kid anyone. Let's make sure those sound bites don't get out there and that the headlines aren't that, because that is truly not what is going to happen at all.

What is happening today is an example of abdicating our responsibilities as duly elected Members of the House of Representatives in the name of expediency and political tactics. That is what is happening here today. It is really what that vote is today.

A ``yes'' vote is an affirmation that I am for the expediency of doing away with responsibilities because it is easy and it is politically advantageous. A ``no'' vote is saying I am going to stand up for the voices of this House. I am going to stand up for the constituencies that we represent. I am going to stand up for the priorities of this House and wait and fight for a better process.

This process is amazing. Actually, it is reckless, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker. I mean, are we going to be a bicameral system anymore? Is this an

example of what we should see and is this a forecast of the days ahead that there will be no debate in a committee?

A bill is introduced--and you watched the cartoons growing up and it seemed like it was a simple process: a person has a nice idea; they write it down on a piece of paper and they turn it in; and people look at it and perfect it a little bit; and all of a sudden, you build support for something across the aisle and across the different coalitions; and then you get to share it and advocate for it; and then it goes to the other body.

Then they get a choice. Do they want to make changes to it, and such, and input it through a committee. That is not how it is happening today. This is the new majority, a very closed, very dark process in which not even Democrat Members--if I were one of the 60 new Members elected on the other side, I would be throwing my hands up in the air right now saying, wait a minute. I did all that work for this, for you to tell me what I must vote on? And I have a binary choice, yes or no? That is the only choice I get?

Mr. Speaker, I feel for the new incoming Members. This is not what it was supposed to be like for them. I don't think it is what you recruited them for, as well. It is a sacrifice, really. It is sacrificing all of our priorities that we have as a House, all for a process because there are folks who just don't like this President.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in that position before too. In fact, I remember Barack Obama when he was President. I disagreed with him as a President. I didn't want him to fail though because it meant our country was failing. I disagreed with him on policy, and I would share that, and advocate, but I would try to influence as well.

I don't see any ability here or ideas of influencing outcomes, but I will close with this, Mr. Speaker, because I want to share with you some words that have been heard around this town and on the Hill in recent days and months. These are quotes.

``Members today seem to have a better chance today of getting struck by lightning than getting their amendments made in order. They come here with real ideas and germane amendments, only to be told `no,' again, and again, and again.''

Next quote: ``We shouldn't be stifling debate.''

Next quote: ``I do think we will find a lot of agreement on some pretty commonsense ideas, but we need a more accommodating process, though. We need to follow regular order and the House needs to actually debate again.'' That was in September.

Also in September: ``I feel like we are living in an authoritarian regime,'' heard on the Hill here.

``It is like this majority is allergic to an open process.''

And then, lastly: ``With each new closed rule they bring to the floor, shutting out amendments from both Democrats and Republicans, the cynical hypocrisy grows louder and louder. Instead of the people's House, this has, sadly, become only the people who agree,'' at that time, ``with Paul Ryan's House.''

Might I share the author of these quotes? It would be the chairman of the Rules Committee today, Chairman McGovern. Those are his words, and he is absolutely right, but he was forecasting today in this moment.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad time in the House of Representatives. Very sad. I agree with Mr. McGovern. He is absolutely right, and it is at this moment today in which it has been proven to be true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to it in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion seeks to address one of the many important shortfalls in the Senate bill, and I know there are many, and we can only address one or two, or an exception here in this moment of a motion to recommit.

I wish the Rules Committee would have allowed for--we have had this debate already today--allowed for Members of both parties to offer their ideas to insert better concepts and to make perfection out of something that is certainly not a perfect product coming from the Senate.

I think the American people, through their elected Representatives of this body, deserve that opportunity as well to amend and improve this legislation, but the new Democratic majority has certainly shut down this legislative process.

I just read quotes from the current chairman of the Rules Committee and his disgust with that very same concept or process from months ago, and,

yet, it is being imposed upon us today. This is our only opportunity to improve the bill, and as meager as this might be, this is important.

This motion is really simple. It just adds $2 million to the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, which would match the House past levels that we passed last year of $161 million.

This important office is fighting on the front lines to enforce economic sanctions against rogue nations like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Mr. Speaker, you and I agree on how important that is, and they must have the resources necessary.

The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act which created this office, passed this House in 2017 by a vote of 419 yeses to just 3 noes. So it was very bipartisan. That is about as good as it gets around here. And it passed the Senate 98-2--another great mark as well--and President Trump signed it into law. It is an amazing needle to thread all through there that we had great bipartisan support here in the House, the Senate, and the President signing this into law.

This is overwhelmingly bipartisan, Mr. Speaker, and it brings the full force of our Nation's sanctions against countries that seek to do us harm. This is something we should support.

It is so important that OMB Director Mick Mulvaney sent us a budget amendment requesting more funds to stand up this office. And that is not a request we often get from Mr. Mulvaney to increase spending anywhere. But, yet, he did that.

And you know the former Director himself, as he served here, he doesn't like to spend a penny more than needed, so this is certainly a very important priority.

The Treasury has also made a strong case that to comply with the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, the Department needs these funds. So as we debate about the importance of the moment and where we are in time, I could see nothing more important for us to focus on than to put an additional $2 million into this program and offset it, as has been described in the amendment from the GSA's rental payments.

I hope every Member can support this commonsense improvement. We are just improving on the Senate bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 28 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, the ranking member, 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 be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 28, providing for consideration of H.R. 264, making appropriations for financial services and general government; H.R. 265, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs; H.R. 266, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies; and H.R. 267, making appropriations for the Department of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies, each for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019. The rule provides for consideration of each bill under a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, we need to pass these bills, because we need to reopen government.

Let me just say to my colleagues, quite frankly, this is not the way I had hoped we would start the new Congress, essentially cleaning up the mess that my Republican friends left us from the last Congress, but we are where we are, and this is an emergency. It is time to reopen the government.

Mr. Speaker, what we saw last night from the President, in my opinion, was a disgrace. He used the Oval Office to fearmonger and smear immigrants. There was nothing new, no plan to get us out of this shutdown, no solutions, just more of the same offensive rhetoric we have heard time and time again from this President.

