Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow gun owners to legally transfer their firearms to individuals who have been approved and are participants in TSA's PreCheck program.

TSA PreCheck identifies trusted travelers and, thus, allows expedited movement through airport security. In order to receive TSA PreCheck, one must submit an application, have an in-person interview, and go through a background check and fingerprinting.

Fingerprinting is not required, currently, to purchase a gun; thus, a TSA PreCheck background check is more stringent. If an individual can pass this background check and be admitted to this Federal Government program, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to borrow a firearm from a friend. They have already gone through a more extensive background check system than to acquire a weapon. The current background check does not require fingerprints; a TSA PreCheck does.

Membership to TSA PreCheck must be renewed every 5 years. Again, the TSA PreCheck process requires fingerprints and an in-person interview. The process, currently, for purchasing a gun requires neither of those under Federal law. It appears, then, that the TSA PreCheck process is a more extensive process.

H.R. 8 restricts not only the purchase, but also the everyday gun transfer for law-abiding citizens. This amendment and many other Republican amendments--I think I had five others that were not made in order--seek to give some relief to law-abiding citizens from this overarching and burdensome legislation.

In H.R. 8, we are not only talking about the purchase of firearms, we are talking about the transfer of firearms, which includes lending your firearm. The Democrats have proposed a bill that would criminalize millions of law-abiding Americans. Because this bill uses ambiguous, overarching, and vague language, it encompasses so many potential situations. This amendment seeks to give some relief.

If we are going to allow Americans to be given expedited and reduced screening in our most sensitive and secure environments in the U.S. airport getting on a plane, why wouldn't we allow them to lend a gun to their friend?

H.R. 8 criminalizes me and others just for handing someone a firearm who isn't a direct family member or in other very narrow situations. In fact, as I said yesterday, the language in this bill is so ambiguous. What is ``imminent danger''? There is no definition in the bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

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

Mr. Nadler, in his statement, said that my amendment would allow dangerous people to get guns. I have to say I disagree.

I am the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security subcommittee that deals with TSA, and the TSA PreCheck system is more stringent than the background check currently required to obtain a gun, when you purchase it. Again, it requires a fingerprint background check and an individual interview. Neither of those are required right now.

We had offered a number of amendments to help this bill become less burdensome on law-abiding citizens, and so I am happy that one was at least ruled in order, this TSA one, and I would ask my colleagues to please vote ``yes'' on it.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank Mr. Raskin for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, want to reduce gun violence. I think there is just a difference of opinion on how we get there.

Unfortunately, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, although well-intentioned, will not reduce gun violence as Mr. Raskin said, and instead it will turn everyday, law-abiding individuals into criminals and could actually do more harm than good.

I grew up in a family that didn't have guns. After my dad returned from World War II, he stopped hunting. So, because I wasn't around them, I have to admit I had an irrational fear of guns for awhile. It wasn't until I became an adult that I got educated.

I remember I first went to a debate where the person who was talking for gun rights said: Do you know who follows the laws? Law-abiding people follow the laws. Who doesn't follow the laws? Criminals do not follow the laws.

So although well-intentioned, often laws are unenforceable, and criminals just do not follow them.

H.R. 8, again, I believe is well-intentioned. But it will not solve the problem. H.R. 8 would not have prevented any of the mass shootings in the last 20 years, not one of them.

I studied them because I am on the Judiciary Committee along with Mr. Raskin, and we heard this bill in that committee. In most cases, guns were obtained legally. Recent attackers have passed background checks to acquire their firearms, including the attackers at the Thousand Oaks, California, shooting; the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania shooting; the attacker in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Florida, shooting; the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida; and the Las Vegas, Nevada, shooting. None of these attacks would have been prevented if H.R. 8 or H.R. 1112 were law.

Then, the attackers in the Columbine High School Colorado shooting used straw purchasers for their weapons, an act that is already illegal and has been illegal since at least the 1960s.

Adam Lanza, the attacker in the Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut, shooting used his mother's firearms which were legally purchased by his mother. So as you can see--and I have each one of them listed how the attackers got their guns--H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 would not have prevented any of these shootings.

Not only would none of the mass shootings be prevented by H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, but the Department of Justice under President Obama said that in order for universal background checks to actually work and be enforceable, a Federal gun registry is needed. Yet this legislation in H.R. 8 specifically prohibits a registry; thus, again, it is unenforceable.

The fact is criminals don't get their guns legally and will not go through a background check to get their guns even if this bill were signed into law.

A recent Department of Justice report of prison inmates that used guns in their crimes showed that 56 percent obtained their guns illegally and another 25 percent received them from family members-- which, by the way, family members are still allowed to get the guns under this law.

It is obvious, then, that they did not get their guns from a gun show or private sales, as Mr. Raskin is concerned about.

H.R. 8 will also turn everyday, law-abiding citizens into criminals if it becomes law.

Let's look at the amendments that were rejected by the Democrats in the Rules Committee and in the Committee on the Judiciary that offered to protect law-abiding citizens from becoming criminals.

