H.Res. 61

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 61 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 61, providing for consideration of H.R. 648, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. It also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 31, which makes further continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Additionally, it extends same-day authority for appropriations measures through January 30 and suspension authority through February 1.

Mr. Speaker, we are on day 33 of the Trump shutdown, the longest government shutdown in American history. Hundreds of thousands of Federal workers will miss a paycheck for the second time since the President plunged us into this mess.

The very people who keep our Nation safe are struggling to put food on the table, people like men and women in the Coast Guard, FBI agents, Border Patrol officers, and TSA agents.

Makeshift food banks are being opened across the country to help these workers and their families get by. Right outside our Nation's Capital, in Northern Virginia, some Federal workers waited more than an hour recently at a local food bank. Demand was so high that a tenth of the food was gone in the first 5 minutes.

Because of the President's shutdown, 15 million households could see a gap in their monthly SNAP benefits that lasts more than 40 days. Four million low-income households could see a gap that lasts more than 50 days.

This program is their lifeline, Mr. Speaker. These families don't have a plan B.

I have given weekly end-hunger-now speeches on this floor since February of 2013, and I have made it clear time and time again that hunger is not only unacceptable in this country, the richest country in the history of the world, but it is a political condition.

We have the resources. We have what it takes. What we need to muster is the political will to do something about it. But here we are, and as I said, it is embarrassing enough that the wealthiest nation on the planet has an ongoing hunger crisis, but I never, ever imagined that a President of the United States would exacerbate it like this.

This is disgusting. This is unacceptable. This is unconscionable.

Let us be clear: It is the President's bruised ego that keeps a quarter of our government closed today.

Now, his latest so-called compromise proposal isn't really a compromise at all. In fact, it brings new meaning to the word ``cruel.''

Not only does it fail to provide a permanent solution for the Dreamers or TPS recipients, it only covers a fraction of eligible Dreamers, it excludes TPS holders from Asia and Africa, and it rewrites the law for future DACA recipients, TPS holders, and asylum seekers that will make it all but impossible for anyone to qualify.

These are the same old, tired, and extremist ideas the President and his advisers floated last year. They were rejected by both the Republican-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate. This is not a compromise. This is called backwards.

Now, if this administration wants to target refugees, people fleeing persecution, people fleeing for their life, if that is what he wants to do, then at least he should have the guts to do it in an open hearing for the world to see.

Now, President Trump is treating this like some reality show. He doesn't want to look bad in the right-wing press despite the fact that Members of both parties are refusing to fund his ineffective wall. If the President really wants to reach a real compromise, then he should log off Twitter and actually sit down with us and be willing to actually negotiate; no more storming out of the Situation Room and no more of his my-way-or-the-highway approach. Work with us for a change.

For whatever reason, Mr. Speaker, he has been unwilling to do that. President Trump may not have the fortitude to get us out of this mess that he created, but this majority does. So instead of following the President who got us into this mess, we have an opportunity to lead. Passing these bipartisan, bicameral bills is what leadership looks like.

Now, many of my Republican friends have asked to consider a plan that doesn't cede the House's will by considering a Senate bill. Well, today is their day because we are considering a bipartisan, bicameral compromise. This six-bill package is the result of real negotiations between the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate. It is a true compromise that would reopen the entire government apart from the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, these negotiated bills are exactly what my good friends on the other side of the aisle have been asking us over the past week to take up. Again, this is all last year's work in the last session.

I recognize that we don't have a similar agreement on the Homeland Security measure included here, but this short-term CR will get our TSA agents paid while all other parties get back to the negotiating table.

The minibus includes $328 million in new dollars for border security that we know will actually work. The funding will increase infrastructure investments at our ports of entry; install new technology that will scan for drugs, weapons, and contraband; put in place technology to detect unauthorized crossings; and fund more immigration judges. This is what smart security looks like in the 21st century, Mr. Speaker, not some medieval wall.

Now, these details have already been agreed to by Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the Capitol. The majority is standing by our word. I urge my Republican friends: Take yes for an answer.

The President may be proud to have shut down this government, but this is nothing to be proud of.

How can anybody be proud that 800,000 Federal workers are about to miss a second paycheck, that our TSA workers are calling in sick so they can work another job that actually helps them pay the bills, or the economy is losing growth at twice the speed originally estimated?

I could go on and on and on and on, Mr. Speaker, but I know each of us has heard from people in our districts. Our offices are getting these calls every day, in fact, every hour and every minute now. We are all hearing from struggling constituents. Their message is the same: End this shutdown. End this shutdown.

This doesn't seem, unfortunately, to be a priority for President Trump. He is out there tweeting about which player should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Give me a break. Maybe he doesn't know what it is like in the real world. After all, the President got his start through what he has called a small loan from his dad that reports now estimate could have totaled more than $60 million. That is the world he lives in.

But families are struggling and left to wonder how they are going to afford to put food on the table or how they are going to pay for medicine without a paycheck.

Enough of the games. Congress has the power to end this shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and give the underlying legislation the strong veto-proof vote it deserves. Let's finally turn the lights back on. Listen to your constituents, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle. Listen to what they are saying. Turn the lights back on.

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

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

Let me just remind my colleague that the bills that we are taking up here today were the result of a robust amendment process and robust debate in the last Congress. This is all last year's work.

I also remind the gentleman he is right about one thing, that we haven't sent the President a bill from both Chambers, but we almost did. If he remembers correctly, in December, when the Republicans controlled the House and the Republicans controlled the Senate and they, obviously, controlled the White House, we actually came together and the Senate passed a bill that would keep the government running and open, unanimously.

I even supported the gentleman's martial law rule to be able to bring up that legislation expeditiously so we could do our work and so that nobody would have to be anxious over the holidays as to whether or not they were going to get paid.

We were about to vote on it, and it was agreed on by Democrats and Republicans. There was no controversy. And then the President turned on rightwing TV or was listening to rightwing radio, and Ann Coulter and some of these other rightwing extremists said: No, you can't do that.

And he changed his mind, and everything came to a standstill. So all this bipartisan work was for naught.

What we are bringing up here today is all the bipartisan work that many of my Republican colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, Democrats and Republicans, worked hard on to come up with a compromise that is good. It is good. Yet my friends say: Well, no. Let's start all over again.

The bottom line is the other side left us with a mess. When they controlled everything, they weren't able to get the job done.

Let me just say, here are some facts:

This is the longest shutdown in history, but it is historic for another reason. This is the first time in history that a Congress has ended in a government shutdown. Never before has a Congress left it to the next Congress to reopen the government. With all due respect to my friends, that is what my friends left us with.

On top of that, Republicans had control of the White House, the Senate, and the House last year, and they couldn't keep the lights on. Then Republicans went home for Christmas and New Year's and every day in between. I know because I was on the floor multiple times begging to be recognized to offer solutions, and I was denied even the ability to offer a solution.

Since we took charge, we have nonstop offered options. Now some Members want to complain about how we are cleaning up the mess that was left to us.

Imagine this. Imagine if someone dumped a bunch of garbage on your lawn and then started complaining about how you weren't cleaning it up. That is what is happening here.

I would suggest that my friends kind of save their criticisms for a time when we aren't cleaning up after all of them.

I just want to make one other point. The gentleman said that we have martial law, same-day authority in this rule to bring up anything we want. No, that is not the case.

When my friends were in charge, they did. They had martial law to bring up anything they wanted to, and they were trying to bring up a cheese bill, if I remember correctly, instead of a bill to keep the government open in the last days of December.

No. We limit it to appropriations matters, and we want to be able to, if we can come to a deal, if we come to some sort of solution, to be able to bring something up immediately to be able to get everybody the paychecks to which they are entitled.

I know the gentleman was home over the holiday weekend, and I was, too. My constituents asked me the question over and over: I get it that there is a disagreement over the President's border wall, but why do you have to shut the entire government down over that issue? Why can't you just continue in negotiation? Why do you have to deny TSA workers a paycheck? Why is that okay? Why is that acceptable? Why are they pawns in this? Or men and women who serve in our Coast Guard, why is that okay to say: You don't get paid because the President is having a temper tantrum and he is not getting his way? All of a sudden, we have to deny them a paycheck?

People don't understand why my Republican friends think this is acceptable. The gentleman from Georgia knows that the reason why a bill is not on the President's desk is because the Senate majority leader, Mr. McConnell, is basically doing the President's bidding. He said: I am not going to bring anything to the floor that the President doesn't want to sign.

We have another option here, too: We can actually pass bipartisan bills that should win overwhelming support. We should pass them with veto-proof margins and basically say to the President: We don't believe in government by blackmail. That is not the way we do things around here. That is not the way this government is supposed to work.

We ought to reopen the government, and we ought to engage in serious discussions about how we improve our border security. We have some great ideas on how to do that. We have some ideas that I mentioned in my opening speech on ways we can improve our border security.

We think a border wall is a ridiculous idea. But if you want to talk about a wall, fine, but don't--don't--hold hundreds of thousands of workers hostage.

We have an opportunity now to set these hostages that the President has taken free. Let's do it.

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

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

Let me say, I think we have agreement here. We all want to open the government. We all want to reopen the government. I think the difference here is that we have no preconditions on reopening the government. My Republican friends do have preconditions, and it is whatever the President decides he wants to tack on at the last minute.

So there is a difference here. We have no preconditions. Open the government up, start paying all of our Federal workers, let's get our country back to normal here in terms of the Federal workforce, but my Republican friends have all these strings that they want to attach to it.

The gentleman from Michigan said, you know, he refers to one of the ``gotcha'' amendments that the Republicans offered on backpay for Federal workers. I should remind him that we actually passed a law here, S. 24, which created an entitlement to backpay for

Federal workers who aren't getting paid during the shutdown. So we actually dealt with that here. We actually passed a law, and, that, he may not have known that.

I should also say to my Republican friends, understand that the American people are not on your side on this. There is a recent ``CBS News'' poll--7 in 10 Americans do not think the issue of a border wall is worth a government shutdown--7 in 10.

