Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.

This measure, which passed out of our committee with a strong bipartisan vote, reflects our commitment to strengthening our national security and serving those who serve all of us.

I am particularly proud of the efforts of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee. This bill reflects the constructive input of members of the subcommittee from both sides of the aisle and makes a strong mark on our national security priorities on, above, and below the seas.

For shipbuilding, the bill expands on the budget request to authorize 13 battle force ships. This reflects our committee's focused effort to scrub the budget and our shipbuilding plans to augment our Navy fleet responsibly and consistently in a manner which our industrial base can support to respond to emerging threats around the world. This includes the sustained construction of two Virginia-class submarines a year and continued production of the Columbia-class submarine program. We augment our surface capabilities by authorizing three new DDG 51 destroyers, one of our most capable surface platforms, and authorizing the Navy to seek a new contract for up to 15 ships over the next 5 years.

This bill also continues the committee's efforts to provide the Navy and Defense Department with tools needed to concurrently build the new 12 sub Columbia class without suffocating the rest of the Navy's fleet. Specifically, the bill expands the authority of the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to allow for multiyear, continuous production of key components. Recent data from the Navy shows that the use of this authority since our subcommittee enacted it in 2015 has already saved the Navy $1.4 billion in the Columbia program to the tune of over $100 million per boat. This bill will increase those cost savings by expanding the scope of those tools to other components of the platform.

The bill also includes full funding to start the new sealift Tanker Security Program, an initiative we passed last year to get more U.S.- built tankers to sea. The bill supports the budget request for the fifth planned National Security Multi-Mission Vessel, another initiative to boost maritime training and sealift capacity.

At every step of the way, our subcommittee and the full committee accommodated many bipartisan initiatives throughout this process. That is how the legislative process should work, and we are proud that our committee remains a place for constructive bipartisan collaboration.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of our Nation's security, I urge support for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the Clarifying the Small Business Runway Extension Act, a bill that I am proud to lead alongside the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, Americans expect our government to work efficiently and to follow through. They believe, and I agree with them, that when Congress passes a law, Federal agencies should implement it.

Our goal with this bill is quite simple: to make sure that the Small Business Administration respects the will of Congress as expressed in the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018, a law that was enacted in December 2018.

The bipartisan law was designed to ease the transition for businesses between SBA's small and other-than-small categories for the purposes of determining Federal contracting preferences.

Prior to the law, SBA evaluated eligibility by looking at 3 years of a business' gross receipts. In the law, SBA was instructed to extend that period to 5 years. The idea is that year-to-year changes in a small business' receipts will now be less likely to create a sudden loss of eligibility for this important contracting preference for small businesses.

As I have heard many times from small business owners in Maine, certainty is key to growth, and that is what the 5-year calculation is designed to provide.

Unfortunately, SBA has dragged its feet implementing the law, claiming that the fact that the law lacked an explicit effective date meant that SBA did not have to implement it immediately. Aside from being a questionable reading of the law, SBA's delay has created a lost opportunity to improve the ability of SBA-eligible small businesses to transition and grow in a predictable and sustainable way.

As chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Contracting and Infrastructure of the House Committee on Small Business, Congressman Stauber and I heard firsthand from experts and small business owners at a March hearing about the uncertainty that has been created by this delay in SBA's implementation of the 5-year change.

While we followed up on that hearing with a letter to SBA in April, we have yet to resolve this issue, so we are turning to a legislative solution. Our Nation's small businesses should be able to access the contracting opportunities that they deserve.

The bill will require SBA to issue implementing regulations no later than December of this year while creating a transition period for businesses to grow and compete.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize Mr. Stauber, as well as Chair Velazquez and Ranking Member Chabot, for their bipartisan work on this issue.

I particularly thank Congressman Stauber. I think the opportunity to work together in our subcommittee has been a great one. I appreciate his bipartisan focus and his desire to push through a real solution for small businesses. I had a great time, as well, out in Minnesota, having field hearings about small business issues. I can't wait to have him up in Maine in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Let's make sure there is no doubt about Congress' intent in this area.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 3055. This amendment would increase by about $5 million the medical facilities account.

I did want to talk about a specific problem. I think that most rural States and communities understand that when it comes to trying to take care of our veterans, specifically, those who are struggling with mental health issues, and perhaps substance use disorder issues as well, it is an issue of care closer to home and access to care.