First, there was an amendment--I thought commonsense--that someone thinking of committing suicide would be exempted from temporarily turning over their gun to a friend, and it is not allowed under this bill. They would become a criminal.

So, somebody who wants to commit suicide could not transfer their gun to someone else.

If a law-abiding citizen wanted to let someone temporarily use their gun on their own property, they would become a criminal under this bill.

If a farmer or rancher wanted to temporarily lend a gun to a ranch hand for the purposes of ranch activities, the farmer would become a criminal under this law.

If a domestic violence victim was in fear for her life and wanted to temporarily borrow a gun from a friend to protect herself, she would become a criminal under this law.

Let's also look at some commonsense amendments rejected by the Democrats that would have prevented undue burdens and duplication on law-abiding citizens who have already passed a background check but now have to go through another background check under this law.

People who have security clearances. This is the application to get a government security clearance, page upon page, background check, extensive background check. Yet, someone who has this and has gone through this still has to get another background check.

People who have a concealed carry weapon issued by a State, they have to go through another background check.

People who have already gotten a gun permit from States which require them; they have to go through another background check.

People who have global entry, who have gone through a background check, they have got to do it again under this bill.

Even law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers have to go through another background check under this bill.

This is placing undue burden on law-abiding citizens.

Now I want to share testimony from a young woman from the Judiciary Committee. This woman was a victim of rape on her college campus. And the reason I am bringing it up is because well-meaning gun control laws actually prevented her from carrying a gun to school because the State she traveled through did not allow her to carry a gun in order to defend herself.

This is a clear example of how law-abiding citizens--not criminals, law-abiding citizens--who follow the law and how this young woman and others like her were actually harmed by well-intentioned gun control laws.

As a survivor of domestic violence, I know all too well how hard it can be to protect oneself or find a lifeline out. My abuser often controlled all my finances. I wouldn't have been able to pay for a background check or a gun.

Sometimes getting a gun from a friend could actually be your only option; yet, unfortunately, under this bill, I tried to offer an amendment, but it was rejected.

Now let's turn to H.R. 1112, which changes the length of time that a background check has to be completed from the current 3 days to 10 business days and then another 10 business days for an appeal. So it could be 20-plus days.

The reason I am bringing this up is I want to tell you a story--a real story--about Carol Bowne. She was a New Jersey woman who was stabbed to death while waiting to be approved for her firearm application.

She already had an order of protection through the courts, but that wasn't enough. She needed more than just that piece of paper.

H.R. 1112 will make the realities of Carol's story happen across the country, putting millions of women and law-abiding citizens in danger. Women who seek avenues of protection will be forced to wait almost a month--20 days to a month--like Carol. How many women will potentially suffer like Carol?

H.R. 8 also has other problems.

Unfortunately, the debate in the Judiciary Committee was cut short. Many commonsense amendments were not even heard. Only 10 amendments out of 100 were heard before the chairman cut off debate.

Because of the rush to get this bill through, there is another problem. There is vague language that is not defined and, thus, is open to interpretation.

I know, in some of the amendments, the majority party has tried to give an alternative to my good, commonsense domestic violence amendments, but it doesn't do any good. And this is the reason; it is because the language is so vague.

It says: Under H.R. 8, a person is allowed to temporarily transfer a firearm if it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

The question is: There is no definition of this, so how long is a temporary transfer? Who determines that? Does the victim determine it?

Who determines if there is imminent death? Does it qualify if a victim of domestic violence thinks they will be killed? Or does the person transferring the gun have to be in the same room and there be some kind of shootout and they throw a gun to them?

What do ``imminent danger'' and ``imminent death'' mean?

With something as important as the Second Amendment, I think we owe it to the American people to do our work and take as long as we have to in order to have a fair and open debate on major pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of things that were said previously.

I had sponsored an amendment, as a survivor of domestic violence, to allow victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse who have orders of protection to be able to get transferred a gun if they might be in fear for their life.

As I have said, often victims of domestic violence don't have the financial means or they are so restricted by their perpetrator that it is difficult for them to go out and purchase a gun, let alone get a background check, and so they might have a friend whom they can borrow it from.

Now, in response, I think, Mr. Raskin, if I am not mistaken, said that the Democrats did help domestic violence victims. I just don't think that their amendment cuts it, and I am going to read the amendment if this is the one that the gentleman is talking about.

It says: A temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the

imminent death or great bodily harm--and then here is the amendment-- including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse.

I would say just because you add the words ``domestic violence,'' ``victims of domestic abuse'' doesn't mean this is going to help; and the reason is simply because of what I said before, that these terms in here are really unclear. I really would like somebody to explain, and they are not defined anywhere, who determines prevent imminent death or great bodily harm?

So, let's say I am a victim of domestic violence and I think my perpetrator is going to kill me. Does imminent death and, in this word, say, last only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death? So does that mean the person who--my friend who can lend me a gun has to be right there in the same room and see that there is imminent death coming?