Now, I know there is this--you know, the President is worried about that 25, 30 percent of his base, but the vast majority of the people in this country aren't with him on this. They are not with you on this by not stepping up and saying we ought to reopen our government.

You want to have a negotiation on border security, we have lots of ideas to enhance border security, and that is based on conversations with people on the border who talk about increased technology, who talk about better infrastructure, who talk about more personnel, you know, more asylum judges. I can go on and on and on. We are all for that. Let's continue that conversation.

But why in the world does this President insist on shutting the government down until he gets his way on this border wall? This is not the way you do a negotiation. And, again, if you want to reopen the government, and we do, we have no conditions. Reopen the government. It is that simple.

And the bills--the gentleman from Michigan talked about bills that the Senate would pass. Some of the bills that we are sending over to the Senate passed unanimously. Boy, I mean, if that is not a signal that they overwhelmingly agree with the substance of these bills, I don't know what is, but they did. They voted unanimously, in some cases, for some of these bills we are sending over here.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from ``The Washington Post'' titled: ``Unacceptable: Coast Guard's top officer criticizes lack of payment in government shutdown.''

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 22, 2019]

`Unacceptable': Coast Guard's Top Officer Criticizes Lack of Payment in

Government Shutdown

(By Dan Lamothe)

The Coast Guard's top admiral said Tuesday that members of

the armed forces should not be expected to shoulder the

burden of the partial government shutdown, citing the

``anxiety and stress'' it is causing military families as

their pay is withheld.

Adm. Karl Schultz, the Coast Guard commandant, said he is

heartened by the outpouring of support Coast Guard personnel

have received across the country but expects more.

``Ultimately, I find it unacceptable that Coast Guard men

and women have to rely on food pantries and donations to get

through day-to-day life as service members,'' he said,

speaking on a video posted to his Twitter account.

The comments marked the admiral's most forceful remarks

about the shutdown since it began 32 days ago amid a dispute

over President Trump's demands for funding for a southern

border wall. While the majority of the U.S. military is part

of the Defense Department and has funding, the Department of

Homeland Security and is agencies, including the Coast Guard,

are affected by the shutdown.

About 41,000 active-duty service members and 2,100

civilians who are considered ``essential personnel'' are

working without a paycheck under the promise they will get

back pay when the shutdown is resolved, said Lt. Cmdr. Scott

McBride, a service spokesman. That situation grew more urgent

Jan. 15, when service members missed a paycheck. An

additional 6,000 civilians working for the service are

furloughed.

Overall, about 800,000 federal workers are not receiving

paychecks amid the shutdown, with nearly half furloughed.

Schultz, appearing alongside the service's top enlisted

man, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Jason M.

Vanderhaden, noted that civilian employees will miss another

paycheck Friday and called it a 'sobering'' situation.

Senior Coast Guard officials and the American public, he

said, ``stand in awe'' of the affected service members'

'continued dedication to duty and resilience'' and that of

their families.

The admiral, in keeping with the military's tradition of

not commenting directly on politics, did not blame anyone

specific for the shutdown. He and Homeland Security Secretary

Kirstjen Nielsen are making their case for the service on

Capitol Hill, Schultz said.

The Coast Guard has continued to carry out operations

across the globe during the shutdown.

On Sunday, the Coast Guard Cutter Bertholf departed from

Alameda, Calif., with about 170 people aboard for a

deployment to the Pacific that will last up to six months.

The Defense Department will reimburse the service for the

deployment, but Coast Guard personnel still will not be paid

until the shutdown is resolved.

``The crew, like all other [Coast Guard] members, are

affected by the lapse of appropriations, and are not being

paid,'' said Lt. Cmdr. Steve Brickey, a service spokesman.

``It is always difficult to deploy for months and leave

behind family and loved ones. That stress is of course

magnified when you add on the uncertainly of the shutdown.''

Admiral Schultz, the Coast Guard's commandant said: ``Ultimately, I find it unacceptable that Coast Guard men and women have to rely on food pantries and donations to get through day-to-day life as servicemembers.''

In total, 41,000 Active Duty servicemembers and 2,100 civilians are essential personnel and working without pay and have been for 33 days now. An additional 6,000 are furloughed. As of this Friday, these brave men and women will have missed two paychecks. That is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article titled: ``America's veterans said to be disproportionately affected by government shutdown.''

[From ABC News, Jan. 9, 2019]

America's Veterans Said To Be Disproportionately Affected by Government

Shutdown

(By Elizabeth McLaughlin)

As the partial government shutdown continues for a third

week, veterans groups are sounding the alarm because of what

they say is the disproportionate impact on America's veterans

and a growing fear that financial uncertainty could lead to

self-harm.

An estimated one-third of the federal workforce is made up

of veterans, according to the Office of Personnel Management,

meaning that more than 250,000 veterans are not currently

receiving paychecks.

``This shutdown has consequences that go beyond loss of

pay,'' the Union Veterans Council said in a statement this

week. ``Financial instability is one of the main cause of

suicides among the veterans' community. These hard-working

men and women who sacrificed so much for their country should

not have their families held hostage by lawmakers that cannot

relate to living paycheck to paycheck.''

Edward M. Canales is a local union president with the

American Federation of Government Employees and a veteran

liaison officer who serves as a resource to veterans working

in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons west of the Mississippi River.

He told ABC News that he's received numerous calls from

veterans who aren't able to support their families during the

shutdown and express ``no positive outlook on the future.''

``If this shutdown does not stop, we are going to have

fatalities. We're going to have suicides,'' he said.

Canales, a U.S. Army veteran himself who deployed to Iraq

during Operation Desert Storm, said he is referring calls to

the Department of Veterans Affairs hotline out of concern

that a veteran will self-harm.

He called the shutdown ``shameful,'' saying its ``slapping

every veteran in the face who has served their country.''

As a special investigative service technician who worked in

the federal prison system for 26 years, Canales is currently

not receiving his retirement pay.

Toby Hauck, a six-year Air Force veteran, is an air traffic

controller in Aurora, Illinois, who has gone without a

paycheck since Dec. 31. He told ABC News that his father and

grandfather served in the U.S. military and now his son and

daughter-in-law are deploying overseas at the end of the

month.

Hauck and his wife, a neonatal intensive care unit nurse,

will be looking after their two-and-a-half-year-old

granddaughter during the ten-month deployment, and the

continued lack of pay causes added stress to their already

hectic jobs, he said.

``We are hardworking, proud American employees doing a job

for the American public that is essential as an air traffic

controller,'' said Hauck, who is also a representative for

the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. ``It's not

acceptable as a veteran, as a federal employee, as an air

traffic controller to use my profession and my livelihood as

a political football.''

``[Veterans] are very proud of our heritage and what we've

done for the country. And those of us who continue to serve

the federal government as a federal employee continue that

pride throughout their careers,'' he added.

The Union Veterans Council said in a statement this week, ``Financial instability is one of the main causes of suicide among the veterans' community. These hardworking men and women who sacrificed so much for their country should not have their families held hostage by lawmakers that cannot relate to living paycheck to paycheck.''

According to the Office of Personnel Management, one-third of the Federal workforce is made up of veterans. That means 250,000 veterans are not receiving paychecks right now during this

Trump shutdown. That is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, as the Trump shutdown continues, hundreds of Internal Revenue Service employees have received permission to skip work due to financial hardships, and absences are only expected to grow.

I would like to share a story about Marissa Scott, an IRS employee who is gravely affected by this Trump shutdown. Ms. Scott lives outside of Kansas City, Missouri. She drives 98 miles roundtrip to work each day. Right now, she cannot afford to fill her gas tank and has stopped going to work.

She shared that she typically helps 50 people a day with their tax returns and fears that this shutdown may cause delays in tax refunds for months as more employees like her are unable to continue working without a paycheck. These are tax refunds that Americans rely on and are eagerly waiting to be processed.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from ``The Washington Post'' titled: ``Hundreds of IRS employees are skipping work. That could delay tax refunds.'' It also details Ms. Scott's story.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 22, 2019]

Hundreds of IRS Employees Are Skipping Work. That Could Delay Tax

Refunds

(By Danielle Paquette, Lisa Rein, Jeff Stein and Kimberly Kindy)

Hundreds of Internal Revenue Service employees have

received permission to skip work during the partial

government shutdown due to financial hardship, and union

leaders said Tuesday that they expected absences to surge as

part of a coordinated protest that could hamper the

government's ability to process taxpayer refunds on time.

The Trump administration last week ordered at least 30,000

IRS workers back to their offices, where they have been

working to process refunds without pay. It was one of the

biggest steps the government has taken to mitigate the

shutdown's impact on Americans' lives.

But IRS employees across the country--some in coordinated

protest, others out of financial necessity--won't be clocking

in, according to Tony Reardon, president of the National

Treasury Employees Union, and several local union officials.

The work action is widespread and includes employees from a

processing center in Ogden, Utah, to the Brookhaven campus on

New York's Long Island.

The move is the leading edge of pushback from within the

IRS, and it signals the potential for civil servants to take

actions that could slow or cripple government functions as

the shutdown's political stalemate continues in Washington.

U.S. Department of Agriculture meat inspectors have begun to

call in sick, Transportation Security Administration sickouts

at airports have been rising, and federal law enforcement

agencies say the shutdown is increasing stress among agents

and affecting investigations.

``They are definitely angry that they're not getting paid,

and maybe some of them are angry enough to express their

anger this way,'' said Reardon, whose union represents

150,000 employees at 33 federal agencies and departments.

``But these employees live paycheck to paycheck, and they

can't scrape up the dollars to get to work or pay for child

care.''

Not receiving pay for more than a month has taken a toll on

employees across the government, but especially on those who

are not in high-salary jobs. The employees summoned back from

furlough to process tax refunds are paid between $25,800 and

$51,000 a year, depending on their seniority. IRS employees

will miss a second paycheck Monday if the government does not

reopen this week.

``I'm at the point where I cannot afford to go to work,''

said Marissa Scott, 31, an IRS customer service

representative who is out on hardship leave. Scott lives

outside Kansas City, Mo., and drives 98 miles round trip to

work each day. ``I cannot afford to fill my gas tank.''