But this Democratic majority is moving quickly to end the Trump shutdown. On day one of this new Congress, we passed a complete funding package using bipartisan language to reopen government, and now, today, we are taking further action to help the American people while responsibly protecting our borders.

This rule will allow us to pass individual appropriations bills to reopen key government agencies. That includes the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, to prevent Americans' tax refunds from being withheld during the shutdown; the Department of Agriculture, to prevent hungry families from losing the lifeline of SNAP benefits and assure that our farmers get the services that they need; the Department of the Interior, to prevent our national parks and monuments from being further degraded and allow EPA to resume its work protecting public health and our environment; and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to help hardworking families in the process of realizing the dream of homeownership. These bills offer us a way out of the President's shutdown, an embarrassing spectacle that never should have happened in the first place.

Nineteen days ago, the President of the United States threw a temper tantrum. He went back on his word, breaking his promise to sign bipartisan appropriations bills that would have prevented a quarter of our government from shutting down.

He turned on FOX News or some rightwing radio show somewhere and changed his mind. Suddenly, the President demanded $5 billion in funding for his offensive border wall just to keep the lights on-- billions of dollars, by the way, that would just have been a downpayment on an unnecessary project that would cost tens of billions of dollars, and not at Mexico's expense like President Trump promised over and over and over and over again.

Now the costs have been shifted to the American taxpayer, when, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, only 25 percent of the public says they support Trump shutting down the government over the wall--25 percent. This is crazy, but this doesn't have to continue.

At his press conference the other day, the President boasted he could keep our government closed for years. Now, he may not know how to get us out of this mess, but this Democratic majority does, and there are many responsible Republicans on the other side of the aisle who are with us on reopening the government.

Last week, our funding package passed with bipartisan support. Seven Republicans voted with us, including Republican Congressman Will Hurd, whose district includes much of the U.S.-Mexico border.

In addition, a growing number of Senate Republicans have encouraged the majority leader to bring those bills to the floor, including Senator Collins of Maine and Senator Gardner of Colorado. Senator Gardner said, recently: ``The Senate has done it last Congress; we should do it again today,'' and I agree.

So let's send these bills to the Senate so they can once again pass Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The Senate Majority Leader already supported these bills once. Why not support them again to finally reopen this government?

Because we can't wait for the President to publicly promise to sign these bills before we act--we already know his word isn't worth much; his broken promise is what got us here--it has fallen to Congress to get us out of this shutdown.

Congressman Hurd said after voting for the Democratic appropriations package last week: ``Ultimately, Congress is a coequal branch of government, and it should operate that way.'' He is absolutely right. And these bills are this majority's latest attempt to fulfill our responsibility.

There are 40 million Americans who rely on SNAP to put food on the table. Their benefits will lapse shortly if this shutdown is allowed to continue.

Mr. Speaker, why should Americans go hungry just because the President wants to appease someone like Rush Limbaugh? Why in the world would Congress sit idly by as thousands of people trying to buy a new home or refinance FHA-insured mortgages are left in limbo?

We are now in tax season. If we don't end this shutdown, more than 2 million Americans who every month turn to tax assistance centers will find them closed as they try to complete their annual returns.

This is madness, and it is completely unnecessary. Tax returns delayed, home purchases in limbo, food assistance in jeopardy for the hungry, trash piling up in our national parks, it is an embarrassment-- not to mention the 800,000 Federal workers who aren't getting paid, and countless more contractors.

It can be over in a heartbeat if we pass these bills and the Senate takes yes for an answer. These bills honor our responsibility to turn the lights back on. They don't waste even a dollar of taxpayer money on the President's immoral border wall, nor should they. People overwhelmingly object to building it.

I hope this President comes to his senses, that he stops holding our Nation hostage as he plays to the fringes of his base. But none of us can control that. We do have the ability, though, to do our jobs and to end the shutdown. That is what this Congress will do again today, and I urge all of my colleagues to join with us.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma's comments. I just want to make a couple of quick points before yielding to my next speaker.

We, as Democrats, are struggling in support of border security, and we have supported initiative after initiative to basically make our borders more secure. We believe in investing in infrastructure and more personnel. We believe in providing more judges to be able to adjudicate asylum claims so we can process people more expeditiously. We believe in technology. It is 2019, yet the President insists on this medieval approach to border security, which most experts say is just ineffective.

On top of all of that, our objection is that it is going to cost tens of billions of dollars. The President said that Mexico is going to pay for it, but now he is saying that the American taxpayers are going to pay for it. I mean, give me a break.

As far as why we are doing the strategy of taking up these Senate- passed bills, let me remind my colleagues: They passed the Senate 92-6 back in August.

I would have liked a different process. My friends were in charge of everything up to a week ago. They controlled the House; they controlled the Senate; and they controlled the White House. Yet they sent people home during the holidays and just kicked the can down the road, and we have inherited this mess from the last Congress. So we are doing the best we can.

If the Senate would vote, like they did in August, again for these bills--92-6--we won't need the President. We could override his veto; we could reopen the government; and we could stop all of this nonsense right now. That is my hope.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Washington State, a former member of the Rules Committee. I should just tell him-- and I am a little bit surprised, since he was on the Rules Committee-- two of his amendments that he offered didn't even comply with the House rules, so that is why they wouldn't be made in order.

But let me just say to him, as I began my remarks, it is unfortunate that we had to start this Congress cleaning up after the last Congress, but that is where we are. That is what you have given us. And I am eager to return to regular order as soon as we reopen this government.

What we are witnessing is extraordinary. In fact, it is unprecedented. For the first time in history, we have begun a new Congress in the middle of a government shutdown.

I tried last month to bring up appropriations bills, bills that Mr. Hoyer offered on the floor to reopen this government, but you shut me down every single time, so here we are.

We meant it when we said that we would do everything we can to reopen this government, because this is a real emergency. 800,000 hardworking civil servants are either furloughed or working without pay. That is what an emergency looks like. This is an emergency.

I appreciate the kind of laid-back attitude of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle who are like: Well, let's start all over again. Let's reopen the process. Let's have endless debate from now until whenever.