I mean, there is no definition here. So it is unclear to me that this would help at all.

Also, what is the definition of ``temporary transfer''? How long is that? How long is temporary transfer? Does that mean, you know, just enough time you can throw somebody a gun while they are imminently in death? I mean, do you have to be right there? What does this mean? There is no definition.

So, if we are going to proceed with this, I think that we should at least define what these terms mean. Therefore, I really wish that my amendment that said that victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse that have an order of protection through the court--through the court-- would be allowed to at least borrow a gun to defend themselves from, maybe, a friend.

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

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

I would like to refute some of the things, or talk about some of the things said by my friends on the other side.

One of the things that I do want to talk about is that Mr. Raskin said that my amendment is such a narrow exception for domestic violence victims. I had a broader one in Judiciary Committee, if the gentleman remembers, and Chairman Nadler told me that it was too broad, that it was too vague, so that is why I made it very specific.

If the gentleman would like, I will make it broad again.

Also in the Rules Committee, there was another amendment as well, and we are both on Rules, too, of course.

There was a broader one from Mr. Scalise, who is a victim of gun violence. He had an amendment that was ruled out of order. That basically said any victim of domestic violence, which was broad, but then he had another subsection that said victim of domestic violence or sexual abuse that has an order of protection. So we covered both, yet it was ruled out of order. So we really tried.

Now, the other thing that you brought up, that it is very clear what imminent danger means, and that would cover somebody, and surely a domestic violence victim would not become a criminal under this law. Well, I don't think it is very sure.

So I ask Mr. Raskin, my colleague, if he would be open to removing the word ``imminent'' and just say ``danger,'' instead of ``imminent danger,'' because to me, ``imminent danger'' means you have to be right in the same room, you know, and throw somebody a gun or something. I mean, to me, the word ``imminent'' needs to be removed from the language.

The other thing I would like to talk about is the number of times now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said: Oh, so many people support this universal background check.

Well, I disagree. I disagree, because there is proof right in Maine. They had a ballot measure, and it was rejected by the majority of the people.

I suppose it depends on how you ask the question, but I just don't think that when you get into the details of how it takes away our fundamental Second Amendment rights and actually burdens law-abiding citizens and actually may harm people, some of these laws--like was the case with the young woman who testified in Judiciary who said that good-intentioned gun laws actually prevented her from defending herself, and she was raped.

So I would say I have some disagreements with some of your statements.

I also want to point out that there are many things that we can do on a bipartisan basis, and this obviously is not bipartisan. I am a co- chairwoman of the Women's Caucus in Congress, and I have talked to my counterpart, a very nice woman and Congresswoman. We really do want to work on bipartisan solutions to gun violence. I would say one of those is let's really concentrate on mental health issues.

Now, we have done some things in the past. We did the Fix NICS Act, which we passed last year on a bipartisan basis, which really is an attempt to fix the national background system so that local jurisdictions actually report when there are problems, which I think is very valuable.

We also did legislation in a bipartisan manner that would protect our schools more.

Here is another thing we could do in a bipartisan manner. As you have noted, 3.5 million people have been stopped by NICS since 1994 from getting guns, and 112,000 were stopped just last year. But you know what? Only 12 of those 112,000 were actually prosecuted. Why? I mean, we have laws on the books now, and we are not even enforcing them. So I think that is another thing we can do on a bipartisan basis.

Again, this bill, I believe, does more harm than good. I do think my colleagues are well intentioned. I do believe that all of us, whether we are Republican or Democrat, want to reduce gun violence.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make my amendment in order, which would allow domestic violence and sexual assault victims with orders of protection to be exempt from the gun transfer prohibitions. This amendment is crucial to saving lives.

As a survivor of domestic violence, I know what it is like to be in fear for our lives.

This commonsense amendment is clearcut. If you are a victim with an order of protection, you can borrow a firearm or transfer a firearm to you. It is important, because victims don't often have the means to purchase or go pay for a background check.

The Democrats have presented a letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence as a reason for not needing my amendment. However, with all due respect, the National Task Force does not speak for every victim, and they certainly do not speak for me. In fact, they never even contacted me, and I have been an outspoken person saying I am a survivor of domestic violence since I ran for Congress. I am also the person who sponsored the amendment to extend the Violence Against Women Act, yet they have never talked to me or reached out to my office.

The majority offered a political amendment on domestic violence, which I have already talked about, which really does not do any good, because the definitions of imminent danger are not defined, and it will not be carried out and will not be effective.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we all want to solve gun violence in the United States, but H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 will not solve the problem.

As co-chairwoman of the bipartisan Women's Caucus, I am committed to working across the aisle on solutions we can all agree on. However, this is not one of them. We can talk about mental health. We can talk about strengthening the NICS background check system even more. We can talk about enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

H.R. 8 will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by making everyday gun transfers a crime and putting those who seek to protect themselves in jail for wanting to do so.

H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 will place an undue burden on citizens who already have a background check. For instance: security clearance, global entry, State-issued permits, et cetera.