Scott, who has worked at the IRS for four years, says she

typically helps as many as 50 people a day with their returns

during tax season, including U.S. troops stationed overseas.

She said the shutdown could delay refunds for months, and

without employees like her on the job, ``it's going to be a

disaster all around.''

Many of the IRS employees who are choosing not to come to

work despite getting called back are taking advantage of a

provision in the union contract that allows them to miss work

if they suffer a ``hardship'' during a shutdown, according to

the labor groups.

That could mean a blown car tire, an empty gas tank or a

child-care bill.

``I have fielded no less than 30 to 40 calls, emails or

text messages about hardship requests from employees daily

since Thursday,'' said Shannon Ellis, president of the NTEU's

Chapter 66 in Kansas City.

In Andover, Mass., more than 100 customer service

representatives, electronic filing workers and other IRS

employees plan to use the hardship exemption and won't report

to work, said Gary Karibian, chapter president of a local

union.

``I would say a majority of employees are calling out under

hardship,'' Karibian said. ``I'm getting reports whole teams

are requesting out. One person told me, `I'm the only one on

my team here.' ''

The union lacks an official head count of absent workers--

the IRS declined to share data on hardship exemptions--but

staffers in Fresno, Calif.; Austin; Andover; Kansas City and

Atlanta, among other locations, say they won't be showing up

for work, Reardon said.

Duncan Giles, who has worked for 24 years at an IRS call

center in Indianapolis, said more workers are requesting

hardship leave as they learn it exists.

``The more this goes on and the tougher it is to get to

work--they simply cannot afford it,'' said Giles, president

of NTEU Chapter 49, noting that about 30 of the 170 employees

who have been called back to work in Indianapolis have

requested the exemption. ``Every single person wants to be at

work. They want to help the American taxpayer. But we have to

pay for gas and child care.''

The hardship exemption allows IRS employees not to have to

use sick days to be absent from work, and managers must

approve the exemptions.

Lawmakers also have heard reports of IRS staffers intending

to miss work and are planning to ask Treasury, Secretary

Steven Mnuchin for details when he testifies on Capitol Hill

this Thursday, a House aide said.

The IRS declined to say how many workers are on hardship

leave, and spokesman Matt Leas said the IRS is continuing its

work to prepare for the beginning of filing season next week.

``We are continuing our recall operations, and we continue

to assess the situation at this time,'' Leas said.

The IRS employees' moves come amid broad uncertainty about

the Trump administration's attempts to minimize the impact of

the shutdown. On Sunday, the number of TSA agents who failed

to show up for work hit a record 10 percent, resulting in

long wait times. Guards at federal prisons also are calling

out at high rates, with union officials at 10 prisons

contacted by The Washington Post this month saying the number

of employees skipping work has doubled.

As a result, officers who report for duty often are working

16-hour shifts, and prison secretaries and janitors are being

forced to patrol the halls and yards.

``All I have is pepper spray and a radio to call for

help,'' said 52-year-old Opal Brown, who works as a secretary

at Hazelton Federal Correctional Institution in West

Virginia.

The FBI Agents Association said in a report Tuesday that

the shutdown is hampering the ability of agents to perform

their ``duties and fund necessary operations and

investigations.''

USDA meat inspectors also have begun calling in sick--in

numbers large enough to trigger an agency crackdown. The

inspectors were told Jan. 11 to bring in a doctor's note,

even if they were ill for a single day, records show.

Six days later, after protests from union leaders, agency

officials reverted to existing policy, which calls for a

doctor's note after three days.

Some front-line managers at the IRS have threatened their

employees and said they could lose their jobs if they put in

for the exemption, but Reardon, the union leader, said most

have been instructed by senior management to approve the

requests.

IRS employees are some of the most impactful federal

workers caught in the middle of the shutdown, as the tax

filing season begins and millions of Americans are expected

to seek tax refunds in February. Last year, more than $140

billion in tax refunds was paid out through early March,

according to IRS data.

Trump has expressed an interest in making sure that tax

refunds are paid out next month, believing that if they are

delayed he could face major public backlash. His budget

office took the unprecedented step this month of ordering

thousands of unpaid IRS workers back to the office, saying

that processing refunds was an ``essential'' government

function even if the workers weren't paid.

As much as 75 percent of the roughly 4,000 furloughed IRS

employees in Kansas City could qualify for hardship leave,

said Christina Bennett, executive vice president of the local

National Treasury Employees Union chapter.``Right now,

they're being lenient,'' Bennett said.

Employees who process tax refunds, she said, are among the

lowest-paid IRS workers. Some are worried about losing their

cars.

Bennett, 63, who has worked nearly four decades at the IRS,

most recently as an accountant, said she, too, can no longer

afford her commute. She plans to request hardship leave if

the government calls her back to work.

``I just don't have it,'' she said. ``I'd have to walk a

half-hour to get to a bus stop. And it's so cold. We've got

rain, snow, rain, snow.''

Sakeya Cooks, 24, another IRS worker who guides taxpayers

through the refund process, said she might never report back

to work. She already has applied for a new job at a Kansas

City bank.

``How am I supposed to live like this?'' she said. ``I'm

worried about losing my apartment.''

John Koskinen, a former IRS commissioner, said federal

employees are dedicated to the agency's mission but might be

reaching their breaking point.

``As you put more and more pressure on the system, you

increase the risk of a significant glitch,'' Koskinen said.

``If I were the

administration, I'd be troubled. The pressure is going to

mount.''

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

Let me just say, at the outset here, that if we all agree that the government should be reopened, then what is there to negotiate about? We should just open up the government.

We have no preconditions about opening up the government. We have none. The gentleman from Georgia apparently has a precondition: whatever the President's whim is on a particular day. Yeah, the President did campaign on building a wall, but he didn't get up there and say: We want to build a wall and you pay for it, American taxpayers. What he campaigned on was saying: I want to build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it.

Well, he has had 2 years, and, obviously, he can't get Mexico to pay for it, so he wants to saddle the American taxpayers with that bill.

So, look, the bottom line is, we believe that border security is an important issue, and we, on this side, have been more than willing to invest in border security, and we are going to continue to do that.

As I mentioned before to the gentleman, President Trump's shutdown has put a strain on local and Federal law enforcement, undermining cooperation between them that helps keep our communities safe. While he is having his temper tantrum, you know, our local law enforcement officials are feeling the strain. That is why local law enforcement leaders across the country, including those serving in border States, are calling for an end to the shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to President Trump and Members of Congress.

[From the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, Jan. 22, 2019]

Law Enforcement Leaders Call for an End to Shutdown

Dear President Trump and Members of Congress: As law

enforcement leaders who support commonsense immigration

reforms consistent with public safety, we write to express

our deep concern with the partial shutdown of the federal

government.

State and local law enforcement work constructively with

federal law enforcement to combat drug trafficking, gangs,

organized crime, and other threats. In addition, the federal

government provides needed training, equipment, and funding

to state and local law enforcement agencies--support that is

now threatened by the ongoing shutdown. A prolonged shutdown

threatens this cooperation and strains local resources. It

also negatively impacts our colleagues in federal law

enforcement, forcing essential law enforcement personnel to

work without pay. These circumstances threaten public safety

and cannot continue.

Instead, we call on Congress and the Trump administration

to reopen the federal government without delay and work

together on bipartisan solutions to improve our immigration

system. We believe there is room for compromise.

While there are partisan disagreements over the need for a

border wall across our entire southern border, there is

widespread agreement over commonsense steps that can improve

border security. A bipartisan deal can build on these areas

of agreement, improving border security by focusing on ports

of entry, strategically deploying and using technology and

ensuring that CBP has clear sight lines all along the Rio

Grande. With nearly 700 miles of physical barriers already in

place along the southern border, these targeted investments

in border security can contribute to improving public safety

and reassuring the American people that the border is a

priority.

Similarly, bipartisan immigration reform will benefit the

United States as a whole. We believe that immigrants should

feel safe in their communities and comfortable calling upon

law enforcement to report crimes, serving as witnesses, and

calling for help in

emergencies. By reforming our immigration system to bring

undocumented immigrants into the legal immigration system,

immigrants are incentivized to become constructive partners

with local police in public safety initiatives. Bipartisan

immigration reform can provide undocumented immigrants with

an opportunity to earn citizenship, requiring them to pay a

fine and back taxes and pass a background check, encouraging

further civic responsibility. This would improve community

policing and safety for everyone.

The current impasse is an opportunity for Congress and the

Trump administration to strike a bipartisan agreement to end

the shutdown and fix our immigration system. The shutdown

prevents state and local law enforcement agencies from having

access to needed federal resources, strains federal law

enforcement personnel, and undermines cooperation between

state, federal, and local law enforcement.

We urge Congress and the Trump administration to break this

deadlock and improve public safety by reopening the

government without delay and working to reach a bipartisan

compromise that includes commonsense border security as part

of a comprehensive reform of the immigration system.

Thank you,

Chief Art Acevedo, LEITF Co-Chair, Houston, TX; Chief J.

Thomas Manger, LEITF Co-Chair, Montgomery County, MD;

Executive Director Dwayne Crawford, National Organization of

Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE); Executive Director

Chuck Wexler, Police Executive Research Forum (PERF); Chief

Ramon Batista, Mesa, AZ; Chief Roy Bermudez, Nogales, AZ;

Sheriff Tony Estrada, Santa Cruz County, AZ; Chief Chris

Magnus, Tucson, AZ; Chief Steve Stahl, Maricopa, AZ; Chief

Roberto Villasenor, Retired, Tucson, AZ; Chief David

Valentin, Santa Ana, CA; Sheriff Joe DiSalvo, Pitkin County,

CO; Chief Dwight Henninger, Vail, CO; Chief Peter Newsham,

Washington, DC; Chief Orlando Rolon, Orlando, FL; Sheriff

Paul H. Fitzgerald, Story County, IA; Chief Wayne Jerman,

Cedar Rapids, IA; Director of Public Safety Mark Prosser,

Storm Lake, IA; Chief Mike Tupper, Marshalltown, IA; Sheriff

John Idleburg, Lake County, IL.