But do you know what? It is not us who are not being paid; it is our constituents. So this is an emergency. It is time that all of us come together and end this ridiculous shutdown and then get on to the business of the future. That is what I am committed to.

I hope that the Rules Committee will be much more accommodating to my friends on the other side of the aisle than my friends were to us, by the way, overseeing the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) left the floor, but I know Mr. Newhouse is still here, and I am complimented by the fact that they quote me so much. But I want to quote me, too, because I am going through what I have said about open rules and about the way this House should be run.

On November 14 on the floor I said:

And I am not suggesting that every rule needs to be an open

rule or that there is never a time for a closed rule, but

there is never a time for more than 100 closed rules. There

is no justification for that.

That is me. And on April 24, I said:

I am under no illusion that every bill has to be an open

rule; although it would be nice to have at least one symbolic

open rule before the year is out.

On April 13, I said:

I can't promise that every rule is going to be an open

rule, but I can say that there would be a greater attempt to

try to accommodate Members.

On September 2, I said:

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that everything that

the House considers should be under an open rule. There are

times when a closed rule might be necessary. But more than

100 closed rules? There is no justification for that.

So I think I am being pretty consistent here, because I have actually voted for closed rules on this floor that have been suggested in times of emergency. I voted for one to actually bring a continuing resolution to the floor so that we wouldn't have to deal with the mess that we are in right now.

So in times of emergency, in times of life or death, yes, there are justifications for a closed rule, and this is one of them because this is last year's work. This is what my friends on the other side left us with, unfinished business from last year. Not only unfinished business, but they allowed the President to shut the government down.

So hundreds of thousands of American workers are in a panic right now because last year's majority, my Republican friends, did not do their job.

This is ridiculous. We ought to figure out a way to have our discussions without shutting the government down. This is not the way you are supposed to run government. And so we are offering a solution here so that we can reopen the government and continue our conversations about whatever you want.

The gentleman from Oklahoma said we should split the difference on the border wall.

Mexico was supposed to pay for it.

Why are we splitting the difference? Why are we assuming the cost of a border wall when the President said that Mexico was going to pay for it, a border wall that most experts say is useless and ridiculous and that that money could be better spent on other ways of enforcing border security?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) that I think he is one of the best Members of this Chamber. I admire him, and I think that he is absolutely right when he says that the Appropriations Committee did its work, and that goes for Republicans and Democrats. People worked together, and they moved appropriations bills forward. So I find no fault with and I have no blame for the appropriators.

What I do blame is his leadership that, at the last minute, when the President decided to have a temper tantrum and threatened to shut the government down, the Republican leadership was complicit, basically, and said: We will go along with this. And here we are.

By the way, I can't wait to get this over with so we can get on to other business. By the way, we are going to bring up the disaster appropriations bill next week. We have a notice out asking for amendments. I think the deadline is on Friday at noon. I can't recall the last time a disaster appropriations bill ever solicited amendments. We are going to do that. But I appreciate his words.

Mr. Speaker, this is an emergency. We are now dealing with a major crisis in this country, and it is not just Federal workers. USA Today reported last week: ``Government shutdown 2019: Homebuyers with USDA mortgages can't close on house sales.''

Mr. Speaker, I include this article in the Record.

Government Shutdown 2019: Homebuyers With USDA Mortgages Can't Close on

House Sales

[From USA Today, Jan. 3, 2019]

(By Janna Herron)

Jordan and Tracey Smith of Madison, Maine, were scheduled

to close on their first home on Friday. But the government

shutdown has gotten in the way.

The couple needs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help

finalize their mortgage that is guaranteed by the agency. But

the USDA's operations have been closed for 13 days, so the

couple and their five children remain in limbo.

``We're living out of boxes. We're paying our landlord on a

week-to-week basis, but he has people waiting to move in,''

says Jordan Smith, 32. ``We just want to move and get this

process over with.''

It's the same for other borrowers who depend on the USDA.

The department provides--through private lenders--mortgages

with no down payment requirements and low interest rates and

fees to rural and suburban homebuyers. It's a small program,

helping just over 140,000 people to buy a home in 2017, but

is considered one of the best options around if you're

eligible.

``We just can't close a USDA loan without a commitment

letter from them. ``Your loan

is at a standstill,'' says Pava Leyrer, the chief operating

office of Northern Mortgage Services in Grandville, Michigan.

Leyrer's company is an approved USDA lender.

Leyrer is telling her affected clients to call their

representatives. Otherwise, they may ultimately need to

switch into a different loan. ``How long will the seller

wait, especially if the sales contract expires?'' she says.

Waiting for repair money

In other cases, those who already have a USDA mortgage are

running into trouble. Jenneffer Azcuy, a homeowner in Lynn

Haven, Florida, with a USDA mortgage, is waiting to get the

insurance money she needs to repair her house after it was

damaged by Hurricane Michael in October.

``Since my insurance repair check is over $7,500, the USDA

controls the disbursement of funds,'' Azcuy says ``But the

money is tied up.''

On mortgages it guarantees, the USDA requires that it

oversees how insurance claims funds are used to make sure

they are spent properly. When insured losses exceed $7,500,

the agency requires the funds to be deposited into an escrow

account it controls.

Azcuy has a contractor lined up to repair her leaky roof,

replace a fence, and fix the gutters and outside doors. She

has called the USDA for help but can't leave messages because

the voicemail is full.

``It's ridiculous. This town is devastated as it is from

the hurricane,'' she says.

What about other mortgages?

The other mortgages backed by the government are unaffected

so far by the shutdown. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the

Veterans Administration--which all back home loans--are

running as normal.

The Federal Housing Administration, which guarantees

mortgages popular among first-time homebuyers, is operating

with a smaller staff because of the shutdown but is still

approving loans.

``You can get some answers,'' Leyrer says, but adds: ``They

are slower to respond, and it takes longer to get through on

the phone because of limited staff.''

Lenders are also working around other shutdown-induced

hiccups.

For instance, they can't verify a person's tax information

with the Internal Revenue Service, which has limited

services. As a result, many lenders are still approving those

loans conditionally and will confirm the information later

when the IRS reopens, says John Stearns, a loan originator

with American Fidelity Mortgage Services in Mequon,

Wisconsin.