These pieces of legislation put law-abiding citizens in danger by disarming them and emboldening criminals. The bad guys never follow the law. In fact, I believe that this legislation violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution because it does not prohibit undue fees for background checks and, thus, some people cannot afford them

and, thus, not be able to get a gun to defend themselves.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) for yielding.

Today, I have heard a lot of amazing things. My colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Johnson from Georgia, said, I believe, caravans trying to cross the border are a figment of our imagination. I don't know about you, but I think all we need to do is turn on the news. I have seen thousands of people traipsing thousands of miles to get into our country. In fact, there has been some violence. So I just don't understand that statement at all.

And Speaker Pelosi and Chuck Schumer recently said the crisis at the border is manufactured. I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that I live in the State of Arizona, a border State, and I have visited the border, and I have met with the border agents and border officials at the border.

They have told me, firsthand, there is a crisis at the border. They have told me, firsthand, when I asked do we need a border fence, they said, yes, it is part of the solution.

You know, I am here today to ask for reason. The Republican legislature, the majority last year, tried to pass legislation that would not only secure the border but, as a compromise, would have given legal status to the DACA recipients. Not one Democrat voted for it.

Can we please get together and solve this problem?

It is unfortunate that the President had to resort to this because Congress, the Democrats, would not vote for border security. And so I support the President in his declaration for emergency. I support him in protecting our Nation--his number one duty--and I oppose this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Cole for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, we will amend the rule to bring an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, which I have titled the Protecting Women Act of 2019.

Without action, the Violence Against Women Act will expire tomorrow at midnight. Madam Speaker, I am a survivor of domestic violence, and as a survivor of domestic violence, I am calling on all of my colleagues to reauthorize this critical bill that helps women and children who have experienced the trauma and pain of abuse and who need our support.

While we may not agree on every provision of the current Violence Against Women Act, I think we can all agree on the overall importance of this law and the programs and services it provides.

Since the Violence Against Women Act was first signed into law in 1994, it has played a vital role in supporting American women who have experienced domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, and trafficking, and improving our response to these crimes while we work to prevent them altogether.

Progress has been made, but there is more work to do. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about one in three women and one in six men experience some form of contact sexual violence during their lifetime.

I am confident that every Member of this body believes those statistics are unacceptable. I know that we agree that we must end domestic violence and care for victims left in its wake. We need to enhance awareness, work for prevention, and ensure those harmed physically and mentally have access to the resources and support they need.

A clean extension of the Violence Against Women Act through the end of the fiscal year ensures that the law and the programs it supports remain in place.

It ensures there isn't a lapse in services for those in need while we discuss ways that we can strengthen and improve it together.

As a co-chairwoman of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I want a bill that every woman in this Chamber can support. I know that my co-chair of the Caucus, Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence, has also told me she wants a Violence Against Women Act that every woman in this Chamber can support.

That is why, if the previous question is defeated, Republicans will seek a vote on a clean extension of the last Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. This will give us time, Republicans and Democrats, to work toward a bipartisan solution that helps women and girls, protects religious liberties, and protects women and children.

I hope all my colleagues will recognize the importance of acting now to prevent a lapse in authorization and defeat the previous question so that we can work to protect the vulnerable from these heinous crimes.

Mr. Chair, I am proud to come to the floor today to discuss an amendment to H.R. 840, the Veterans' Access to Child Care Act, that I have cosponsored with my colleague, Representative Susie Lee from Nevada.

The Veterans' Access to Child Care Act will provide veterans who need to attend regular or intensive mental healthcare appointments with no- cost childcare during their appointments. Our amendment will make sure these childcare services are covered at our local VA clinics, such as the one in my district in Peoria, Arizona, along with the main VA facilities.

No veteran seeking these types of mental health services should be left behind. It is our responsibility to ensure that, under this legislation, all our eligible veterans who need mental health services are able to go to a facility operated by the VA Department, even if it is located separately from the VA's general healthcare facility.

My home State of Arizona is blessed to be home to so many of our Nation's veterans. In fact, I have 70,000 veterans in my district alone. However, it deeply troubles me that veteran suicide rates are 9 percentage points higher in Arizona than the national average.

Expensive childcare should not hinder Arizona's returning veterans the ability to access needed mental healthcare or other prolonged service-connected disability care needs.

We need to do everything we can do to help our Nation's greatest heroes. They risked it all for us. It is inexcusable for us, after our veterans have given so much to defend our freedoms, to permit policies that don't give them the best resources to recover and heal. We relied on them to protect us; now we must step up and help them.

I thank Representatives Brownley and Roe for their work on this legislation, and Representative Lee for her effort on this much-needed amendment.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment to give eligible veterans choice and access.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate a life well-lived by Eva Margarita Bravo. At 58 years old, Eva passed away in a Mesa, Arizona hospital with her family by her side on December 7, 2018.