Chief Michael Diekhoff, Bloomington, IN; Chief Scott

Ruszkowski, South Bend, IN; Chief Ron Teachman, Retired,

South Bend, IN; Chief James Hawkins, Retired, Garden City,

KS; Commissioner William Gross, Boston, MA; Chief Brian Kyes,

Chelsea, MA; Sheriff Kevin Joyce, Cumberland County, ME;

Sheriff Jerry Clayton, Washtenaw County, MI; Chief Ron

Haddad, Dearborn, MI; Chief Todd Axtell, Saint Paul, MN;

Sheriff Mike Haley, Retired, Washoe County, NV; Chief Cel

Rivera, Lorain, OH; Public Safety Commissioner Steven Pare,

Providence, RI; Chief Fred Fletcher, Retired, Chattanooga,

TN; Chief Frank Dixon, Denton, TX; Sheriff Ed Gonzalez,

Harris County, TX; Chief Andy Harvey, Palestine, TX; Sheriff

Sally Hernandez, Travis County, TX; Chief Mike Markle, Corpus

Christi, TX; Sheriff Lupe Valdez, Retired, Dallas County, TX.

Chief Mike Brown, Salt Lake City, UT; Chief Chris Burbank,

Retired/FBI National Executive Institute Associates

President, Salt Lake City, UT; Sheriff Dana Lawhorne,

Alexandria, VA; Chief Carmen Best, Seattle, WA; Sheriff Mitzi

Johanknecht, King County, WA; Sheriff David J. Mahoney, Dane

County, WI.

``The New York Times'' reported yesterday that the Trump shutdown has also impacted the FBI's efforts to crack down on child trafficking, violent crime, and terrorism, needlessly putting our communities and constituents at risk. I say to my friends: Look at what you are doing here. Look what is happening. This has to end.

For example, a long-term MS-13 investigation that has resulted in 23 gang indictments has been constrained because of the inability--get this--the inability to pay for interpreters needed to communicate with informants. That is insane, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I include that article from The New York Times in the Record.

[From the New York Times, Jan. 22, 2019]

Report Says Shutdown Is Impeding F.B.I.'s Law Enforcement Efforts

(By Katie Benner)

Washington.--As the partial government shutdown enters its

fifth week, the funding freeze has impeded F.B.I. efforts to

crack down on child trafficking, violent crime and terrorism,

according to a report issued Tuesday by the group that

represents the bureau's 13,000 special agents.

``The resources available to support the work of F.B.I.

agents are currently stretched to the breaking point and are

dwindling day by day,'' said Thomas O'Connor, the president

of the group, the F.B.I. Agents Association.

The report reflected the scope and seriousness of the

shutdown's effects, and came as President Trump and the

leaders of the two parties on Capitol Hill maneuvered to find

a path out of the impasse. The Senate scheduled procedural

votes for Thursday on competing Republican and Democratic

proposals, although neither appears likely to win sufficient

support to pass.

The Justice Department, which oversees the F.B.I., is one

of the government agencies affected by the partial shutdown,

along with the State Department, Transportation Department,

Agriculture Department, Interior Department and others.

Mr. O'Connor said that national security was directly

related to the bureau's financial security. ``It is critical

to fund the F.B.I. immediately,'' he said.

Because of the shutdown, the F.B.I. has been unable to

issue grand jury subpoenas and indictments in several cases

cited in the report.

An agent working on an MS-13 investigation that has gone on

for more than three years and resulted in 23 gang indictments

for racketeering, murder and money laundering has been

hamstrung by his inability to pay for an interpreter who can

communicate with his Spanish-speaking informants, the report

said.

The bureau has also not been able to pay its informants, an

important source of intelligence in terrorism, narcotics,

gang, illegal firearm and other national security cases. The

F.B.I. could lose those informants.

``It is not a switch that we can turn on and off,'' the

report said.

The 72-page report described how field offices in some

cases have run out of basic supplies like tires for vehicles,

copy paper and forensic supplies like DNA swab kits, and do

not have the funds to buy replacements.

The F.B.I. is not the only part of the Justice Department

struggling during the funding lapse. The department has had

to ask the federal courts to postpone some major civil

litigation, including a lawsuit over the lawfulness of the

Affordable Care Act, which the department no longer defends

in court.

The federal courts that hear Justice Department cases are

also running out of money. The nation's legal system could

soon be hobbled if Congress and the Trump administration

cannot come to an agreement to reopen the portions of

government that have been closed since last month. The

federal courts will run out of money by around Feb. 1,

requiring them to cut back to essential services at that

point and furlough some workers.

The F.B.I. Agents Association has been warning of the

negative effects of the shutdown for nearly two weeks.

On Jan. 10, the association and representatives from all of

the F.B.I. field offices signed a petition that said the

shutdown could create financial issues for agents that would

make it hard for them to pass the routine financial

background checks necessary for them to obtain certain

security clearances. They also said the pay freeze would make

it hard to retain and attract agents.

The latest report from the association, which is based on

the accounts of scores of agents, outlines more dire

consequences. The group allowed the agents to speak

anonymously to protect them from retaliation and other

negative repercussions.

Correction: Jan. 22, 2019--An earlier version of this

article incorrectly described the F.B.I. Agents Association.

It is a professional association, not a union.

Mr. Speaker, 40 million Americans struggle with hunger and food insecurity, and the Trump shutdown has needlessly made this terrible problem worse. Without funding for USDA in place, access to SNAP benefits for hungry families is threatened. Millions and millions of people will be affected.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities titled ``Many SNAP Households Will Experience Long Gap Between Monthly Benefits Even If Shutdown Ends.''

[From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Jan. 22, 2019]

Many SNAP Households Will Experience Long Gap Between Monthly Benefits

Even if Shutdown Ends

(By Dorothy Rosenbaum)

The Administration and states' efforts to issue February

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food

stamp) benefits early to avoid deep benefit cuts in that

month that might otherwise have occurred as a result of the

partial government shutdown have created a new problem: a

lengthy delay between February benefits (which most

beneficiaries received by January 20) and March benefits.

In turn, this will place additional strain on the emergency

food network and other community resources, which already are

stretched.

Most Households Receiving February SNAP Benefits in January; March SNAP

Benefits Remain Uncertain and at Risk

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on January 8

that it would work with states to pay the vast majority of

February SNAP benefits early, by January 20, to ensure that

SNAP has the funding to stay open through February 2019.

Despite the operational challenges of this approach, it

appears that every state was able to issue benefits early,

and in combination with SNAP's contingency reserve, there

will be sufficient federal funding to cover all February SNAP

benefits as a result.

These recent actions that USDA and states have taken

protect millions of low-income households--including millions

of poor children, parents, elderly people, and people with

disabilities--from having their basic food assistance cut

back substantially in February. With a continuing shutdown,

USDA would have to issue additional guidance to states

explaining whether it has other options available to cover

all of March benefits, or if not, how deep a benefit cut will

be required in March and how states should implement it.

Ending the shutdown, and funding and reopening the

Agriculture Department and other parts of the government that

now are shuttered, would be the best way to avoid cutting

millions of households' SNAP food assistance. For the

remainder of this paper, we assume that SNAP will receive

funding so that full SNAP benefits can continue in March and

subsequent months--an assumption that is far from assured.

Many Households Will Have a Long SNAP Benefit Gap Even if the Shutdown

Ends

Some states may be able to adjust their March issuance

schedules to partly address this issue, but if all states

paid February SNAP benefits on January 20 and don't make

changes to their March issuance schedules, we estimate that

about 90 percent of SNAP households that receive ongoing SNAP

benefits--about 15 million low-income households--will

experience a more than 40-day gap between issuances. Almost

60 percent will experience a gap of more than 45 days, and 25

percent will experience more than a 50-day gap.

States have long had the option to pay SNAP benefits to

different SNAP households on different days of the month.

Spreading payments across multiple days evens state workloads

across the month and helps to ensure that retailers that

participate in SNAP do not face a severe increase in demand

for food and staffing on the day that SNAP benefits become

available. Any given household, however, must receive its

SNAP benefits on or about the same day of the month, usually

resulting in only 28 to 31 days between SNAP issuance dates.

Only seven states issue SNAP to all households in the state

on the first day of the month. Most others spread issuance

out, often over ten or 20 days, and usually based on

households' Social Security or case numbers or the first

letter of the head of household's last name.

In fact, SNAP law requires that ``no household experience

an interval between issuances of more than 40 days. It is not

clear whether USDA will waive this requirement in response to

the unusual circumstances resulting from the shutdown--as

seems likely--or whether the agency will require states to

develop an alternative issuance schedule to avoid gaps of

longer than 40 days One possibility would be for states to

change March issuance to occur on March 1, and to stagger the

adjustment back to households' normal issuance cycle over

several months, as needed to stay within the 40-day maximum

interval between issuances.

Households in Almost All States Will See Gaps Longer Than 40 Days

The length of the gaps between February and March issuances

will vary by state, but the vast majority will be longer than

40 days.

States where all households will have 40 days between SNAP

issuances: Seven states, accounting for about 2 percent of

SNAP issuances nationally, issue SNAP benefits to all

households on the first day of the month. In these states,

the gap for ongoing SNAP households that received the early

February issuance on January 20 would be exactly 40 days, as

households would receive their March benefits on March 1.

Those states are: Alaska, Guam, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode

Island, Vermont, and Virgin Islands.

States where households will have 40-49 days between SNAP

issuances: Another 21 states issue all (or almost all) of

their ongoing SNAP benefits within the first ten days of the

month. In these states, SNAP households will experience a 40-

to 49-day gap in benefits. Those states are: California,

Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho,

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,

Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

States where some households will have 50 days or more

between SNAP issuances: About half the states have some

households that will have more than 50 days between SNAP

issuances if the states do not change their issuance

schedules. In states that issue some SNAP benefits for

ongoing SNAP households after the 10th day of the month,

those households will have at least a 50-day gap; households

that typically receive their benefits after the 15th day of

the month will have a gap of 55 days or more. These

households account for much of these states' ongoing SNAP

benefits: in 17 states, 50 percent or more of benefits will

be issued with at least a 50-day gap.

