Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 268) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes, and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

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 Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that increases funding for the Marianas Medicaid block grant.

Our islands were struck by two catastrophic weather events late last year. Typhoon Mangkhut made landfall September 10, and on September 29 the President declared a major disaster for the islands of Saipan, Tinian, and Rota.

While recovery from Mangkhut was still ongoing, super Typhoon Yutu, the second most powerful storm ever in United States history, struck. Yutu caused widespread destruction of homes, businesses, public facilities, and infrastructure. On October 26, the President declared a second major disaster for our islands.

Yutu also brought death.

Never in anyone's memory has a typhoon caused death in our islands, but one person died during Yutu and another in a storm-related accident. Over 130 people were injured.

Our only hospital, which has just 75 beds, packed people into the emergency room to stitch up wounds; remove glass and flying debris from legs, arms, and faces; and attend to those who needed dialysis or other treatment, while waiting days for power to be restored.

Medicaid provides one-quarter of the revenue for the hospital and health insurance for 30 percent of our population, but there is a cap on how much Medicaid funding is available to the Marianas. When a storm strikes, the program has to steal from tomorrow to pay for today.

The disaster appropriation the House passed on December 21, generous though it was, provided no money for Medicaid for the Marianas.

Chairwoman Lowey, recognizing the lapse, added $20 million in H.R. 268 for the Marianas Medicaid program to be available for the rest of the year. After her bill was drafted, however, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, informed appropriations staff that the Marianas can actually use $36 million in the wake of the typhoons.

Following that advice from CMS, I am offering an amendment that adds $16 million to the original bill, bringing total assistance for the rest of the year to the recommended $36 million.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues for their support of my amendment and of the underlying bill, H.R. 268. The $36 million I am requesting, by adding $16 million to the $20 million already in the bill, is what CMS told Chairwoman Lowey's staff that the Marianas can spend this year in the aftermath of Typhoon Mangkhut and super Typhoon Yutu.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record a recent news report, ``From Something to Nothing,'' published in the Honolulu Civil Beat.

`From Something To Nothing': Life In Saipan After Super Typhoon Yutu

(By Anita Hofschneider)

Chalan Kanoa, Saipan.--Elkanah Igisaiar watches her

daughter climb onto an old car and lift herself up onto the

branches of a tree. It's late afternoon on the Wednesday

before Christmas and Igisaiar is sitting in a plastic chair

outside at her family's compound in this tiny village in

southern Saipan.

The cluster of homes down the street from the island's

cathedral is where her family has lived for generations.

But since Super Typhoon Yutu blew through her neighborhood

in October, her mother's house is uninhabitable--and their

street is now a cluster of tents.

``Most of us are not really ready to talk about the

storm,'' says Igisaiar, 27. ``We are just kind of in

disbelief that we went from something to nothing.''

Two months after the worst storm to hit the U.S. since

1935, thousands of people like Igisaiar are still sleeping in

tents or outdoors. They're waiting for electricity to go back

on. And they are wondering how they'll afford to rebuild

their homes even if they are lucky enough to get some federal

aid.

Despite the severity of the storm, there's been little news

media coverage of what life is like in its aftermath. The

islands are thousands of miles away from the mainland U.S.

and the storm had only one reported casualty.

But the low death toll belies how drastically Yutu

continues to affect thousands of people.

Before Yutu, there were fewer than 100 homeless people

sleeping outdoors on the island of Saipan, the capital of the

U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Despite

widespread poverty--more than half of the community was below

the U.S. poverty line and the median income was $19,201 in

2016--it was rare to see people living in tents.

But overnight, the storm displaced an estimated 15,000 to

17,000 people, more than a quarter of the commonwealth's

population of about 55,000 people.

Severe storms are common in the Mariana Islands, an

archipelago in the western Pacific that includes Guam. Three

years ago, another storm downed half of Saipan's power poles,

leaving some families without electricity for three months.

The expectation that every year will bring extreme weather

events means government buildings and schools are built from

concrete to withstand strong winds.