``If there is a problem, then I have to figure it out

then,'' Stearns says.

On Capitol Hill

Azcuy and the Smiths hope the new House of Representatives

convening on Thursday can end the shutdown. Democratic House

leaders have scheduled votes on a package of bills to reopen

the federal government and provide more time for Congress to

negotiate a border funding deal with the White House.

Until then, they wait.

``My wife and I support Donald Trump. We agree with border

security,'' Jordan Smith says. ``But he has to look and see

that this is affecting other people's lives.''

Mr. Speaker, the article reports on the situation of Jordan and Tracey Smith of Madison, Maine, and their five children. They were scheduled to close on their very first home last Friday, but this ridiculous Trump shutdown ruined that. They need the Department of Agriculture to finalize their mortgage, but USDA has been closed for weeks.

Here is what Mr. Smith said: ``We're living out of boxes. ``We're paying our landlord on a week-to-week basis, but he has people waiting to move in.''

So lives are being thrown into turmoil, and we don't have a lot of time to just carry on these conversations and endless debates. This is a time for action.

This is the first time a prior Congress ended in a government shutdown. It is fitting. It is almost like an exclamation point to the President's first 2 years in office.

But it is a new Congress, and we are ready to responsibly clean up this mess and do what the last Congress could not do. We are offering an extremely reasonable solution to this unnecessary government shutdown. The underlying legislation is virtually identical to the four appropriations bills that already passed the Senate, 92-6.

Compare that to what the prior Republican majority put forward in the waning days of last Congress. They passed a partisan funding bill with billions of dollars for the President's wall, legislation they knew Democrats would never support and that the Senate would never pass. Then they left town. They refused to even recognize me when I tried again and again to bring up a bipartisan bill to end the shutdown.

800,000 workers stopped receiving paychecks. That includes, by the way, thousands of border and law enforcement officers, more than 41,000 Federal law enforcement officers, people like FBI agents and DEA agents, nearly 54,000 Customs and Border Patrol agents and Customs officers, and almost 90 percent of the Department of Homeland Security employees.

This Trump shutdown is an embarrassment. We owe our Federal employees and all Americans better than this. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote for this rule and the previous question and join with us in supporting these underlying bipartisan funding bills. This is another chance for us to do the right thing. Let's take it and bring an end to this unnecessary and painful Trump shutdown.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are back again on appropriations, and we are back again on the exact same set of bills as before.

Last week, the House agreed, over Republican objections, to pass a set of appropriations bills, six of which would fund the relevant departments for a full year, the seventh of which would fund the Department of Homeland Security until February 8.

Today, not content with already having passed these bills once, my friends in the majority are again bringing up four individual bills that were part of the same package covering the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development bill, Financial Services and

general government bill, the Agriculture bill, and the Interior and Environment bill. Nothing substantive in these bills has changed. Indeed, nothing substantive has yet changed anywhere in this process:

The government remains partially shut down;

The Senate is refusing to pass the bills my Democratic Party colleagues are proposing;

The President is refusing to sign them; and

The majority is proposing to fix the problem by passing the exact same bills.

To quote the great Yogi Bera: ``It is deja vu all over again.''

While I commend my friends in the majority for trying to reopen the government, let's be clear about what they are proposing. The four bills under consideration here represent only the Senate-passed versions of the bills covering the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process. They represent no input at all from the House, no input at all from the Appropriations Committee, and no input at all from the joint House and Senate conference committees that were appointed to iron out the differences between these bills and their House counterparts.

In essence, the Democrats' only plan is for the House to swallow the Senate's original bills, abrogate our authority and responsibility as a coequal House of Congress, and declare victory. What is more surprising is that my friends now expect that having tried this same thing before, they will now get a different result.

To be clear, last week, when the House passed these exact same bills, the Senate made it known these bills would not come to the floor; and even if they did, the President has made it known that he would not sign them. I don't know what they think is so different about this week over last to make my friends think that all they need to do is to pass them again and, magically, the Senate will pass these bills and the President will sign them.

Perhaps even more surprising, the majority now wishes to bring these four bills forward under a closed rule, with no opportunity for the House to amend them and no opportunity for Members to weigh in. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I understand how hard it is to have a full process on appropriations bills. But it is, indeed, possible, even when funding bills carry over into a new year or even a new majority.

In 2011, right after Republicans took majority control of the House, we considered a bill on the floor to fund the entire Federal Government. We did it under an open rule, with only a preprinting requirement. When we considered that bill on the floor, 162 amendments were offered from both sides of the aisle, and we had a grand total of 66 hours of floor debate on the bill, stretching out over 5 days.

Given the amount of time we used in 2011, I fully understand what an undertaking that would be. But unless the majority believes that these bills will quickly pass the Senate and quickly be signed by the President into law, then there is plenty of time for thoughtful debate and plenty of time to hear ideas from all Members of this House. Instead, the majority has chosen to push forward with an appropriations strategy that they know cannot succeed.

Mr. Speaker, the House should be taking steps this week to negotiate with the Senate and the President to end this shutdown. That means that, whether the majority likes it or not, they need to engage on border security.

The American people have told us time and time again that they want action on border security. The solution they are proposing today does nothing on that front.

Even if we pass these bills today, and even if they, ultimately, became law, the border would remain unsecured and the Department of Homeland Security would remain shut down. Nothing the House will do in this package will change that essential fact, and nothing in this package is a step on the road to changing that essential fact.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't always this way. In 2006, 64 Democrats joined Republicans in passing the Secure Fence Act, which President Bush signed into law. Those 64 Democrats then included 13 current Members now and one additional Member who has since gone on to the Senate. Even liberal lions of the House, like our good friend and former colleague Congressman Barney Frank, joined the Republicans in voting for border security. I am unclear what has changed, from then until now, that would cause the entire majority Caucus to refuse to work with Republicans on border security when so many did so back in 2006.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the good intentions of the majority in seeking to fund the government, their method of doing so is in no way sufficient. Instead of abrogating our own authority, embracing a Senate-only product that the President will not sign, and kicking the can down the road, we should be taking concrete steps to reopen the government, secure the border, and move on to the many important needs of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a couple of quick points, and then yield to another speaker, if I may.

Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree a little bit with my friend's memory on

what the last Congress did and did not do. Quite frankly, it was the most successful Congress in enacting appropriations bills in 22 years, 75 percent of them across the floor on time. We will see how good the record is as my friends are in the majority. And I am going to work with my friends on that, because I know it is the intention to do that, but it is no easy task.

To say that the last Congress didn't act when, in fact, it put a bill over in the United States Senate that the President would have signed is simply untrue. To suggest that Republicans controlled the Senate in this process, when a Democratic minority in the Senate kept us from getting to 60 votes, there is where your real obstruction was. Quite frankly, this problem would have never happened if the Senate chose to operate the way we do, by simple majority vote, and the President would have had a bill.

One last point, if I may. The President did offer to negotiate. The reports in the media are that he actually offered to reduce his request by half. That is normally, around here, considered a real negotiation: Let's split the difference and find the common ground.

My friends didn't choose to take up that offer. So the idea that they have somehow been innocent bystanders when they were in the minority, in a process out of control, simply misstates reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and then I will yield to my good friend from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take up the challenge. I would be happy to meet with anybody to reopen the government. I would be happy if we had a product in front of us, which we did have in late December that had actually been agreed to by the United States Senate.

Why my friends chose to just simply take the Senate bills--which I will assure you, are not nearly as good as the conference bills between the two bodies--and throw all of the work out that this body did over a year, the appropriators, and the rest of the authorizing committees that play a supplemental role in this, I will never know.

It would have been a lot harder to vote ``no'' than just simply sit here and strip 435 Members of their ability to legislate, which is effectively what my friends in the majority have chosen to do.

I hope going forward we can do exactly what my friend suggests. I would also suggest that the people he mentioned go meet with the President of the United States. He was here all December, happy to negotiate with anybody. He wasn't in Hawaii. He was here. He offered to split the difference. That was an unacceptable offer to my friends.

So if you want to negotiate, negotiate with the President. If you want to do something with the Senate, I would expect that you should probably sit down and talk to them because you are sending them something this week that you sent last week, that they didn't take up then, and they are not going to take up now.

So whenever we want to negotiate, I would be thrilled to be at the table, but I haven't seen any evidence that my friends do want to negotiate. Instead, they simply want to dictate. They simply want to dictate the outcome and achieve what they think is a political victory, and that is coming at the expense of the American people. Real negotiations mean sitting down and settling differences. It doesn't mean shooting paper back and forth across the rotunda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), my good friend and a distinguished Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to notify the body, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to report modified open rules for each bill before us today: H.R. 264, H.R. 265, H.R. 266, and H.R. 267. The rule would include a preprinting requirement.

Mr. Speaker, the bills before us today are simply nothing more than Senate products. House Democrats would rather try to win political points against the Senate than allow this House to do its job. Again, the Senate hasn't indicated they will take up these measures, and the President has not agreed to sign these measures. There is time to do this the right way.

In 2011, right after Republicans took the majority control of the House, the government was operating under a continuing resolution, and we considered a bill on the floor to fund the entire Federal Government, and we did it under one open rule with just a preprinting requirement.

There were a total of 66 hours of floor debate from the afternoon of February 15, 2011, to the early hours of February 19, including one stretch of debate that lasted 42 hours.

I do understand what an enormous undertaking it would be, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't and can't take the time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was amused--and I actually mean this in very good spirit--when my friend mentioned how frequently he had been quoted in today's debate, and I have to say I consider my friend one of the great debaters in this Chamber, and I enjoy hearing him quoted on the floor of the House. So I accept that, and I hope the gentleman knows it was a compliment to him in many ways.

I also want to tell him--and I mean this very seriously--I take him at his word. I don't have any doubt my friend wants to operate differently than we have operated in the past and that he wants this institution to be more open to inclusion of various points of view and very sincere debate, and I pledge to my friend I will work with him in that endeavor.

Now, it is hard to resist pointing out the gentleman's first six bills have all been under closed rules. I suspect we will continue to point that out until we have an opportunity to say to my good friend-- and I think we will in the very near future--``Congratulations, you are following through on the things that you said.'' Again, I know my friend will do that at what he considers and the majority considers the appropriate time.

We have a lot of discussion, Mr. Speaker, about who did and didn't do their jobs in the last Congress. I would tell you, in my view, that the House did its job. It passed its bills. It sent to the Senate a product that the President would sign.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell you, you are doing your job here, as well, right now in the majority. You passed bills last week. You sent them over to the United States Senate.

In our case, the minority in the Senate blocked consideration of our bills. Had those bills been placed on the floor, we wouldn't be here today. They would have all passed. They had majority support in the Senate; they had a President willing to sign them; and they had already passed the House.

The only reason why we are here today is because the Democratic minority in the Senate manipulated the rules of the Senate in such a way that they could stop action. I suspect we all have had frustration with that as House Members in the past. I think we will again in the future.

I also want to reflect with my friends, and I draw this conclusion not so much out of their actions, but actions that my own party, from time to time, has committed, and I suspect I will say this to this Chamber many times: Pursuit of absolute victory in domestic political disputes is always a mistake. It always leaves a divided country and an embittered opponent, and you will rue the day when you pursue it. We have certainly done that, Mr. Speaker, on my side of the aisle.

I think that, to some degree, though, is what is going on today. Sooner or later--and we are going to live with a Republican Senate for the next 2 years and a Republican President for the next 2 years--my friends in the majority will have to decide whether they want to govern or debate, because that is all we are doing now.

Mr. Speaker, you are not the opposition party anymore. You are the majority party, and you have every right to pursue your agenda. But if you really want to govern, if you really want to get something done, in the end, you are going to have to work with the Republican Senate, and you are going to have to work with the Republican President.

We learned that hard reality when we were in the majority but dealing with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President in 2011 through 2014. I hope my friends learn the lesson more quickly and become wiser than we were. I hope they benefit from our experience.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying measure. The majority today is putting forward a closed rule to bring up four appropriations bills, each of which the House has already passed last week.