Long Period Between SNAP Issuances Will Cause Hardship for Some SNAP

Households

Assuming SNAP has full funding to continue in March, SNAP

households should have available the same total amount of

SNAP benefits over the three-month period (January through

March) that they otherwise would have. However, the change in

the timing of February's issuance and the long interval

between January 20 and a March SNAP issuance is likely to

cause hardship for some households and, as a result, increase

the demands for emergency food assistance and other community

services.

It's well documented that SNAP benefits normally run out

for most households before the end of the month. Within a

week of receiving SNAP, households redeem over half of their

SNAP allotments. By the end of the second week, SNAP

households have redeemed over three-quarters of their

benefits, and by the end of the third week they have redeemed

90 percent.

SNAP benefits are not intended to cover the entire month

for most households. The SNAP benefit formula assumes that

families will spend 30 percent of their available cash income

for food. Many households spend their SNAP benefits quickly

because they can only be spent on food. Cash income from

other sources is needed to pay for other expenses, such as

rent or mortgage, utilities, essential non-food items,

clothing, gasoline, and car repairs. As a result, families

use their SNAP benefits first to make food purchases, saving

cash for other needed expenses.

Moreover, SNAP benefits are low. SNAP is intended to

provide additional benefits to meet the cost of the Thrifty

Food Plan (TFP), the Agriculture Department's estimate of a

bare-bones, nutritionally adequate diet. But substantial

research has found that the TFP, which currently provides at

most $1.85 per person per meal for a family of three (the

average benefit is about $1.40 per person per meal), is not

sufficient to meet the needs of most low-income households.

Because SNAP benefits often fall short of meeting basic

monthly food needs, and because struggling households have to

use available cash to meet non-food expenses, families can

find themselves at the end of their 30-day SNAP benefit

payment cycle without enough food or the resources available

to buy more food. Research has found that food spending, food

consumption, and diet quality fall and that food insecurity,

hospital admissions, and school disciplinary problems rise

after households have exhausted their monthly SNAP benefits.

SNAP families often have to turn to social networks, food

pantries, and others to get through the month.

Given the experience of the strain on low-income

households' budgets and community resources under normal SNAP

issuance patterns--when the gap between SNAP issuances is no

more than 31 days--stretching that gap to 40 to 50 days or

longer could create substantial hardship and hunger and

sharply increase demand for local emergency food providers

and other community social services providers.

Many SNAP households may find ways to weather this

disruption. In general, households that participate in SNAP

demonstrate a capacity to manage limited budgets. But

extending the time between monthly benefit payments for the

vast majority of SNAP households will certainly cause

difficulty for some substantial number of poor families. Many

families may not be able to budget the advance food-

assistance benefit over an extended period of time for

several reasons, including:

Lack of information. USDA, state officials, retailers, and

state and local nonprofit groups and charities are working to

educate SNAP households about the early issuance of February

benefits and the fact that those households will not receive

another issuance in February. States are urging households to

factor the early payment and the delay until a March payment

into their February food budget. But USDA did not require

states to send SNAP households individual notices about the

change in February benefits. Instead, states are trying to

use newspaper stories, posts on their websites, fliers in

local welfare offices, and their partners' networks to spread

the news about the changes in the timing of SNAP benefit

delivery. Many households likely won't understand that the

benefits they received around January 20 are an early

issuance of their February benefit and that a lengthy gap

will ensue before they receive their next benefit insurance.

Confusion and misinformation. Reports are emerging that

there is considerable confusion about why households are

receiving early SNAP benefits for February and what to expect

in the future, especially given the uncertainty resulting

from the government shutdown. The confusion may result in

some SNAP households spending their SNAP benefits relatively

quickly, exacerbating their food shortages in the latter part

of February and the first part of March.

Household income fluctuations or unexpected expenses.

Households living with very low incomes experience shocks to

their monthly income on a routine basis. Workers can see

their hours and pay reduced with little warning. Individuals

with monthly income below the poverty line rarely have

savings to manage unexpected expenses. If their income drops

or expenses spike unexpectedly during this timeframe, perhaps

because of a high winter heating bill, households generally

will use available cash to manage their non-food needs,

leaving less money to buy food at the end of the SNAP payment

cycle.

Differing abilities among SNAP participants. Even with

advance warning and robust information, some SNAP households

can struggle to manage a significant shift in their budget,

particularly those with cognitive limitations. Managing a

major monthly budget shift like this could be difficult for

some individuals with mental impairments who do not receive

assistance to manage their benefits.

Conclusion

Even if the government shutdown is resolved quickly, the

disruption in the timing

of February SNAP benefits is likely to make it hard for many

SNAP households to meet their basic food needs as they wait

for their March SNAP benefit payment. Some 30 million people

in about 15 million households--the vast majority of SNAP

households--will not get their March benefit until at least

40 days after they received their February payment. Of these,

8 million people in more than 4 million households will need

to wait more than 50 days. This benefit disruption will

likely cause hardship for a substantial number of these

households. We expect more households to try to turn to

emergency food networks and other social services for help as

they seek to stretch their benefits across more days.

The crisis already has started. Access to food for SNAP beneficiaries also is being threatened by the shutdown, as reports indicate that 2,500 retailers around the country are unable to take any form of SNAP EBT payments.

As PBS reported over the weekend, the licenses for these retailers are on hold due to the shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the transcript of the PBS story.

PBS News Hour: Why Many Stores Can't Accept Food Stamps During the

Shutdown

(Jan 17, 2019)

While so far there have been no major lapses in benefits

for the nearly 39 million people who depend on food stamps

amid the partial government shutdown, 2,500 retailers around

the country are unable to take any form of SNAP EBT payments.

Judy Woodruff:

With the government shutdown now in its 27th day, many

federal programs have been affected, including food stamps.

So far, there is no major lapse in benefits used by nearly

39 million people each month. That's because of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. It found a way to pay SNAP

benefits, as they are called, earlier than normal.

February benefits, awarded through a debit-style card used

at stores, are being paid out this week. Several states,

including California and Florida, are warning users to be

careful and make sure they manage to make the money last

longer.

For 2,500 retailers, the problem is already here. That's

because those stores needed to renew a license for the

Electronic Benefit Transfer, or EBT debit card program, and

they failed to meet a deadline before the shutdown. Those

renewals, required every five years, are on hold.

Sarah Jackson is an employee at one store in Northern

Arkansas.

Sarah Jackson:

We have been completely unable to take any form of SNAP EBT

payments. Grocery stores need a license to process EBT

payments, and ours expired and was unable to be renewed on

schedule because of the government shutdown.

Because of an argument about a wall, I have to look people

in the eyes every day and tell them they can't pay for their

food, for their children's food.

Judy Woodruff:

Sarah Jackson in Arkansas.

We reached out to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a

response. A spokesperson wrote back--quote--``Over 99 percent

of SNAP retailers are able to accept benefits as usual. There

is a small percentage of stores that failed to complete a

required reauthorization process that was due on December 21.

These stores can take steps to update their status once

funding is restored''--end quote.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on and on about the impacts here. If we all agree we should end the shutdown, let's just end the shutdown.

Maybe my Republican friends should be calling Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to say, you know, let's come together and pass a bill to reopen the government without any conditions. That is what the American people overwhelmingly want.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle rushing to congratulate the President for his so-called compromise plan over the weekend. Let me repeat: This is no compromise at all. Just read the fine print.

The Washington Post said simply: ``The proposal on the Dreamers was whittled down to the point where it only undoes the disaster Trump himself is orchestrating.''

That would be like an arsonist offering you a fire extinguisher to put out the wildfire that they created. That is a compromise? Are you kidding me?

I have an idea. Mr. President, stop causing disasters. Congress should be more than a cleanup crew for your messes and failed policies.

Let me close with this, Mr. Speaker. When I think of the best of the United States, I think of the Statue of Liberty. It wasn't built from within our borders. It was gifted to us by friends from abroad, the French, to represent the freedom that we stand for, to welcome all those immigrants who come to this country, not to transport drugs or crime, as the President portrays, but to live a better life that they can find only here in the United States.

When President Trump thinks of the best of America, he dreams about a concrete wall, something to prevent immigrants from coming here, something that offends our allies, that would make our country, a global leader, turn away from the rest of the world at a time when American leadership is badly needed.

On top of all of that, a wall will not work. It would be ineffective. If we built a 50-foot wall, someone would build a 51-foot ladder.

As I said, it is a medieval idea when we have better solutions here in the 21st century: cameras, sensors, radar, and drones. If anyone doubts that they work, go visit the border, as I have.

Democrats are for border security. The minibus includes $328 million in new funding to help secure the border. This is what professionals are asking us for. A concrete wall is being discussed as a viable option only at the President's rallies and in the right-wing media.

Here in the real world, hundreds of thousands of people are struggling. They need us to reopen the government today, right now, not years from now, as the President has suggested.

These bipartisan, bicameral bills will get us there. This continuing resolution to fund the Department of Homeland Security will get us there. Let's end this shutdown and reopen this government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I appreciated the first 60 seconds of his comments where he went through that kind of policy work and that kind of procedural work, the work that we do.

We are on opposite sides of this issue. The Rules Committee is the single most partisan committee on Capitol Hill, and, yet, we always find a way to come together and share the debate to move forward. But after that first 60 seconds of process, we went into 4 minutes of the President and accusations, one after another after another.

Now, I have only been in this institution for five terms, Mr. Speaker, but that is long enough to understand that there is only one way to turn a bill into a law, and that is if Congress proposes it, Congress passes it, and the President signs it. Now, my good friend from Massachusetts knows as well as I do the President has not vetoed one single spending bill that the Congress has sent to him. The government is not shut down because the President is rejecting bills that Congress has passed. The government is shut down because Congress hasn't passed a bill.

Mr. Speaker, if you would just listen to that opening statement, your blood pressure probably gets as high as mine does: failure after failure after failure, disappointment after disappointment after disappointment, embarrassing event after embarrassing event. I will remind my colleagues that we are where we are because we came together and passed more spending bills on time before the end of the fiscal year than any other Congress in 22 years.