More than 80 percent of houses had concrete walls as of

2016, and more than half had concrete roofs. Locals are well-

versed in the annual rituals of buying nonperishable food,

filling buckets of water and boarding up windows to protect

them from flying debris.

But Yutu exceeded expectations.

Its 180-mph sustained winds with gusts over 200 mph broke

the National Weather Service's wind instruments, flipped over

containers and ripped off thousands of roofs. Families hid

beneath cabinets, under beds and inside bathrooms to stay

safe. Even elderly people who had survived countless typhoons

on the islands say they feared for their lives. One woman was

killed by a collapsing building.

Igisaiar was in her second-floor apartment during the

storm, watching roofs flying off her neighbors' homes. She

saw one family trying to escape their house, temporarily

blocked by a huge piece of tin that flew onto their doorway.

As they crawled underneath to get out, Igisaiar's boyfriend

went downstairs to urge them to hide in their apartment.

By the time the sun rose, Igisaiar says several neighbors

were sheltering with her, her boyfriend and four children.

The storm damaged so many public schools that students

didn't have classes for more than a month and still only have

half-days. The tourism-based economy came to a standstill,

with fewer than 6,000 visitors in November, down from 48,000

the previous year.

Two months later, debris has been cleared from many

villages and the economy is rebounding. It's once again

common to see tourists on the sidewalks and their bubble-gum-

colored convertible rental cars on the roads.

But on the southern side of Saipan and throughout the

neighboring island of Tinian, families are still sifting

through the wreckage of their lives, sleeping outdoors and

waiting for the electricity to be turned back on. The storm

destroyed or severely damaged more than 5,000 houses, some of

which were home to multiple families.

And unlike disasters on the U.S. mainland, victims can't

just drive to the next county to find another place to live.

There aren't enough undamaged units on the islands of

Saipan and Tinian to house everyone who has been displaced.

Instead of handing out rental subsidies like they did after

Hurricane Michael and Hurricane Florence, federal disaster

responders have passed out more than 1,700 tents along with

military rations.

``When you've been hit like this, things get real primal

real fast and we understand that so our objective is to

provide a safe and sanitary living arrangement,'' says Victor

Inge, a FEMA spokesman based on Saipan.

The housing shortage is so severe that FEMA is calling

families and offering to buy them plane tickets out of the

islands. So far, 29 households have taken advantage of the

program and have booked tickets to Hawaii and other states.

But even though more than 3,600 people are eligible to

leave, the vast majority are choosing to stay. Igisaiar's

family is Carolinian, an indigenous Micronesian community

that sailed in canoes to the Marianas in the 19th century

after a typhoon devastated the Caroline Islands.

Although Yutu was the worst storm she's seen in her life,

Igisaiar says she wouldn't leave the Marianas even if FEMA

gave her money to do so.

She doesn't want her kids to miss more school. She's

worried about their house.

``If we leave, there's nothing that can be done with our

house,'' Igisaiar says. ``If we go, how are we going to get

the assistance?''

The Hazards of Cleaning Up

Igisaiar felt lucky at first. She didn't lose her roof. But

the next day she says her landlord asked her to move out

anyway because of the hazards posed by the damaged apartment

building.

They took just their clothes and one bed, leaving their

children's beds and their refrigerator. They drove to what

was left of the house of her mother, Rufina Angui, in Chalan

Kanoa.

The U.S. military built the house out of wood and tin 30

years ago after Typhoon Kim destroyed the previous house,

Rufina Angui says.

Angui was 27 then. Now 57, it's the first time in her life

that she's been homeless. The heat and the mosquitoes aren't

the only challenge--the lack of power means she can't use the

breathing machine she relies on to help with her sleep apnea.

Angui only recently moved back to the house and started

sleeping in the tent. During and immediately after the

typhoon, she stayed at her brother's house, which is

concrete, while Igisaiar and her boyfriend tried to fix up

the Chalan Kanoa house.

It was too dangerous to sleep inside the broken house at

first, so Igisaiar and her boyfriend lay pallets outside and

secured a tarp over them to block the rain. Igisaiar's

boyfriend, a construction worker, missed work for three weeks

to help clean up. They stacked plywood, tin and debris in

separate piles along the roadside.