But, unfortunately, each of these bills is not a product of the House of Representatives. These bills are Senate products that do not reflect any House input. What is worse, they do not solve the fundamental problem of border security, and they do not represent a serious effort to reopen the government.

Since the Senate will not pass these bills and the President will not sign them, all we are accomplishing here today is spinning our wheels. The majority would be better served to undertake serious negotiations with the President and the Senate over the need for border security and to find a way out of the crisis of their own making rather than hoping that something will be different this time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. My objections are numerous. Again, there are a lot of reasons why I am objecting to this bill in this form today.

One of the things that I think is important to note, because I have heard throughout the debate in all these bills how passing these bills will reopen the Federal Government: Mr. Speaker, I heard that last week on the floor of this House, on the same appropriations bills.

I want to mention that again. Last week, on this floor, Members came up and said, if those bills pass the House, the Federal Government would reopen.

Mr. Speaker, those bills passed the House. They didn't reopen the Federal Government, just like these bills, which are identical to the bills that were passed last week--identical--unfortunately, also will not reopen the government.

Now, I have other objections as well, Mr. Speaker. This bill is, frankly, absurd because it takes a Senate product, ignoring all--all-- of the House Members' priorities. It is jamming it through this body without a single opportunity to amend or improve or change this bill in any way.

Not one House Member has had one priority put in this bill because there are no amendments allowed in this process.

Again, this ploy will not work. The Senate has no plans of taking up this legislation. And, again, this is deja vu all over again.

I heard folks last week talk about, if the House passed those bills last week, like we are hearing now, the government would reopen. Mr. Speaker, those statements were not true last week, and they are not true this week, unfortunately.

Now, not only did the bills last week not reopen the government. In fact, everyone on this House floor knows that this bill passing, unfortunately, will not reopen the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, all the members of the press up there know that passing this bill, unfortunately, will not reopen the government.

Heck, anybody who has been paying any attention knows that this is a sham; that, just like last week, those bills passing didn't reopen the government, and unfortunately, passing this bill, or these appropriations bills, in this manner will not reopen the government either.

So by introducing these Senate bills without any changes to reflect the priorities of this body and without any opportunity for amendments, we are engaging in a sad, sad charade.

I want to take some time, opportunity to discuss the real-world consequences of this stunt. Again, our majority is asking us, all of us here in this Chamber, to reject all of the hard work and all of the priorities of every House Member, Republican or Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, in our House bill, I am proud that we decided to make a historic investment, for example, in ports: port infrastructure, the ports, seaports, including larger seaports that are critical to our country's commerce. In the House bill, we provided $250 million for this program.

Well, the Senate didn't make this investment. They didn't think that that was as high of a priority. They missed that opportunity to build infrastructure that we need to create jobs and increase our ability to export American goods made by Americans.

We also placed a higher priority on roads and on bridges than the Senate did and with an emphasis on funds that go directly and immediately to the States and the territories through the highway formula program. The Senate didn't have that priority.

The Senate provides far less for this purpose, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you what that number is, far less: $1.4 billion less for that direct spending in infrastructure, bridges, and roads that goes straight to the States.

The Senate, instead, put a high priority on administrative accounts and programs with, frankly, higher overhead. This bill means less funding for your State Department of Transportations and fewer jobs rebuilding the highways and the bridges around our country.

Mr. Speaker, we also included a provision that provided regulatory relief to, for example, sugar and beet haulers in Idaho and in Oregon. This narrow provision--and this is a bipartisan provision--simply made truck length requirements uniform between those two States--common sense.

Again, this provision has support on both sides of the aisle, and it will help truckers and farmers in those States. But, you see, the Democratic proposal before you does not include even that commonsense provision, commonsense bipartisan provision.

Mr. Speaker, we also included a provision in the House bill that allows for small increases in the allowable weight for trucks that run on electric batteries, an innovation to help the environment. This is another commonsense, bipartisan provision that this bill does not have, and it was not included in the Senate mark.

This bill eliminates House and Senate report language--I want to repeat,

both House and Senate report language.

Now, what does that mean? That every single item we put in the report for Members, at the request of Members from both parties, is gone, is irrelevant in this bill.

You see, the direction that we provide in our reports every year helps hold the bureaucracy accountable and ensure that our constituents have a voice in their government. Mr. Speaker, that language is gone.

For example, we put directives in our report that require that the FAA take specific action, specific action to address airport noise, airport noise in our communities. Now, this is specifically important-- I should say especially important--to our Democratic colleagues in the subcommittee and the committee on this floor, and we accommodated all of their requests on this issue with new stringent requirements on the FAA, Mr. Speaker. This bill makes those requirements null and void.

So let me now turn to housing programs. When we looked at the HUD budget, we made sure, in the House, in the House bill, the House mark-- and, by the way, this is done in a bipartisan way. We made sure that we scrubbed the administrative and overhead accounts and, instead, put funds towards programs that serve our neediest, our neediest citizens. This bill, unfortunately, falls far short on our charge to do the best that we can with the revenue, the taxpayer money.

And, again, to make sure that the bureaucracy is held accountable, this bill falls short. Let me give you a few examples.

In our bill last year, we included $50 million in new funding for a program that we call mobility vouchers. These vouchers are targeted at families with children, to enable them to move to neighborhoods with greater economic opportunity, and this initiative has strong bipartisan support from the authorizers and strong support from the advocates for the poor. The Senate bill does not include any funds, zero funds, for this program.

The House also included significantly more funding for new vouchers for people with disabilities. This program helps families across the country that struggle to take care of severely disabled relatives, and it also serves, by the way, so many veterans with disabilities. We provided $390 million for this program.

For tens of thousands of new vouchers, this bill before us, frankly, falls short there as well, by $236 million, and adds no new vouchers.

You see, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that every year, when I was chairman, I also worked to ensure that there was adequate funding for Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, or HOPWA. This program has a record of saving lives, reducing disease transmissions, and protecting communities. I am so proud of that. We provided $393 million in our bill to ensure that there was no reduction, no cut to housing services for this vulnerable population.

The Senate, unfortunately, again, falls severely short, $375 million. This will result in 1,700 people losing their housing, which will put communities at risk.