Now, we could have gotten them all done. My Democratic friends in the Senate didn't want to move those along. They had perfectly legitimate policy reasons for doing that. I am not going to question their motives; I will question their wisdom.

We have got more done together than we ever have before, and we could build on that, I tell my friend. We could build on that or we could go into our corners, we could put on our jerseys, and we can throw accusations out as fast as we can invent them in our head. That is where we are.

It is the month of January, Mr. Speaker, the very first month of this new Congress. We have new leadership. It has been more than a decade since I have seen a face like yours in the Speaker's chair. We have spent 338 hours in this Chamber--338 hours in this Chamber--this month working on appropriations bills. Not one has gone to the President's desk for his consideration.

My friend from Massachusetts is right when he talks about pain in American families. My friend from Massachusetts is right when he talks about the expectations folks have of Congress and how we should do better. My friend from Massachusetts is right when he says that this is not what any one of us was sent here to do. We were sent here to solve problems.

I promise you, unless your family is different from mine, Mr. Speaker, unless your relationships are different from mine, I have never solved a problem in my family by telling my loved ones how much it is their fault, how much they need to change, how much they are on the wrong side of an issue and we are not going to do anything until they come around to my way of thinking. It hasn't been a particularly successful method for me.

Now, I look back over these last 33 days. The President sent the Vice President to Capitol Hill. He came with the OMB director, Mick Mulvaney.

He said: I told you what I needed to pass the bill. I told you what I needed and what I thought was important for America and for national security. But I will tell you what; I don't have to have exactly that. I can come off that. I can negotiate down from that. I can move away from that. Let's talk about what the other options may be.

No response.

The President this past weekend: I want to break this impasse; I want to find a way we can move forward; it is not about who wins. We all need to win as Americans. We all want to do better as Americans. I am going to offer to do something that no President has been able to do. I am going to offer to put into statute protection for the young men and women in the DACA program. I am going to offer to put into statute protections for those men and women in temporary protected status that has since expired. I am going to put that into statute for the first time.

As the press release is dated, Mr. Speaker, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi rejected that offer 7 minutes before it was made.

I am not saying that that is the right answer. I am not saying that that is the best we can do. I am not saying that is where the conversation ends. I am asking my friends: When does the conversation begin?

More than 300 hours we have spent talking amongst ourselves and produced nothing to go to the President's desk. Sadly, I know that this issue has elevated beyond where my friend from Massachusetts, even as chairman of the powerful Rules Committee--and it is the powerful Rules Committee, it can move absolutely any measure through this House, and the Rules Committee has been incredibly successful. The House is moving appropriations bills like nobody's business, Mr. Speaker, because when you are in the majority you can do that. You can do my way or the highway.

That is the way my friend described President Trump's attitude. I will just remind my friend that is actually what we have today in this bill. My ranking member asked if we could consider some amendments to this bill, and he was told no. My friend didn't say: Let's just come down here and have amendments willy-nilly. We will have a preprinting requirement, we will do what we call a modified open rule, just so some of our new Members can have their voices heard, their constituents' voices heard in some way.

The answer was no; straight party-line vote. All the Democrats said: no, we are not going to allow any other voices to be heard; and all the Republicans said: yes.

I don't fault my friend for that. That is not a personal slight of any kind, Mr. Speaker. The Rules Committee is the Speaker's committee. It does the work of the Speaker. As powerful and talented as my friend from Massachusetts is, it is his job to implement the Speaker's will. Now, to his credit, he has been very bold in terms of trying to open that committee up. He has been very bold in trying to make sure more voices have been heard. But we find ourselves trapped in this appropriations cycle. We haven't actually gotten to where my friend is going to be able to do his very best work. We are still trapped in trying to do the business of last year.

But my friend's pointing out that the President's my way or the highway--which is inaccurate--is not helpful. My pointing out that this bill is Speaker Pelosi's way or the highway may be accurate, but it still isn't helpful. We have got to have a conversation with one another. I can go down the list of the ways that the President has said he is willing to come to the table, but he is sitting at the table alone.

I am a vote counter, Mr. Speaker. I know how to count votes in this Chamber. I have no doubt that the rule that my friend from Massachusetts is proposing is going to pass this floor today. I have no doubt that the underlying appropriations bill is going to pass this floor. This rule includes something called martial law, Mr. Speaker, which means they can bring up anything they want to any time they want to, no preprinting, and no opportunity to review it, none of those activities that we would say bring out the very best in transparency here. If any of those bills come up, they are going to pass.

There is no confusion in this Chamber about who has the votes to win. The confusion in this Chamber is how it is we get from where we are to where our constituents want us to be and doing the same thing over and over and over again isn't going to get it done.

It is my first time carrying a rule in the minority, Mr. Speaker. I knew when I walked down here this morning my job was to lose. I don't mind losing.

But I do mind when the American people lose, and the American people are losing right now. There are no winners right now.

I know the men and women of this Chamber. There are some talented orators here. We can absolutely trade insults and accusations until the sun goes down. But there are some talented policymakers here, too. There are some talented negotiators here, too. As long as the President is sitting at that negotiating table alone, we are not going to get to a solution. But he doesn't have to be there alone. I appreciate his making the invitation, and I hope, as my friend from Massachusetts said, we will learn to take yes for an answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I appreciate that admonition from the Chair.

I was looking aggressively at all the words my friend had to say for what that thing was that was going to break this logjam, what that thing was that was going to bring people together, what that olive branch was that he was extending to succeed where others had failed.

I heard that if we only come together and do it his way, that we could all just get along, and I have no doubt that that is true. That is not what a negotiation is. That is not the way this Chamber works.

We have got to send a bill to the President's desk. When the President starts vetoing bills, then start accusing the President of being the grit in the cog in this legislative wheel. We don't have agreement amongst ourselves.

We were up in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker, and one of my appropriator friends was celebrating the bills that were coming to the floor today and celebrating how pleased she was that so many of the pro-life provisions had been stripped out, celebrating that so many of the dollars that we would be sending overseas would no longer be encumbered by pro-life provisions, that folks would be able to use them in any way that they wanted.

Well, I have no doubt that she was pleased by those things, but we are not all pleased by those things, Mr. Speaker. This doesn't represent the compromise solution that everybody is on board with, as my friend would have you believe.

The financial services language in this bill, that never made it through conference. We couldn't agree, not amongst ourselves in the House and the Senate, not in a bicameral way.

My friend who is the ranking member of the Financial Services and General

Government Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Speaker, shared last night that there were 20 different pieces of bipartisan legislation that were in the original bill, 6 pieces of bipartisan legislation that had been signed off on by the then-ranking member and, now, chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee that we could have moved forward, that we could have made a difference--again, stripped out for reasons beyond my understanding.

This isn't complicated if folks are sincere about coming together around the table. It is impossible if folks would rather trade insults than solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), a friend who has been dedicated entirely to solutions in his short time in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wasn't kidding when I said I was looking for the olive branch in what my friend had to say. I genuinely believe, if you lock me and the gentleman from Massachusetts in a room together for 24, 48, maybe 72 or 96 hours, we could come to a solution and get us out of this box. But it does take sitting down with people that you trust to get a hard negotiation done.

I shared in the Rules Committee the other night, Mr. Speaker, and I will share with you today, the story of one of my constituents. His name is Doug Jenkins, and this is his story:

Jeanette Jenkins, age 76, of Lawrenceville, Georgia, passed away on Saturday, April 28, 2018. Jeanette was a member of Hebron Baptist Church for over 25 years and currently a member of First Baptist Church of Atlanta. Jeanette had a passion for serving in many capacities of the ministry, as a Sunday school teacher and volunteering in various activities. She was an avid reader and enjoyed sewing. She is survived by her loving husband of 57 years, Doug.

Jeanette didn't die of natural causes on April 28, Mr. Speaker. She was just running out to pick up some drugs at the drugstore. Her husband stayed at home. She was leaving the subdivision, waited for the light to turn green, and pulled out, when a van full of gentlemen who should not have been in this country, who were not in this country legally, ran that red light and killed her. She never recovered consciousness; died in the hospital later on that evening.

We can describe the President of the United States and his commitment to border security as a temper tantrum, but it is not true. We can describe the President of the United States and his commitment to border security as some sort of political fixation, but it is not true.

The stories that my friends tell about Federal employees missing paychecks, those are painful, those are hard, and we can do better. But the stories that each and every one of us have about members in our community who have lost loved ones, not for a week, not for 2 weeks, but forever, because we didn't do our job protecting American borders-- I want to do better.

I was pleased to see the President talk about agricultural visas and how he wanted to expand those programs. It is important to us in Georgia. I am excited about EB visas, trying to get more investment in this country. We need more. I come from a community of immigrants. America's history is founded in immigration, and our future is founded there, too.

But nobody else could have protected Jeanette Jenkins. Nobody. My local law enforcement can't do it. My governor can't do it. That responsibility falls to the national government and the national government alone. The President campaigned on it; the President was elected on it; and we have an opportunity to come together and do it.

I don't want to kick the can down the road for another year. I don't want to kick the can down the road for another decade. I don't want to have another Jenkins family come into my office and say: Rob, where were you? What did you do when you had an opportunity to make a difference?

I regret that we are in the box that we are in. It is a box of our own making. But we can get out of it, and we can make America better as a result of it. It doesn't have to be a lose-lose. It can be a win-win.

Nobody is winning today. Nobody has benefited by the shutdown today. I cannot negotiate by myself. The President cannot negotiate by himself. We need folks to say ``yes'' to the invitation. Take the gentleman from Michigan's advice: Ask your leadership, as we have asked ours, to lock yourself in that room together and don't come out until you have an answer.

My friend from Massachusetts says he has no preexisting stipulations about what the package has to look like. I hope that is true. It has not been my experience--stripping out all the pro-life provisions, for example. That was something that your conference wanted. Not working on the CFPB provisions that the Financial Services Committee had done, not including those 20 bipartisan bills, there are conditions that folks have, as they should, because they were elected to this House, and they are obligated to serve their constituents.