Eva was a native Arizonan, born on July 21, 1961 and was raised with seven brothers and sisters. She lived in Mesa for over thirty years of her life, where she raised two children, Cealia Bravo and Roberto Bravo III (Bobby), with her husband of thirty years, Roberto Bravo Jr. Eva faithfully served her community as a Medical Assistant, then a Certified Nursing Assistant. She proceeded to follow her passion and had a long, successful career in baking and cake decorating.

Her son, Bobby, has served on my staff both in Washington, D.C. and Arizona for five years while taking care of his mother in her last few years of life. His dedication to his mother and family while working with distinction on my staff is admirable and inspiring.

Eva was a great mother to her children. She leaves behind a legacy of love for her family and committed service to her community. It is impossible to write into words the impact and value a person's life has on another, but Eva will be greatly missed by her family, friends and the Mesa community. On behalf of Arizona's Eighth Congressional District, I extend my deepest condolences to Eva's children, Cealia and Bobby, their family, and their friends who mourn this loss.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon from Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I agree with Representative Scanlon. I want to open the government. Republicans want to open the government. Democrats want to open the government. So I respectfully ask House and Senate Democrats to stop holding our Federal workers hostage.

You know, on December 20, I voted for and Republicans voted for in the House a bill right here, standing right here on December 20, that would have kept the government open, and then we would not have had any of these discussions or need for these bills, because the government would still be open. Unfortunately, not one Democrat Member of the House voted for it.

I, too, have Federal workers in my district who are hurting, these great men and women who work hard each and every day of their life, single mothers who are waiting for their paycheck. So I call on my colleagues across the aisle to please come to the negotiating table.

I believe the number one rule in Negotiations 101 is you have to show up. Repeatedly, we have seen the Republicans and the President request the Democrat leadership to come and negotiate, give a counteroffer. They refuse to show up.

I say, if the House Republicans already passed a bill that would have kept the government open and now we are at this impasse, but the Democrat leadership refuses to come to even a negotiating table or a counteroffer, I just don't know what to say.

Well, Madam Speaker, once again, we have returned to the House floor to consider yet another short-term spending bill that once again is most likely going nowhere. For what is now the fourth time in 3 weeks, we have returned to the House floor on a rule to consider an appropriations bill as part of the majority's efforts to fund the government without working with President Trump.

Unfortunately, we think this effort is just as shortsighted as the previous bills over the last couple of weeks, and today's rule is again destined to ignore the fundamental realities at issue.

But first, as I said before, let's take a quick look at how we got to this point.

On December 20, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would have funded the government and prevented the shutdown. It included a continuing resolution through February 8. It included disaster relief and funding for border security that the Democrats say they want, but are not listening to our own law enforcement on the border on their recommendations. That was a bill the majority of the Senate supported and the President said he would sign.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the Senate refused to take up the House measure, mostly because of their 60-vote rule, where they need Democrats to get on board, and parts of the government shut down when appropriations lapsed. Again, not one single Democrat in the House voted for this bill, which would have avoided this whole, entire partial government shutdown.

On January 3, when the new Congress was sworn in, the House took up a continuing resolution through February 8, only this time swept clean of essential disaster relief funding or funding for border security. To date, the Senate, as we know, has refused to take up this measure, and the President has said he would not sign it because it doesn't have additional money for border security.

Last week, then again, the House took up four more spending bills, that covered four of the outstanding seven appropriations titles. Unfortunately, like the week prior, these bills also did not include funding for border security. Even more unfortunately, these bills were ones that were produced by the Senate alone during the last Congress, and that did not even reflect any work by, or input from, the House of Representatives. Just as publicly stated the Senate has not taken up any of these bills during this Congress and has no plans to take this one up either.

On Tuesday, the majority put up yet another continuing resolution. This one a suspension bill, to fund the government through February 1, but, yet

again, omitting any funding for border security, which is the key ingredient to get negotiations done. That bill failed to reach the two- thirds threshold to pass under suspension of the rules.

And then, yes, yesterday, the House took up a supplemental disaster appropriations bill that was intended only to provide just over $12 billion in necessary disaster relief for affected communities. This was a bipartisan bill. We could have passed it out of here.

But instead of bringing up this bipartisan disaster relief bill to the floor, the majority chose to play politics once again and decided at the last minute to attach yet another continuing resolution to this bill, again, without any border security funding, and, again, to fund the government through February 8. That bill passed the House yesterday, yet there is no sign that the Senate ever has any intention of taking that bill up. In any event, the President has made it clear, and I believe the American public has made it clear, that we want border security.

And that brings us to today. I have to tell you, I am running out of ways to describe what the majority is doing, but I imagine the Speaker knows where I am going with this. Once again, the majority is bringing up yet another continuing resolution--this one goes to February 28-- and, again, with no funding for border security. And yet again, it is clear that if we pass this bill, the Senate will not consider it and the President will not sign it because it does not include funding for border security.

We now see the common thread in all the majority is doing: bringing up bills again and again and again, to fund the government, without dealing with the fundamental problem. All of these repeated continuing resolutions are the same. Only the date has changed. All of them fail to fund border security, which Americans have told us again and again they want and need. And all of them are continued avoidance of what needs to happen in order to end this shutdown: real, sincere negotiations with the Senate and the President over border security.