This, by the way, is a severe hit, particularly for cities likes Miami, New York, Atlanta, San Francisco, and many others. This is an area the Senate was counting on the House to fix, to fix their low funding levels. But, you see, Mr. Speaker, we don't have the opportunity because of this stunt that we are witnessing here today.

Finally, we included $150 million for Choice Neighborhoods, which is a program that provides much-needed neighborhood rehabilitation-- revitalization grants, I should say. This has such strong bipartisan support in the House. The Senate did not prioritize it as much as we did, and they only provided $100 million.

So I look forward to advancing a bill that protects this, all of these issues, and other important priorities for our House Members. I look forward to working to do that.

But before I close, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute to thank somebody who has become a personal friend, Chairman Price. I will tell you, it has been an honor, Mr. Speaker, to work beside him for the past 4 years developing bills that truly meet the needs of our people, of our country, of our communities. These past 2 years, I think, have been particularly energizing as we worked on T-HUD bills that made substantial new investments in our Nation's infrastructure.

Chairman Price and I have always been able to work together to find common ground, to find solutions, and that is the spirit of cooperation and good will that will get us, I am sure, to a breakthrough to end this impasse and to reopen the government once again. So, again, I do not have anybody in this Chamber that I am more pleased to work with than the chairman of this subcommittee.

Now, today, on this bill, mark my words, Mr. Speaker, mark my words, the passage of these bills in this form will not open the Federal Government. Everyone in here knows that; just like last year, last week, we knew that they would not open the government, and we heard on this floor that they would.

This bill, unfortunately, will not reopen the government. It falls short on our priorities. It does not include any of the House priorities; so, therefore, I respectfully would urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a titanium Texan, the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a former sheriff and my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from

Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), who, by the way, is not on the T-HUD Subcommittee but who has been an amazing asset to the full committee, but, in particular, to the T-HUD Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire how much time I have left.

Mr. Speaker, having no more speakers, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first again commend the chairman. This is an individual who I know always works in good faith, and I look forward to working with him again.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that we say what we are doing here today. This bill that already passed last week will not reopen government.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what potentially could have reopened government. You see, I went to the Rules Committee on Tuesday with an amendment, Mr. Speaker. The amendment was very simple. It has very strong bipartisan support. I think it could have been a way to reopen the government.

It basically was the Dream Act, to legalize all the Dreamers, that has been cosponsored by every Democrat in this body last Congress, along with also legalizing all the folks who are here under the TPS program, and it then had the funding for border security, issues that should not be partisan and controversial, issues that the Members across the aisle and the leadership--let me talk about the leadership across the aisle--said that they support.

I will never forget the Speaker of the House spent almost 8 hours on this floor saying that she wanted to fight for the Dreamers. Yet, there was a vote on Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, in the committee that she controls, the Rules Committee, on a party-line vote, the bill that would have, yes, funded border security--but would have legalized past the DREAM Act, and legalized those under TPS--was voted down on a party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, you want to know if there is good faith to reopen this government. That showed it right there. No, this bill will not reopen the Federal Government, unfortunately. Like last week, this same bill that passed didn't reopen it. Real efforts to reopen it, like that one that I mentioned, voted down four amendments, voted down a party-line vote.

It is time to get real about reopening the government. It is time to get real about passing a real T-HUD bill. Let's get back to the people's business. This is not a way to do it. This is a sham.

Again, I am grateful to the chairman because I know he is working in good faith, but this effort is not in good faith, so we must vote it down to get back to doing the real business of the people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit restores a House priority that had overwhelming support when we put together the FY 2019 T-HUD bill during the last Congress.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, our House bill last year placed a high priority on increasing housing opportunities for people living with disabilities. We heard from members of humanitarian groups, nonprofits, and religious organizations, frankly, just from our communities, on the importance of ensuring that the disabled have humane housing options.

Our bill, therefore, last year included $390 million for this program, to provide over 20,000 additional housing vouchers for people with disabilities. These vouchers help some of the neediest among us live, frankly, with dignity.

The program provides a critical lifeline to families who struggle to care for the severely disabled. And it prevents, frankly, worst-case scenarios where severely disabled individuals would otherwise face homelessness.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is a reasonable, partial restoration of funding for this program. This modest motion partially restores the disability voucher cuts that my colleagues are offering today, and, instead, provides an additional $71 million for this valuable program.

The motion would provide 7,200 vouchers, and would correct a significant blemish in the Senate-originated bill that is before us today.

Every single dollar of this funding goes directly to serve those in need. This is an account without bureaucratic overhead. Every single dollar goes to serve those who need it. It is a program with, again, a strong record of accountability and of performance.

Not one dollar of this program goes to the Federal bureaucracy. These funds directly serve the disabled and their families, often, Mr. Speaker, through faith-based and community-

based organizations. This program also serves a large number of veterans, some of whom, Mr. Speaker, became disabled in service to our country.

This motion is offset by a reduction to HUD's Information Technology Fund, leaving the account at a very reasonable level of $209 million. Again, this is a manageable level for HUD IT, and it is a modest adjustment to bring dignity, relief, and help to individuals and families with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 28, I call up the bill (H.R. 265) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, today marks the 20th day of the partial government shutdown. Each day pushes many of our government's vital services to the breaking point, further jeopardizing the 800,000 Federal employees who are furloughed and the countless other Americans feeling the shutdown's impact.

The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act is a critically important piece of legislation for our Nation. From the food we eat to the medications we depend on, this bill touches the lives of every American.

It must be passed now, and the furloughed employees at these vital Federal agencies, our farmers, our agribusinesses, and the other Americans who are depending on their livelihoods must be brought back to work.

Because of the shutdown, USDA has stopped making loans and grants for rural development programs such as housing, water and wastewater facilities, and community facilities. New grants to our universities for agriculture research can't be made.

Across the Nation, Farm Service Agency county offices have been closed since December 28. Farmers applying for relief from retaliatory tariffs are in limbo, waiting for the shutdown to end. Nearly 33,000 USDA employees who are funded by this bill are currently furloughed.