We can get this done, Mr. Speaker, but I commit to you, we are not going to get it done by pointing the finger of blame at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We are going to get it done by coming together right here and doing our job, the task the Constitution assigns to us, and, that is, agreeing on a provision amongst ourselves and sending it to the President for him to accept or to reject.

I believe in what we can do together, Mr. Speaker, and I hope my colleagues will again take ``yes'' to an invitation to the negotiating table as an answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that Mr. Joyce is still on the floor. Mr. Joyce, I think, put his finger on the problem, and the problem is: Gee, I really like the Interior bill. It has been reached in a bipartisan fashion, and it is wonderful, but, by the way, the package is not perfect because it doesn't do what I want done or what the President of the United States wants done on one specific bill, Homeland Security.

My goodness, I don't know why we didn't have an opportunity to conference on that bill. You brought it to the floor on December 20, 10 days before the end of the year--10 days before the end of the year. If it was so important, why did we wait 11\2/3\ months to bring it to the floor? How could we conference a bill like that? There was no time.

The reason you didn't bring it to the floor is you didn't have the votes. Mr. Joyce, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Cole all came to this floor when we considered another bill that was what the United States Senate Republicans wanted in their bills, and so we said we need to open up this government.

Mr. Graves talked about and Mr. Joyce talked about consensus. Mr. Graves used the word ``consensus.'' Hopefully, we will have a consensus on this floor.

Shutting down the government of the United States is stupid, irresponsible, and dangerous. That ought to be a consensus on this floor. And if that is the consensus, as it certainly is mine and certainly on my side of the aisle, then the cure is to open up government.

We have offered 9, 10, 11 different alternatives to do that, most of which

were their bills formed in the last Congress under the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate. But, sadly, they won't take ``yes'' for an answer, so they keep the government shut down.

Only six Republicans in the last vote voted to open up government. Every Democrat, save one--and that had nothing to do with opening or shutting down government--voted to open up this government of the people and for the people.

I served on appropriations for 23 years. I never voted to shut down the government, because the government is there to serve the people, and we swear an oath to protect and preserve. Somebody is now going to say: Well, we put something in a bill and you voted against it, Hoyer, and that was an appropriation bill. By the way, when I voted against it, it passed.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been trying to open this government since the first day of our majority passing their bills. When I say ``their bills,'' the Republican bills; they were out of the Senate.

On January 3, the Democratic-led House passed a package of six appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019 based on the language approved overwhelmingly in the Republican-controlled Senate, alongside a continuing resolution for the seventh bill funding Homeland Security, which, I will remind you, was not brought to this floor until December 20, 2018.

What a high priority they placed on that. They were in charge for 11 months and 20 days, and they never brought it to the floor. High priority item, obviously.

Senate Leader McConnell passed a bill through the Senate on a voice vote, I think, unanimously, and sent it to us, so government would be opened. We would have voted for it, all of us, but they didn't bring it to the floor.

They brought a bill to the floor that said they wanted to do something on the wall. Why? Because the President wanted to do something with the wall. Why is the government shut down? Because the President will not allow the Congress of the United States to act to open it up. And Senator McConnell, for unknown reasons, believes that we have to have a by-your-leave, Mr. President, to open up this government.

This is historic that we have shut down the government for this length of time. It is unforgivable that we have put 800,000 of our fellow citizens--people who work for this government, people who help millions of people every day to get assistance they need or documents that they have to have to settle on a home, or make sure that there is training for firefighters, or any one of thousands of different, critically important jobs that the Federal Government does--out of work. They, on the Republican side of the aisle, my colleagues, have done that. They have shut down the government. We have not.

Unless you think taking a hostage and demanding a ransom and having us not agree to that ransom is shutting down the government, and, therefore, you have to vote over and over and over and over and over again to keep the government of the people shut down.

During the second week of January, we passed, on an individual basis four appropriations bills that passed the Republican Senate last year 92-6. Is that a partisan act on our part offering four bills that passed the United States Senate, which they controlled, 92-6? When I say ``they,'' I mean, the Republican Party. These are not Democratic bills we are trying to pass through with some majority we have. We took their bills. Why? Because we have a consensus: shutting down the government is the wrong thing to do.

And very frankly, I think privately, if you are asked that question, presumably most of you respond with a consensus answer: ``You are right, it is. We shouldn't do that.''

As the urgency of this shutdown grew last week, House Democrats attempted to send a continuing resolution at last year's funding levels.

Now, it is important to understand, last year's funding levels are the levels that were set when the Republicans were in charge of the House and the Senate, not Democratic numbers.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue about doing the right thing: opening up the government. So we were prepared to send your bills, and you voted against your own bills.

I can't understand it, and I can't understand why anybody in America doesn't understand that we are for opening up government and the Republicans are repeatedly and consistently voting not to open up the government. House Republicans rejected those four bills that were Republican bills.

Next, we voted to add an amendment to reopen the government through February 8, a short term--give us time to talk and discuss and see if we can come to agreement. It seems to me to make sense. That is usually what short-term CRs are for. We may yet find out tomorrow whether Senate Republicans can agree to reopen government under those terms. I hope they do.

In the meantime, late last week, we also brought a continuing resolution to the floor to reopen the government through February 28. Okay. Maybe we need a longer time to negotiate.

Democrats have been trying to end this Trump-McConnell shutdown nonstop since taking control of this House. That work continues this week as we bring to the floor a new appropriations package.

As we debated the Senate-authored versions--let me say that again, the Senate-authored versions, not our versions--of funding bills earlier this month, some of my Republican colleagues came to this floor and said that their objection to it was because it did not reflect the House position.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, you just heard Mr. Joyce talk about the Interior bill. Presumably, if the Interior bill were here alone, he would vote against it because it didn't have national security interest in it. On that theory, we ought to vote against 11 of the bills that we don't like individually, but you brought them as packages last time. I thought that was a good example.

We are going to do it again. But the fact of the matter is it is not because you are disagreeing with your bill--you come as the ranking member, I say to my friend, Mr. Speaker--but because of some other issue. We can all find some other issue.

So I think there is a consensus that shutting down the government is the wrong thing to do, and unless you believe that shutting down government is okay, you will vote ``yes'' on these bills to open up our government, the people's government. Serve your constituents and the American people, generally.

I don't know why you keep voting ``no'' just because the President tells you to do so. That is not what your constituents sent you here to do. Our constituents sent us here, Mr. Speaker, to serve them. The writers of the Constitution of the United States didn't say the President tells Congress what to do. They said Congress tells the President what to do, and he executes that policy.

That is what separation of powers is all about. Not for Senator McConnell to say: Unless the President says it is okay, I am not going to put a bill on the floor. What kind of misreading of the Constitution of the United States is that?

We are the policymakers of America. We are the ones who send to the President. Yes, he has a role, a critical role. He can veto, and we need two-thirds to override his veto, but it is not to say: Mr. President, we won't even put it on the floor for the Representatives of the people of the United States to express their opinion on unless you say okay.

Let's get a spine. Let's stand up. Let's act like the Article I institution we represent. Let us be independent.

Let us have what democracy demands: differences of opinion argued out, not by taking hostages, not by demanding ransom, but by discussion, by debate, and by votes. That is what democracy is about.

And if it becomes common practice for President Trump or any other President to say to us: ``If I don't like what you are doing, I am going to shut down your government''--that is what is happening here.

It is not just about a wall. It is about whether tomorrow the President is going to make some other demand and shut down the government, or tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow when the President makes another demand and shuts down the government.

When will it stop, my friends? Maybe never, but it will not continue with my vote.

Vote for this bill. Open up the people's government. Stand up and be what America believes you are, an independent, coequal branch of the Government of the United States. Vote ``yes'' for your country and for the people you represent.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the consolidated package of six appropriations bills and reopen the federal government.

This unprecedented shutdown has ground our country to a halt.

Every day this shutdown continues, families in my district suffer a cruel fate. From missed paychecks, uncertainty in food benefits, to delays in critical efforts that protect the health and safety of our country.

The shutdown impacts Universities conducting critical research, in my region, at the University of Toledo. Twenty-five percent of the University of Toledo's research awards are from agencies affected by the shutdown. Anticipated grants are now delayed.

This week, nine of UT's researchers on aerospace projects for NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland will be placed on leave without pay.

Aquatic ecologists fighting invasive Asian carp in the Great Lakes have been put on hold.

The health of the Great Lakes is in danger. This is not the time to risk the vitality of our region on partisan bickering. I would like to include in the Record the following article about the impacts of the shutdown on EPA inspectors unable to protect our water.

I call on all my colleagues to support this effort and reopen government.

[From the New York Times, Jan. 9, 2019]

Shutdown Means E.P.A. Pollution Inspectors Aren't on the Job

(By Coral Davenport)

Washington.--The two-week-old shutdown has halted one of

the federal government's most important public health

activities, the inspections of chemical factories, power

plants, oil refineries, water treatment plants, and thousands

of other industrial sites for pollution violations.

The Environmental Protection Agency has furloughed most of

its roughly 600 pollution inspectors and other workers who

monitor compliance with environmental laws. Those scientists,

engineers and analysts are responsible for detecting

violations that endanger human health, as they did, for

example during an August 2018 airborne inspection that found

that oil and gas fields in Karnes County, Tex., were leaking

illegal levels of chemicals into the atmosphere, in violation

of the Clean Air Act.

While the inspection personnel represent a relatively small

proportion of the E.P.A.'s total of about 15,000 workers,

their absence increases the chances that, either by design or

by accident, companies might emit illegal levels of

contaminants into the air or water without detection, for

weeks on end, according to people familiar with the E.P.A.

inspections.

``There are plants that discharge wastewater into streams

and rivers, places that store hazardous chemicals in

containers that could leak--we show up and test these places

to see if they're meeting pollution laws,'' said Garth

Connor, a furloughed E.P.A. inspector based in Philadelphia

who has been off the job since Monday. ``Now there's nobody

out there to check if they're complying.''