I feel that this is an exercise in futility. The majority is failing to acknowledge the crisis happening at our southern border. As you know, I am a Member from Arizona, a border State. When will the Democrats get serious about ending this government shutdown and come to the negotiating table to work out a deal that has a real chance of being signed into law?

Listen, I know that border security is a crisis. The other night on TV, when Speaker Pelosi and Chuck Schumer said it is a manufactured crisis, I can tell you firsthand, that is not accurate. We do have a crisis on the border, and we need to fix it. I have been to the border. I have been to the border several times. I recently visited the United States-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona, where I met with Customs and Border Protection agents. The crisis we are dealing with at the border is not just illegal immigration, they said. There is illicit drugs flowing through our borders, which are killing our children and adults, human trafficking, and they told us that dangerous cartels are using our loose immigration laws to exploit the women and children, having them travel thousands of miles.

Do you know that Doctors Without Borders say that, I believe one in three of these women have been sexually abused? This is unconscionable. We need border security. And it is the law enforcement, the Customs and Border Protection, that have said repeatedly, have told me personally, yes; part of the solution is a border fence.

In 2006, Democrats supported a border fence. Chuck Schumer and then- Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton funded $52 billion for 700 miles of fencing. Now the President is asking for $5.7 billion. That is only 1/10th of 1 percent of the Federal budget. And, unfortunately, because of their refusal to add this to any bills, it has shut down the government.

This rule before us today is just another ploy. Democrats are refusing to negotiate and refusing to deal with this national security issue. Please, let's stop these games and pass a real bill that funds border security, that opens the government, that funds disaster relief, send it to the Senate, and have it signed into law.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, this is the fourth time we have deliberated on this floor, in the last 3 weeks, on the exact same type of package.

The date keeps changing--sometimes it is February 1; sometimes it is February 8; sometimes it is February 28--but it is all the same. None of them include funding for border security. It is the fourth time that the same result will ensue. The House of Representatives is in a perpetual cycle of Groundhog Day that we cannot seem to escape.

Representative Scanlon and I serve, of course, on the Rules Committee together, and it is Groundhog Day. We just say the same things each and every day. Really, let's get to the negotiating table, and, really, let's get something done.

The majority seems to be insistent on reviewing these same appropriations packages again and again, fully knowing that the Senate has made clear they will not take up these bills because there is no border security in them.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention that this bill is again coming to the floor under a closed rule. Of the eight bills the House has considered under a rule this Congress, seven have been closed, with no opportunity for Members to present new ideas and new amendments.

Now, I know that Chairman McGovern has assured us he wants a more open process, and I believe he is sincere in his assurance. We saw a more open process on the disaster supplemental bill we considered earlier this week, which has so far been the outlier of this Congress, with 15 amendments made in order on a structured rule. I look forward to considering more rules that have a more open process than the one we are considering today.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the incredible work Barbara Plante has done for the United States Air Force and Luke Air Force Base in my home district. Barbara is retiring this month after an incredibly distinguished career serving our country. She has served the Air Force for 35 years, including 26 of those years at Luke Air Force Base.

Currently, Barbara serves as the Deputy Director of the Community Initiatives Team at Luke Air Force Base. She was on the public affairs team for Luke Air Force Base from 1995 until 2013, except for when she was deployed to Afghanistan in 2011 and 2012. During those years, she welcomed local officials to the base, educated the public, and helped Luke Air Force Base with recruitment. In 2013, she transitioned from public affairs to help lead the Community Initiatives Team, where she learned and concentrated on state laws and zoning.

Luke Air Force Base is home to one of the largest fighter wings in the world, the 56th Fighter Wing, in the middle of a growing metropolitan area. The Air Force strives for safe and supportive environments around its bases, leading to Luke Air Force Base's creation of the Community Initiatives Team in 2003. While not every base has one, Barbara's leadership has demonstrated how successful they can be. She has been essential to the base and the 56th Fighter Wing's success.

Barbara has built tremendous support for the base in West Valley. Her commitment to educating city officials, real estate professionals, politicians and residents about the state laws restricting development around the base and why they are important has helped secure Luke Air Force Base's future for years to come. As of 2017, the base supports approximately 15,070 jobs, $923 million in wages, and $2.4 billion in direct and indirect economic impact to Arizona.

Barbara's warm personality and desire to build and maintain strong relationships has helped her successfully manage the growth at Luke Air Force Base and the surrounding community. Her team works with 11 cities, Arizona state government and the federal government. Her efforts have seen direct results, including how our surrounding cities work together for the greater good of the community and the base. Barbara's work has created a fantastic and trusting relationship between our communities and Luke Air Force Base.

Barbara's great achievements reflect her selfless dedication to serving our community in Arizona. Her passion for Luke Air Force Base and her devotion to her work for the Air Force has opened many doors for the base. It is an honor to be among the many in congratulating her on this most worthy accomplishment.