Even though there were shelters available, they slept

outside and cleaned. They worried about missing their FEMA

inspection if they weren't around. Plus, who would fix up

what was left of the house if they weren't there?

But increasingly Igisaiar realized fixing the house was an

impossible task. The mold made her sick--it started with a

cough but progressed to a sinus infection until she couldn't

hear or smell well.

When Angui saw her three weeks after the storm, her

daughter was so weak that she was having a hard time

breathing. Igisaiar didn't want to leave her kids, but Angui

convinced her to go to the hospital.

Exacerbating Poverty

The first 24 hours after the storm, no one went to the

emergency room of the hospital on Saipan. And then suddenly

the ER was flooded with twice as many patients as on a normal

day--so many that there weren't enough beds in the ER.

The flow of injuries has slowed over the past two months

but hospital officials say that the disaster has illuminated

the major gaps in health care coverage. Temporary clinics set

up in devastated villages revealed that nearly half of

patients were uninsurable because they were guest workers,

undocumented immigrants or citizens of Pacific island nations

who are ineligible for Medicaid.

Esther Muna, the CEO of the local public hospital, says

she's currently most worried about mental illnesses. She's

seen patients with post-traumatic stress disorder and

depression and says there's been a spate of recent suicides.

Food safety is another concern. Commonwealth officials say

they had just reached

their goal of providing 24-hour water to all villages on

Saipan in September, and storm damage has set them back

again.

Many locals say that the U.S. government's response to Yutu

is much better than it was for Soudelor, another powerful

storm that hit Saipan three years ago.

But a speedy recovery is hindered by the islands' distance

from the rest of the U.S. The Mariana Islands are at least an

eight-hour flight from Hawaii, not including a stop in Guam.

Disaster responders have to ship in everything from concrete

poles to tents, lumber, tin, wire, transformers, even screws.

It's even harder to reach the island of Tinian, which is

between Guam and Saipan and home to about 3,500 people,

similar to the island of Lanai in Hawaii.

The entire island was engulfed by the eye of the storm. At

the commuter airport on Saipan that facilitates flights to

Tinian, airplanes were destroyed, preventing travel for days.

Passengers now buy tickets from a makeshift airport building

made out of containers and tents.

Staff of the Tinian Health Center, an outpost of the public

hospital, hid in the radiology room to survive the storm.

Ninety percent of the 35-member staff lost their homes, Muna

says.

things could be worse

Things have been a lot easier ever since Igisaiar got back

from the ER. She wishes she remembered the name of the doctor

who helped her and got her family a tent to sleep in.

Sleeping inside the tent is a huge improvement over

sleeping under the tarp, even though it's hot during the day.

Life now consists of waiting. Waiting until FEMA tells her

mother and aunt how much money they qualify for, waiting

until they can figure out what to do with the house and how

much it will cost to rebuild it.

She's thought about selling her families' goats--they have

seven, with names like Olaf and Elsa. But she wants to keep

them because her kids love them. Plus, in Carolinian culture

you're supposed to value gifts more than things you buy.

She thought about applying to FEMA for funds to make up for

losing their cell phones and appliances when their apartment

flooded during the typhoon. But she decided against it.

``For me, those are nothing,'' she says. ``There are other

people that just totally lost everything so why not give it

to the people that need it the most?''

She did apply for money from the Red Cross and used the

$750 to buy school supplies and clothes for her kids.

Every morning, she goes to buy ice so that her kids can

have cold water. She spends the day watching her children and

helping her mom. They have even started volunteering at Empty

Vessel, a Christian social service organization that hands

out clothes to those in need.

Angui says she's tired of eating canned goods, but the

family knows it's lucky to have food stamps.

``We're not hungry,'' Angui says.

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

Madam Chair, I have no further statements to make. I ask for support of my amendment and the underlying bill, H.R. 268, and I yield back the balance of my time

Madam Chair, my second amendment to this Supplemental Appropriations Act increases emergency food assistance for the Marianas.