When we have a veteran in a State like Maine who is in need of acute mental healthcare services and needs long-term inpatient mental healthcare, it has become known in the veterans community in Maine that that care is only available to veterans, at closest, in Bedford, Massachusetts, or perhaps as far away as New York or even further in order to get access to those beds. It is the same when they are in need of long-term substance use treatment programs.

I have seen time and time again, working with veterans who are in need of those services, that this is a significant problem. It is a barrier to care. It keeps people from coming in the door at the VA to ask for help.

It is not just an issue in rural areas among veterans. The problem is mirrored in the greater community.

This is not an instance where veterans can go to the community to get long-term inpatient care because, to begin with, the beds aren't there in rural America. I think this is an instance where we really need the VA to step up to try to make sure that every State has a baseline capability to provide long-term inpatient mental healthcare services and substance use disorder services to veterans as close to their homes and their communities as possible.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), and I thank her for working with me on this issue and for all the work that she is doing on the committee.

I also thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher) for joining me on this. I know Idaho is in the same boat as Maine on this one.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I again thank Congressman Fulcher for joining me in this. It is critically important.

I think he made a great point. With care closer to home, it is about relationships, and it is about trust when serving a population like veterans. Also, when talking about things like mental health and substance use treatment care programs, that kind of familiarity and trust goes an awfully long way.

I have talked to healthcare professionals who talk about continuity of care as well. Even in this age, with the internet, when trying to coordinate continuity of care from New York to Maine, when a veteran steps outside of that inpatient care, it becomes very difficult. This would all be solved, I think, or at least be much more efficient, if we had the ability to take care of our veterans in our home States, like Maine and Idaho.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 3055.

Mr. Chair, it is frequently said that working men and women feel left out by their government's decisionmaking process. Too often in Washington, those with the greatest financial means can get the closest to the political, governmental, and regulatory process and, therefore, be better able to influence it.

Just as bad is that, in this gridlock political machine, what little action that does take place often takes the path of least resistance.

So when a species of whale is at risk of extinction for a whole slew of complex reasons--whether it be the overfishing that took place more than a century ago, climate change and warming waters that wreak havoc upon a whale's habitat, seismic air gun testing for oil and natural gas, deadly ship strikes by a large shipping industry, or the risk of entanglement in a lobsterman's fishing gear--who, and to what degree, does Washington regulate each? And who has a seat at the table to ensure that the process behind such decisions is fair and equitable?

Do we believe that a small group of fishermen in Maine have as strong a place at the table as does the fossil fuel or shipping industry, or the governmental affairs director with a K Street office in Washington?

I don't think so.

So NOAA, facing the threat of lawsuits, has rushed ahead using a decision support tool that was developed for the purpose of reducing ship strikes by the Navy and fed that tool with old data and hasty assumptions and have come forward to require Maine lobstermen to achieve a 60 percent risk reduction in their fishery.

What assumptions you might ask?

Maine's own Department of Marine Resources argues the tool is flawed because areas with a lot of fishing gear but few whales are labeled ``high risk,'' and areas with a lot of whales and less fishing gear are considered ``low risk.''

This scientific tool uses outdated habitat data from the mid- Atlantic, which is far away and different than the gulf of Maine. When attributing responsibility for injury or death of whale to fishing gear of an unknown origin, NOAA assumes an equal distribution between U.S. and Canadian gear, despite strong, recent scientific and empirical evidence to the contrary. And the data used do not accurately reflect the distribution shift of right whales since the year 2010.

Recent studies have established firm links between warming waters in the gulf of Maine and a 90 percent reduction of the plankton that right whales eat, calling into question whether the whales have stopped visiting the warming, plankton-depleted waters of eastern Maine entirely, which would greatly reduce the likelihood that any whale be entangled in Maine lobstermen's gear.

It is reasonable to ask NOAA to allow its decision support tool to undergo a peer-review process before enforcing punitive regulations upon Maine fisherman. Maine's Commissioner of the Department of Marine Resources has said that ``peer-reviewed science is the cornerstone of the decisionmaking process.'' Apparently, not in this case.

This amendment would require NOAA to use relevant data and an effective tool to ensure that its regulations target areas of high risk and yield the most effective conservation benefits possible to protect the right whale without unfairly burdening Maine lobstermen.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that the person who runs this program for NOAA has actually recently said that they intend to move forward with regulations, then do a peer review, and then, perhaps, come back with a different conclusion.