I wish her my sincerest congratulations and hope her well-earned retirement is filled with good health and much happiness.

Thank you very much, Representative Hartzler; it was really eye-opening when we went down to the Arizona border. I have been there a number of times, but I learned directly from not only the high- ranking officials, but from rank-and-file agents.

When I asked if a border fence was necessary to protect our Nation, they said, absolutely, yes. That is part of the solution. We have a major problem.

Today, I would like to focus on some people from Arizona, Representative Hartzler, who were killed. They were killed by illegal immigrants who came into our country illegally. So I rise today because our open borders have caused a humanitarian and security crisis.

When the Democrats say that this is a manufactured crisis, that is absolutely false. I have seen firsthand and have talked to people firsthand. We have a crisis on our southern border.

Arizonans know the challenges of an unsecured border all too well. Just ask Mary Ann Mendoza whose son, Brandon, a Mesa, Arizona, police officer, was killed in a head-on collision caused by an illegal immigrant.

The illegal immigrant who killed Brandon was arrested in the nineties for burglary and assaulting a police officer. He never showed up for court and was reapprehended at the border in 2002 attempting to come back into our country. Unfortunately, a lenient judge let him stay. Because of that, this law enforcement officer was killed.

Arizona Border Agent Brian Terry's life was taken by a group of traffickers hoping to smuggle drugs into our country. When Agent Terry and three other border agents tried to stop their illegal activity, they shot him. Perhaps had our border not been so porous, Agent Brian Terry would still be with us today.

A rancher from Cochise County, Arizona, Robert Krentz, was killed by an illegal immigrant at home on his ranch.

Unfortunately, there are way too many stories just like these of innocent people getting killed by illegal immigrants.

I live in a border State. I have been to the border a number of times. Most recently, I visited the United States-Mexico border in Nogales with the gentlewoman, where I met with Customs and Border Protection agents. I asked the agents if they thought the border fence would help. As I said before, they said absolutely, yes, that a fence will help in our efforts to combat illegal immigration and other illegal activity across the border.

The crisis we are dealing with at the border is not just illegal immigration. There are illicit and illegal drugs flowing through our borders; human trafficking; and, as we learned from the agents, dangerous cartels at the border that are exploiting vulnerable children and mothers. In fact, according to Doctors Without Borders, more than 30 percent of the women who come to the southern border have been sexually assaulted on their journey.

This is something that is up to Congress to fix. We need border security. The fence is just part of the solution.

We need technology like sensors and drones, so we have eyes where we can't have our agents. We need more boots on the ground. We have funded more agents on the ground. Let's hire more agents, so our resources aren't spread too thin.

What we are asking for is a multifaceted approach to border security. Democrats know this. In 2006, Democrats supported a border fence. Chuck Schumer and then-Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted to fund $52 billion for 700 miles of fencing. Now we are asking for $5.7 billion. To me and you, that is a lot of money, but it really represents only one-tenth of 1 percent of our spending.

On December 20, the Republicans in the House voted to keep the government open and secure the border. Unfortunately, not one Democrat voted for the bill. Now we are in a situation where the government is shut down. They won't come to the table. They won't negotiate. They don't have a counteroffer.

I am willing to sit down and listen to their suggestions, but they haven't brought forward any suggestions. They are refusing to negotiate and refusing to deal with this national security crisis.

While Democrats refuse to come to the negotiating table, our brave Border Patrol and ICE agents continue their mission of protecting our borders, even without a paycheck. We should be supporting them by giving them the tools and resources they need to do their jobs and keep our Nation safe.

Instead, unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues are ignoring the public calls for border security. In fact, when Democrats repeatedly say, ``We are for border security,'' I think their talk is talk. They need to walk the walk and listen to our law enforcement that tells them what we need. Part of that is a border fence.

President Trump addressed the Nation this week. Now it is up to Congress to address and solve the issue with legislation. Let's stop these political ploys and fund comprehensive border security.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the wonderful life of Mrs. Clela Virginia Wanamaker. At 97 years old, Clela passed away peacefully at her home in Sun City West, Arizona on December 9, 2018, with her husband of 72 years by her side. Clela was born on January 9, 1921, in Iowa. Clela had a long and distinguished career as a registered nurse. She worked at Holy Family Hospital in Estherville, Iowa, before she and her husband moved to Wayzata, Minnesota in 1949. There, she worked as an industrial nurse for 27 years at Honeywell and retired in 1979. She married Bohn E. Wanamaker, her ``Mr. Wonderful'', on October 17, 1946, in Estherville, Iowa. They lived most of their married life in Wayzata, Minnesota, retiring in Sun City West, Arizona in 1980.