As I explained earlier, our islands were struck by not one, but two typhoons last year, one right after another--Typhoon Mangkhut and Super Typhoon Yutu, the second most powerful storm ever in U.S. history.

Within the first 30 days after Yutu, our local food stamp program had incurred costs of $10.2 million. That money helped families replace the food they lost in the storms when their homes lost roofs and water poured in and electricity and refrigeration were cut off.

Over 40,000 people, out of our total population of 54,000, received help in that first month, according to the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service. H.R. 268 replaces that first month's expenditure with an appropriation of $10.2 million.

I thank Chair Lowey for recognizing the need, but beyond that first month of emergency, more is needed.

The Marianas is not part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. Instead, we receive a block grant from the Federal Government. With the block grant, there is no reserve, as with SNAP. When disaster strikes, not only is money used up faster than planned on the front end, future costs also rise until families get back on their feet.

Madam Chair, I have no official projection of the ongoing costs, because Agriculture employees are furloughed. But just before the lights went out, my staff learned that about 20 percent of the people who received food assistance right after the storm were expected to remain eligible.

If these projections hold true, total caseload will double from 3,000 households to 6,000 households. The $15 million in my amendment will provide a little over 6 months of funding for those newly eligible households until their incomes can recover.

If $15 million proves too generous, which I very much doubt, the Secretary has authority to grant only as much as needed to respond to the disaster caused by Typhoon Mangkhut and Super Typhoon Yutu. I ask my colleagues for their support of my amendment and of H.R. 268.

Madam Chair, again, because the Marianas is not part of SNAP, there is no contingency funding to absorb the costs of this disaster. With more families eligible for assistance, unless we make more funds available, benefits will have to be cut across the board. That is not a right way to respond when people are trying to put their lives back together so they can support themselves and their families again.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment making another $15 million available so these families have enough food. I urge your support for the underlying bill as well, and I yield back the balance of my time

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.

Mr. Chair, I hail from the Seventh District of South Carolina, and for 3 days in September the Nation was rapt as Hurricane Florence stalled directly on top of my district.

I have eight counties in my district. All eight counties were declared disaster areas. The inland counties were inundated, as North Carolina was, and all the rain that fell in North Carolina and those inland counties comes through five river systems out Georgetown County, South Carolina.

My district was overcome by a slow-motion, rolling disaster. And if that wasn't bad enough, that was the third storm in 4 years. Hurricane Matthew hit us 3 years ago.

With Hurricane Matthew, the Federal Government awarded us $95 million to rebuild 1,350 houses for indigent families. And, at the speed the Federal Government moves, as of now, 2\1/2\ years after the storm, about 400 of those 1,300 homes have been rebuilt, so we have got about 1,000 indigent South Carolinians either gone or living in substandard housing.

Now, in this storm, 12,163 homes were ``moderately damaged.'' I asked the definition of ``moderate damage.'' They said that means that there was water inside the house but it was less than 2 feet deep.

My friends, we also incurred $200 million of agricultural damage. In these last two storms, our agricultural department didn't even ask for help from the Federal Government, but the farmers are at their wits' end.

A farmer told me that 3 years ago they used their cash, the last storm they used their equity, and now they are at the end of their rope. We will be losing South Carolina farmers if we don't help these people.

So, I was prepared to support this, and House Republicans passed this disaster bill as part of the supplemental in December.

Now the Democrats bring it back up, and it is subject to opening the government up with no wall funding, and they know full well that the President wouldn't sign it, even if we did pass it.

This is a political game, and they are playing to win. But what they are playing with, the pieces that they are playing with, are hurting people in South Carolina. There are damaged people in South Carolina. They are suffering people who are on their knees.

Three of the counties that were hit the hardest--Marion, Dillon, and Marlboro counties--are some of the poorest counties in South Carolina. Overwhelmingly African American, these people had nothing before the storm, and what little they had has been taken away. And we are using these people as pawns in this fight over the government shutdown.