At the Food and Drug Administration, more than 10,000 employees are working without pay, while another 7,000 have been furloughed, which is impacting everything from user fee collections to the reduction of food safety inspections, jeopardizing the food we eat. According to USDA, nearly 9,000 people are working without pay to inspect our meat, poultry, and egg products.

This bill would fund the Food Safety and Inspection Service at over $1 billion and restore our safety.

I will be the first person to admit that this bill is not perfect, but no bill ever is. However, this is about opening the government and putting it back to work for the American people.

This bill has passed the Senate by a vote of 92-6. There is no reason why we should not pass this bill since it has already been adopted by the leadership of the Senate and the Members of the Senate overwhelmingly, so that we can put American workers back on the job.

Specifically, this legislation provides over $23 billion in discretionary funding for USDA and FDA. That is $225 million above the 2018 enacted level.

It provides $2.73 billion for agriculture research conducted by the Agricultural Research Service and NIFA, an increase of $114 million from fiscal year 2018. These increases will help to ensure American agriculture remains competitive with other nations.

The Farm Service Agency, whose county offices were shuttered on December 28, is funded at $1.6 billion. In my district, all the county offices are now closed. These offices are the primary line of communication for our farmers and our ranchers, providing critical data, processing loans, and answering questions. Without this assistance and information, they are left in the dark when it comes to planning for next year's harvest.

Peanut sellers and cotton growers, who suffered from Hurricane Michael recently, are at a loss. They have product that is stored in warehouses that they need to sell in order to get income, but they can't get those sales accomplished without an okay from the Farm Service Agency. Those offices are closed. Nobody is there.

This legislation also makes significant investments in rural development by providing $3.8 billion. It takes a balanced approach with investments in water and wastewater facilities, broadband, housing, and rural businesses.

Again, right now, as a result of the shutdown, loans and grants that help small towns and rural communities all across the country are not being made.

This legislation rejects the President's proposed elimination of the Food for Peace program and instead funds it at $1.716 billion, which is $216 million above the House bill. The McGovern-Dole program, which was also proposed for elimination by the President, is funded at $210 million, slightly above the House level. I might note that the House funded both of these, contrary to the President's wishes.

Finally, this legislation funds the Food and Drug Administration at $2.97 billion, which is $159 million above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level, a 6 percent increase.

I would also like to point out that this bill does better than the House in addressing the opioid crisis that is hitting every single district in the country.

It also provides more funding for food safety than the House bill.

After nearly 3 weeks of uncertainty, it looks like the nearly 40 million people who are receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits will be able to keep their benefits at least through February. However, the funds for SNAP beneficiaries, for a single mother or a small shopkeeper, will run dry in March.

This bill, which provides $73.2 billion in mandatory funding for SNAP, will end any doubt about this, and it will give these recipients the peace of mind that they deserve.

Through a diverse urban-rural coalition, this legislation includes our farmer safety net, our food and nutrition programs.

Families, farmers, ranchers, and producers go to work every morning; so should their government.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who is the first female chair of the United States House Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and chair of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, and is the former chair of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of Appropriations.

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

Let me just say that, as we said before, this bill is not perfect, but we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Chief among the funding in this bill is funding that is included to combat one of the biggest public health risks today which is opioids. The bill provides strong support for the FDA to combat this opioid epidemic.

In addition to funds provided last year, it provides $59 million to continue the activities involved in inspecting, investigating, and screening of opioids. As the agency that oversees these drugs, the FDA has a vital responsibility, I agree, to make sure that the public health impacts of opioid abuse is mitigated, but this funding is just one part of a broad strategy to address opioids.

The committee strongly supports the FDA's role in intergovernmental efforts to confront the crisis, but since we must move forward and open the government, we urge adoption of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, co-chair of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, and a long-time advocate for the elimination of persistent poverty in America and across the world.

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

It has been said many times that we shouldn't pass this bill which has previously been adopted by the Senate because the President will not sign it.

Well, I believe that we have three branches of government, and it is our obligation as the legislative branch to pass the laws. If we do our job, then we will let the President be held responsible for his failure to do his. We must keep this government open for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and a member of the Subcommittee for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.

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

Madam Speaker, at this point I would just like to say that it is unconscionable that we will hold the American people hostage in denying them the services and the protections of their government, the much- needed paychecks for the workers employed by these agencies, simply to satisfy the ego of someone at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is the chairman of the authorizing Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just say that the gentleman from Washington makes some salient points. I agree with the gentleman that the Freedom of Information Act and the SNAP retail sales language is something that we would love to have and should be in this legislation.

Also, I look forward to working with the gentleman to take care of that as we move forward in the 116th Congress, as well as our work on the H-2A program, which is in bad need of repair. And persistent poverty, the 10-20-30 program, we are happy that the gentleman is supportive and that the committee has been supportive. We look forward to making sure that that is implemented fully as we move forward.

But, right now, we have to open the government. We cannot afford to let this government remain closed to continue to hurt the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is my classmate and the chair of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), who is a member of the authorizing House Committee on Agriculture. He represents an area in California that is called the salad bowl of our country.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 20 seconds.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who is a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means and who is also the chief deputy whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chair-designate of Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), as I prepare to close and urge my colleagues to open the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and all the agencies. He is a member of the House Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Ways and Means. He also represents the salad bowl of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, as many know, I have been and will continue to be an advocate and a supporter of rural broadband expansion. I view it as an obligation to provide adequate service for everyone, as it is vital to health, safety, the economy, and the welfare of all of our rural communities.

The $425 million that is provided in this bill will complement the $600 million that was provided in the FY 2018 bill, which has not yet been spent.

USDA recently completed the program design, and it can now begin implementing and, if this bill is enacted, awarding over $1 billion in broadband expansion funding to the communities that need it the most.

This funding is in addition to the other programs that assist communities in getting broadband services, including the Community Connect Program, the Broadband Loan Program, and the Distance Learning and Telecommunication Program.

We have funding in the works to accomplish the needs for rural broadband. We need to pass this bill because we need to open the government. We need to make sure that USDA and the Food and Drug Administration and all of the agencies that are shut down will open, and open quickly, to support the needs of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that this motion to recommit be rejected, and I yield back the balance of my time.