Clela was an accomplished archery champion. Her husband, Bohn, was her coach and was one of four qualified archery coaches in Minnesota in 1966. Her first award came in 1966 when she finished 10th in the 82nd National Archery Tournament where she zeroed in 492 arrows and was the first to record a ``Six Gold'' by shooting six arrows in succession into the gold center of the target at 40 yards. Remarkably, Clela accomplished that feat after beginning serious practice less than a year earlier. Almost as incredible was that she was 45 years old at the time. The following year she added two silver and two bronze medals in the nationals. In 1969, she qualified for the world championships. Also, in 1969, she won the first of seven Minnesota state championships. In 1971, Clela was the first woman in the United States to shoot 1,200 scores back-to-back. Only three other women at that time had ever shot a 1,200 in the United States. Clela later became involved in pistol shooting and won many awards in that sport as well.

Clela was also an active member of the community. More than 30 years ago, Clela made a decision to do something about obesity in the Sun City West community and started a diet group, Win and Lose. Clela was nominated for the ``Salute to Senior Service Contest'' for recognition of her 31 years of volunteer services, helping hundreds of men and women lose their excess weight and get healthy. As a result of this contest, in early summer of 2013 she was named Arizona Outstanding Senior Volunteer. She continued this club until about six months ago. She was also an active member of Arrowhead Republican Women.

Clela was a valuable member of her community and she will be greatly missed by her family, friends, and the Sun City West community. On behalf of Arizona's Eighth Congressional District, I extend my deepest condolences to Clela's husband, Bohn Wanamaker, their family, and their friends who mourn this loss.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the members of the Arizona delegation to join me.

Mr. Speaker, I and the rest of the Arizona delegation want to take a minute to honor the life of Staff Sergeant Maximo Flores.

On December 6, Staff Sergeant Maximo Flores was killed during a midair collision involving a marine refueling aircraft and a fighter jet off the coast of Japan.

Staff Sergeant Flores always wanted to be a marine, and he did not waste a moment. After his 2009 graduation from Valley Vista High School in Surprise, Arizona, in my district, he enlisted in the Marines and pursued the aviation field.

His military service made his family proud, even as he lived in distant locations such as Japan, where he most recently served with Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 152 at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni.

As Americans, we are unconditionally bound together by the value of freedom. Staff Sergeant Maximo Flores enlisted in the Marines and gave his life to keep our country safe. His service symbolizes the values America stands for. It represents the freedom he fought for, and for that I am eternally grateful.

We can never repay the debt our Nation owes Staff Sergeant Flores or his family, but we will always remember him and how he led his life in the service of others.

His family and loved ones are in our prayers as they grieve during this trying time, and Arizona is forever grateful for Staff Sergeant Flores' service and dedication to our country.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to applaud the American Legislative Exchange Council members who are joining us tonight and their CEO, Lisa Nelson, and her staff. I thank them for attending.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5509, the Innovations in Mentoring, Training, and Apprenticeships Act.

Presently, the American economy faces a shortage of 6 million skilled workers, a number expected to reach 11 million by 2022. This workforce shortage will only continue to grow unless we focus on training the next generation of skilled workers.

In Arizona, we are seeing rapid growth in the science, technology, and engineering fields. Our aerospace industry is being strengthened by the creation of university partnerships like the ASU Research Enterprise and Aerospace Arizona.

In order to support these growing industries, we must take action. This legislation is a step in that direction by providing grants for innovative approaches to STEM education and related workforce development. The bill expands the workforce pipeline in STEM fields through experiments with apprenticeships and other applied learning opportunities for college students and places a focus on the enhancement of 2-year degree programs and technical skill certificates in order to meet the shortage of qualified candidates at all levels.

I want to thank the majority leader for bringing this legislation forward, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6229, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Reauthorization Act of 2018.

As a cosponsor of this legislation, I understand the importance of positioning the United States as a strong leader in scientific research and development. This bill supports basic quantum information science research and standards development, and provides funds to address fundamental research gaps, create a stronger workforce pipeline, and allow the United States to take the lead in developing global quantum standards and measures.

This bill also supports developments in our national security. As cybersecurity threats from across the globe increase, it is important the Federal Government have the guidelines in place to defend against potential cyber attacks and protect our sensitive information against foreign adversaries.

The bill also provides for the Institute to expand its fundamental and applied cybersecurity research to address key questions relating to measurement of privacy, security, and vulnerability of software tools and communications networks.

I want to thank Representative Comstock for introducing this legislation to push the United States forward, and for Chairman Smith's leadership in advancing the scientific position of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize TriYoung, a woman- owned business in Peoria, Arizona, on American Business Women's Day on September 22.

In August, I visited businesses across Arizona's Eighth District to discuss how reduced Federal regulations, pro-growth policies, and Republican-led tax reform have impacted business owners and employees.

For Julie Young, president of TriYoung, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has produced a sizeable savings that she plans to reinvest back into her employees.

TriYoung is a perfect example of how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is making a difference in the lives of business owners and hardworking Americans. I am honored to represent this woman-owned business in Congress, and I will continue to support legislation that allows small businesses like TriYoung to thrive.

Thank you, Julie, for sharing your story.

Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded because I was absent due to an unexpected appointment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 397 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 398.