My friends, enough is enough. It is time to stop playing politics. As my friend across the aisle said earlier: Leaders don't hold people hostage; they find solutions.

And it is time to find a solution. They know full well that, by attaching this continuing resolution to this disaster bill, it will not pass this House, it won't get a hearing in the Senate, and the President won't sign it.

All this is for show. Enough show. Let's deliver this relief to the people who need it.

The storm hit my area September the 14th, 4 months ago. Enough show. Stop using these indigent people as pawns. Enough

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, a commonsense fix that gives HUD the flexibility to waive redundant and unnecessary environmental requirements that slow down the disaster recovery process.

Anyone from a district that has endured one of these devastating hurricanes, wildfires, or floods can attest to the fact that Congress should do everything in our power to quickly give these communities relief.

Madam Chair, 3 years ago, South Carolina was struck by Hurricane Matthew. As a result of that storm, South Carolina was awarded $95 million, which was to be used to repair the households of 1,300 indigent families.

The three counties that were most affected were three of the very poorest counties in South Carolina, Marion, Dillon, and Marlboro, and 2 years and 6 months later, about $25 million of that $95 million has been spent, about 400 of those houses have been repaired, which leaves about 1,000 South Carolina families, indigent families, people who had nothing to begin with, either out of their homes or living in substandard, mold-infested housing that could burn down from electrical problems, or the flooring is buckled and so forth. We have to do better.

Why does it take so long? Why does it take two-and-a-half years to get these people back in their homes?

What I want to do, what my amendment does, is remove some of the burdensome Federal requirements that stand in the way of delivering the relief that the Federal Government has offered up money to pay for.

Now we come to Hurricane Florence. Hurricane Florence parked on top of my district and the southern part of North Carolina for 3 days in September and dumped over 40 inches of rain in places. And then when the storm finally did leave, for the next 2 weeks, the rivers rose and people were driven from their homes.

16,000 houses in my district were damaged. 12,000 of those houses had what they call moderate damage, which in their definition means that the house had water inside of the house but it was less than 2 feet deep.

Since the first major hurricane hit my district, I have been in constant contact with all Federal and State agencies involved in the recovery and rebuilding process. I frequently visit homes that are under construction and check with my constituents to ensure the process is going smoothly.

With respect to Matthew from two-and-a-half years ago, almost 1,000 of my constituents are still not in their homes.

My top question is, Why is this taking so long? And what can we do to fix it?

Part of their answer is reforming the long, expensive, and redundant environmental review process.

Currently, before a home is rebuilt with HUD funds, the South Carolina Disaster Recovery Office must conduct two environmental assessments. After completing a countywide assessment, every single home that is eligible to be repaired with HUD funds must undergo a second assessment, no matter the size or type of repair that they are using the HUD dollars to complete.

For example, if someone is using FEMA funds to repair a hole in the roof, the contractor can repair the hole without the homeowner having to complete an environmental study. However, if a home is being repaired using HUD funding, a costly and time-consuming environmental assessment must be completed before even the most minor of repairs can be made to the home.

This onerous regulatory requirement is just one more roadblock that my constituents face in the recovery process.

And I tell you again, the counties that were affected by this storm most severely are the poorest counties in South Carolina; majority African American, these people never had anything to begin with, and whatever they had has been taken away from them, and they need relief and they don't need Federal regulatory roadblocks.

Bringing the regulations that apply to HUD in line with other Federal agencies will create a more streamlined process and ensure the Federal dollars are put to use in a more prompt fashion.

We need to cut down the time and the costs that are preventing people in my district from getting back in their homes, back to normal, and on with their lives, and this practical amendment will do just exactly that.

Madam Chair, I have to reiterate that the House Republicans passed this disaster package in December, and here we come, the Democratic majority has put it back up, but has subjected it to reopening the government, and has made that a poison pill to make it impossible to be passed in this House.

Certainly it will not pass in the Senate, and the President will not sign it even if we pass it in this House.

Madam Chair, I urge Members to vote for this amendment and I urge the Democratic majority to stop playing politics with disaster recovery funds.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 268, currently under consideration.