Mr. Connor inspects for air and water pollution and

hazardous waste disposal at sites throughout the Mid-

Atlantic.

The inspectors ``are the cops on the beat,'' Cynthia Giles,

who headed the E.P.A. enforcement division during the Obama

administration, wrote in an email.

She noted that, in 2017, E.P.A. workers performed about

11,700 such inspections, averaging to about 225 inspections

per week, according to the agency's records. The numbers

suggest that hundreds of such inspections may have already

been canceled this year, with the potential for hundreds more

to not take place should the shutdown continue for days or

weeks more. ``Those weeks can never be made up,'' Ms. Giles

wrote. ``In addition to the violations not found and the

inspections not done, there is also the impact of no

inspectors in the field doing unannounced inspections,'' she

added, asking: ``Will that result in more violations because

companies know E.P.A. isn't watching?''

Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the E.P.A., did

not respond to an email requesting comment. On Wednesday,

President Trump formally nominated Mr. Wheeler, who was

confirmed last year as the deputy chief of the agency, to

formally take over as the agency head. When on the job,

E.P.A. inspectors regularly cite companies for violations

that endanger human health. For example, during an April 2016

inspection at a Firestone rubber plant in Sulphur, La.,

E.P.A. inspectors discovered that the plant was emitting

illegal levels of butadiene, a carcinogen, into the

community.

A telephone message left at the plant was not returned.

Some E.P.A. inspections are unannounced. Others take the

form of two- and three-week on-site visits.

Still other examinations don't happen on-site: E.P.A.

experts sitting in labs or at computers will review documents

detailing a plant's own reported emissions of pollution or

wastewater, checking whether legal limits were met or

violated. These activities, too, are on pause during the

shutdown.

Inspectors need to read those reports ``and say, `no, you

can't do that,' '' said Eric Schaeffer, who worked at the

E.P.A. on enforcement from 1990 to 2002 and now runs the

Environmental Integrity Project, an advocacy group. ``Then

they follow up and go on-site. But none of that is

happening.''

Unlike other federal agencies affected by the government

shutdown, the E.P.A. continued to operate through the week of

Dec. 24, but pollution inspections, along with most of the

rest of the work of the agency, had ceased by New Year's Eve.

Mr. Schaeffer recalled the effect on pollution enforcement

of the longest government shutdown in history, which ran from

Dec. 16, 1995, to Jan. 6, 1996.

``That was one of the worst years ever at the E.P.A. in

terms of numbers of inspections and enforcement,'' he said.

He added that the damage to the work of pollution inspections

didn't end completely once the government reopened.

``Everything was ground to a halt, bogged down. You can't

just restart at 100 miles per hour. You have to reschedule

everything.'' Another former E.P.A. official who now lobbies

on behalf of industry offered a different view, saying that a

shutdown of even a few weeks was unlikely to make much

difference in the amount of illegal pollution emitted or

detected.

``What you have is a delay,'' said the former official,

Jeffrey Holmstead, who served in the E.P.A. during both Bush

administrations and now works for some of the largest coal

companies and electric utilities in the country. ``I don't

think it's true that all of a sudden, because E.P.A.'s

inspectors are not there, that most people will take

advantage of that,'' he said. ``There may be a few folks who

believe they can get away with more, but I don't think that's

the biggest issue.''

Among Mr. Holmstead's clients are several companies that

have been cited for violations by the E.P.A., including the

electric utility Southern Company, which has had 52 sites

with violations over the past five years, including 23 sites

with current violations, according to E.P.A.'s enforcement

database. An email sent to a Southern Company spokesman

requesting comment on the violations was not answered.

Another of Mr. Holmstead's clients, the electric utility,

Ameren, owns 23 sites that have been cited for pollution

violations over the past five years. A telephone message left

with an Ameren spokeswoman was not returned.

In many years, about 10 to 20 percent of the E.P.A.'s

pollution inspections turn up significant violations,

according to the agency's data.

Most operators ``really are doing a good job,'' said Adam

Kushner, a former top legal official at the E.P.A. ``But

there's a 1 percent that are bad actors, who will continue to

do what they're going to do, unless inspectors find them. And

then there are sites where the operator just may not have

identified the problem, and they're putting bad stuff out

into the air without knowing it.''

Angela McFadden, a furloughed E.P.A. environmental engineer

who oversees state permits for pollution discharge and has

worked as an on-site inspector dealing with clean water

violations, said she ``always'' found violations during her

time as an inspector.

For example, she said, in inspecting municipal water

systems in rural areas she frequently found that cities and

towns over-chlorinated or under-chlorinated their water--not

a legal violation, but a potentially harmful situation that

is easily corrected when identified by an inspector.

Ms. McFadden recalled a more frightening inspection she

once performed in Pennsylvania that found excessive nitrate

levels in a municipal water supply. Nitrates can sap oxygen

from the blood and, when found in high levels in drinking

water, are linked to ``blue baby syndrome,'' in which infants

struggle to deliver enough oxygen to their bodies.

``Right now, E.P.A. is not monitoring any of that,'' Ms.

McFadden said. ``Things are falling through the cracks.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in very strong opposition to the joint resolution.

Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank our full ranking member, Ms. Granger from Texas, my dear friend and colleague, for allowing me to chair this important subcommittee and for allowing me to manage this time today.

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to acknowledge my friend and colleague from the other side of the aisle, Ms. Roybal-Allard, who I look forward to working with over the next 2 years, she in her capacity of chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and me in my role as ranking member, the highest member of the Republican Party on that subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I also see my friend, Mrs. Lowey from New York, the full chairman, as well.

Mr. Speaker, how did we get here? The fiscal year that the government operates on started in September. It runs from September to September, so it started in the 115th Congress.

The Appropriations Committee, of which I am very proud and thankful to be a member, is a very special committee. For those who are watching us now, I would offer, and I have said time and time again, the Appropriations Committee is something special.

I am the only Member on the Appropriations Committee from my great State of Tennessee. And I admire every Member in this House and the positions and the committees they serve on, but the Appropriations Committee is a problem-solving committee. It is a committee that funds things, funds the government on the discretionary side, including Homeland Security.

During the course of the debate during this long and arduous shutdown--and let me say this: To the men and women who are working all across this Nation without pay, thank you. I sympathize with you--not empathize, but sympathize. This is wrong.

About 24 percent of the government is shut down, and that is never a good situation for us to be in as a nation; and that is why we must come up with a cure that will work, something that will pass the House, something that will pass the other Chamber.

And I add, today, as we debate this bill and as I oppose this bill, in the other Chamber, the United States Senate is debating bills. I would submit that the solution could and should come from the United States House of Representatives, and that solution is plain and simple.

The American people want and deserve border security. The American people want and desire a barrier. Call it a wall. Call it a fence. It is something that the American people want. It has been proven, whether in San Diego, El Paso, or other jurisdictions, that these walls do work.

But regardless where we stand on that issue, I support the President's position. The President has made it very clear that he is not going to sign a bill that does not include border security with a wall, or an analogous vehicle to a wall.

So if we keep coming back to the table, even with the best intentions, even with the best passions, even with the best hopes to help get the government open and running again and protect our borders--and I do believe Members on both sides of this aisle and in the other Chamber and, of course, in the White House want border security, want our country kept safe. The humanitarian crisis is outrageous. Women and children are being abused. Drugs are pouring in. But above all else, we need to secure our southern borders. We need to keep the American people safe.

The cure lies in a compromise. The cure ought to come from this body and if our friends in the majority would see fit to put a sufficient number on the table as part of a compromise.

Think of the boldness and courage of our President who stood up and basically said: I will come up with a cure for DACA, a solution on

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield as much time as she may wish to consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the ranking member on the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

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

Members on both sides of the aisle can clearly show that today has been a day of speeches, of passion, and of good faith beliefs on both sides of the aisle. I want the American people to know that the people making these arguments on both sides of the aisle have bona fide ideas about how to get the government open, how to keep us safe, and how to move forward from this very difficult position.

I was an attorney for 24 years in my prior profession, and in my closing arguments, oftentimes I would point to the facts that were most beneficial to my case and to my client. But there was a vehicle that came up while I was practicing; it was called mediation. Mediation was a way that the parties could come to the table and all get something and all give something in return.

We have heard the same broken cure come from the majority since they became the majority. That cure--albeit in their view, their version of how to move forward--will not work. The practical constraints will require an agreement that the House, the Senate, and the White House all can agree on. That is the practical reality.

We agree that the hardworking men and women of the Coast Guard, TSA, and contractors are suffering, and we have got to stop that suffering. But when we know that the vote today--which I will oppose with my vote on behalf of my constituents. When we know that that will not work, then we have got to come back to the table with something that will work.

To continue to press for something that will not reopen the government and will not get our task done--and, again, I stress the fact that we are going to end this fiscal year in September of this year. In a few short weeks, when we move past this crisis, we are going to, in our respective subcommittees--and there are 12 on the great Appropriations Committee, including this great Subcommittee on Homeland Security. Ms. Roybal-Allard and I will be debating this again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank her for her hard work in these difficult times. This is fraying on me, this is fraying on our friends in the majority, and this is fraying on our staffs and the American people. But the solution is clear: Give us--give the American people--funds for a border wall as part of an overall compromise to get border security, to get the government open, and, yes, to look at other ways to keep our southern border and the American people safe.

So my ``no'' vote today is not a ``no'' vote just to say no. My ``no'' vote today is a statement to say to our friends in the majority, as well-intentioned as they may be--and I can stress to my colleagues that we on the minority side are well intentioned. It is not about good faith or bad faith; it is about bona fide differences.

The American people elect us to lead. Our great Republic is not an easy way to govern, but, Mr. Speaker, I would submit it is the best way to govern. I know that it is hard right now for some people not getting a paycheck to understand, but in our great Republic, it takes two Houses of Congress. It takes an executive, the President, and, yes, it takes the Supreme Court as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will close in opposition. I will close with the best intentions, and I just implore and I plead

with my friends in the majority: Put something on the table that will fund border security, that will give us a wall, that will give us a barrier where it works, and we will open the government and keep the American people safe.

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