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

Madam Chair, while President Trump continues to keep our government shut down, House Democrats are committed to working for the American people. I am pleased to present legislation today that helps meet the urgent needs of our fellow Americans affected by recent national disasters.

Across the country, we have watched as hurricanes have pummeled Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas; wildfires have burned large swaths of the West; volcanoes have erupted in Hawaii; and typhoons have struck territories in the Pacific. In addition to the tragic loss of life, families have lost everything. Businesses have been upended. Communities have been ripped apart.

This legislation attempts to meet these needs with $12.14 billion in emergency spending. It includes $2.96 billion to rebuild damaged infrastructure to help communities rebuild and to bring local economies back to life.

The legislation embraces the unique needs of farmers and rural communities, providing $1.86 billion to help them recover.

It enhances our national security and cares for our veterans and their families by funding $1.46 billion for repairs and rebuilding of damaged Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs facilities.

The bill before us meets the complex needs of disaster victims, with $555 million for social services, mental healthcare, education, and activities that improve the prospects of dislocated workers.

Importantly, and unlike Republican legislation that was brought up in December, the bill meets the urgent healthcare and nutrition needs of Americans in the Northern Marianas, Guam, American Samoa, and, yes, Puerto Rico.

President Trump grossly mismanaged the response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, and since then, he has added insult to injury by repeatedly trying to shortchange our fellow U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico. This bill rights that injustice.

Finally, this legislation recognizes scientific reality and the simple fact that climate change is increasing the number and severity of national disasters. It includes $2.54 billion in resiliency funding to mitigate damage from future disasters, preventing loss of life and damage to property.

We all want to ensure that American families and communities have the resources they need to recover from recent national disasters.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH160119.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH160119.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH160119.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH160119.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH160119.005

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the chair designee for the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who is the chair-designee of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida's remarks, but I remind the gentleman that we can't deliver this essential disaster aid with the government closed. So I suggest the gentleman urge those who are keeping the government closed that we must deliver this aid, so open the government now, and we can have some adult conversation.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the chair designate of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I introduce our next, I would like to say to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina: I agree with the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina. Let's stop this political game. Let's direct our remarks. Let's make clear that the President has the responsibility to open this government and to do it now.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

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

Mr. Chair, to allow Federal agencies to begin the vital work that we are funding in this bill, we must reopen the Federal Government.

I am pleased that the bill before us includes a continuing resolution to immediately reopen the Federal Government and pay Federal employees, who are going through such a difficult time taking care of their families, putting food on the table, just going through the normal, normal time that families have to endure when they don't have any money to spend. This would pay Federal employees through February 8.

This continuing resolution ensures the Federal Government is working for the American people, provides certainty for Federal employees, and gives President Trump and the Congress time to negotiate on border security and immigration policy.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a critical first step to meeting our fellow citizens' urgent needs as they recover from recent disasters, so I urge my colleagues: Join me in support of this bill.

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

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

Madam Speaker, in fact, I am not even sure I heard correctly. Trump, the President, opposes the dollar amount in the bill because the only emergency is building the wall? Did I hear that correctly, my friends?

Madam Speaker, this shutdown, frankly, has gone on long enough. Perhaps, my good friends don't know the people who are suffering, who are living paycheck to paycheck and who have to worry about taking care of their kids. It is really puzzling to me that a statement like that is being made tonight.

My friends, this shutdown has gone on long enough. This motion to recommit would only further prolong the shutdown and the suffering and the people who are really victims of this action.

The bill we are voting on today is very similar to the same package that my Republican colleagues voted on back on December 21.

H.R. 268 provides disaster relief to those communities affected by hurricanes, wildfires, typhoons, other natural disasters, and it funds the entire government through February 8. In fact, this package provides even more relief to those disaster-affected communities following the adoption of the bipartisan and Republican amendments here today. The only component that is not in this package that my friends on the other side of the aisle voted for in December is the President's wall money.

So, to use this MTR to further delay the government, this doesn't make any sense to me at all, because this package being delayed is unconscionable. Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.