I think that they have got this backwards. They should be doing it the other way around, and that is what is at the heart of this amendment. I would urge support at this time for the amendment, as well as for the Moulton amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), and I thank her for joining me on this amendment and for her leadership on behalf of Maine fisheries.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Kim, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to H.R. 3055 on behalf of my colleague, Representative Andy Kim.

Over the past decade, more than 400 Veteran Treatment Courts have been established across our country. These courts address a serious problem to those who served. For veterans with post-traumatic stress, substance abuse simply compounds the issues that they face on a daily basis.

More than 2 out of 10 veterans with post-traumatic stress also experience substance abuse problems. These are service men and women who gave much to our country, only to come back and struggle long after their time in uniform has come to an end.

As representatives of a grateful Nation, we owe them solutions to the problems they face. Veteran Treatment Courts have been that solution for thousands of veterans and they continue to be so.

That is why this amendment would increase funding for this lifesaving program by $1 million. That is funding to help provide an alternative to incarceration for those in need. That is funding to help improve access to mental health services and rehabilitative care. That is funding to improve the functionality of our local VA services and better serve those who served us.

This is a proven program that addresses a critical need in a community that has given much to this country. Let's join together today to give something back to them.

With that, I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment. I have seen these courts at work in such positive ways amongst my brothers and sisters who served in the military.

I want to thank Representative Andy Kim for offering this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I first want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her hard work and the hard work of the committee on behalf of American families in Maine and across the country who have fallen victim to financial schemes.

I rise today to offer my amendment on behalf of military servicemembers and veterans and their families. One of the challenges that military men and women face are countless financial scams that exist in the financial marketplace. Travel just outside of a military base, Madam Chair, and there will be payday lenders with high interest rates, title loan companies, and supplemental life insurance schemes all looking for their next target.

Military personnel who are distracted by financial problems created by these schemes cannot focus on doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. If the problems get out of hand, they can even end a military career. On average, thousands of servicemembers are separated each year from the military for financial hardship and other issues related to these types of schemes. Even worse, many servicemembers or their families come under pressure from scammers while they are in the midst of a deployment.

Just as an example of this, I was in an infantry unit. I served in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have known people who have actually taken the time, when they get that rare opportunity, to hop on to a sat phone. They should be calling their family or a loved one, and instead they are calling to talk to a debt collector because they had fallen victim to one of these scams, then had it turned over to a debt collector. By law that is not supposed to happen, but too often servicemembers don't know what their rights are and what the law is, and they end up trying to deal with this kind of a stress while in the midst of a deployment to a place like Iraq.

We know it is not right. We need to make sure struggling military families can have resources that they can turn to for help.

Unfortunately, these challenges don't stop upon leaving the service either. According to a study done by the AARP, nearly eight in ten veterans report having received a scam attempt in the last 5 years. I get them myself. I get them in the mail. I get them from people talking to me about my VA home loan or education benefits and others, offering what sounds like a good deal, but we know it is not.

Recognizing the vulnerability of vets and servicemembers to predatory lenders and other financial scams, Congress created the Office of Servicemember Affairs at the CFPB. The office monitors complaints from servicemembers and veterans and their families and takes appropriate action to protect them.

Since 2011 the CFPB has received approximately 123,000 complaints from servicemembers, and the problem is not improving; it is actually getting worse. From 2016 to 2017, there was a 47 percent increase in complaints received from servicemembers.

My amendment helps ensure that the CFPB can better protect veterans and servicemembers from financial abuse, fraud, and scams. The provision opens up CFPB's Consumer Advisory Board to a representative veteran from the military community and the veterans' community.

The advisory board is a critical part of CFPB's role as a watchdog for consumers. They inform CFPB about emerging trends, they share analysis and recommendations for action and policies, and they assess the consumer impact of emerging financial products, practices, and services.

Putting a family member of a servicemember or a veteran on the advisory board will ensure that CFPB is better informed of new and emerging scams and tactics targeting servicemembers and veterans so that we are better able to protect them.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I will go ahead and close and leave it to the gentleman to close on his end.

This amendment will help servicemembers, veterans, and their families make sure that they are protected financially and give them a voice at the table. I encourage my colleagues to support it. I thank the ranking member for encouraging his colleagues to support it as well.

I would be happy to talk to our colleague from Kentucky about ways in which we can work together to protect our servicemembers and veterans. I know we are all in on that together, to do the best that we can for our servicemembers and veterans.

Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member, the chairwoman, and the entire committee for their support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1080.

Madam Chair, I rise today to introduce my amendment to

Madam Chair, before I talk about my amendment, I would first like to thank Congressman Sarbanes for his work on this bill.

H.R. 1 is a comprehensive, good government bill that goes a long way in wresting power away from elites who abuse our political system for narrow self-interests. This legislation would return power where it belongs: in the hands of working people.

As long as corporations and mega-donors finance campaigns, well- connected insiders will continue to call the shots.

Mainers have seen firsthand what can happen when the power is returned to the people. In 1996, our State's voters passed a referendum establishing the Maine Clean Elections Act.

By collecting small donations from people in their communities, Maine candidates refuse the donations of lobbyists and the well-heeled, and concentrate instead on face-to-face conversations with their neighbors. This empowers a community to choose a representative in a battle of ideas instead of a battle of bank accounts.

Maine's clean election reforms have been supported and used by candidates of all parties in my State. Republican,

Democratic, Green Party, and independent candidates have used our clean election system.

In fact, in 2018, a Republican candidate for Governor used the system because he understood that it was going to free him up to spend his time going door to door and talking to the very people who he wanted to represent as Governor of the State of Maine.

Today, we have the opportunity to follow Maine's lead and bring needed reform to the rest of the country.

H.R. 1 allows candidates to refuse donations from mega-donors by implementing a matching system for small-dollar donations from everyday people.

As we have seen in Maine, candidates who use this system are good stewards of the funds they receive. But as with any system, there is potential for bad actors, and it is important that they be held accountable.

My amendment to H.R. 1 ensures that any bad actors are cut off from the matching system and sets high standards for participation. The legislation bars a candidate from using matching funds if the FEC assesses three or more civil penalties against a candidate for violating election laws.

More importantly, if a candidate willfully, knowingly violates the law, my amendment permanently bars them from the program.

Finally, my provision reaffirms that egregious violations of campaign finance laws should result in imprisonment of up to 1 to 5 years.

With H.R. 1 and my amendment, we are creating an accountable election system.

The funds for the matching program, as was just discussed, come from bad corporate actors. These are fines, penalties, and settlements from corporate malfeasance, tax crimes, and other breaches of the public trust. That money can be used to ensure that everyday people who don't have a network of deep money around them, just everyday, working people, will be given the opportunity to compete in a campaign, to go out and represent their people, to go out and spend their time talking to them face-to-face instead of spending their time dialing for dollars and talking to just the very wealthy.

It is time that the people take the power back. By passing my amendment and H.R. 1, we will take that first step. Americans aren't going to let our democracy be taken out from under us any longer.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and ``yes'' on final passage.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I think I am going to go home this weekend to my district feeling comfortable that I understand what my constituents want.

As I said earlier, in 1996, Maine voters actually voted for a public funding program in the State of Maine. They liked the program so much that they actually upped the ante in 2015 through another voter referendum where Maine voters actually voted that they wanted to continue this program and they wanted to increase the funding to keep regular people competitive against the dark money that was flown into elections in the State of Maine.

In the State of Maine, we actually allow convicted felons to vote. They do it from prison. Because while we believe in holding people accountable for their crimes, we don't feel the need, in Maine, to take their voice away from them.

So I am going to go home knowing that I understand my district.

I also just want to take a moment--you know, some of the comments from the Republican leader, whom I respect very much, but you want to talk about spewing hate. H.R. 1 is a piece of legislation that Democrats have put forward to show that one of their top priorities is to protect our democracy, and I know a little something about it.

I fought in two wars for this country, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I reject this socialist rhetoric. I am an American. Democrats are Americans. Republicans are Americans. We need to put this hateful speech behind us and talk about how we can work together.

I understand that there is some frustration being expressed by other side about amendments and whether or not Republicans are involved in this process. Look, I will wrap it up, but let me just say: I have voted for a number of Republican amendments in the last couple of weeks, so I would encourage them to support this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I want to start, first of all, by thanking the chair and ranking member of the committee, Chairman Takano and Ranking Member Roe. I appreciate their work on this bill and the committee bringing this forward so early on in the year.

I also want to thank Congresswoman Ann Kuster for cosponsoring this amendment.

I offer this as one of many veterans who has depended on VA mental health services. Like so many other veterans, I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress after my service in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When I returned home to Maine after completing my service, I struggled a bit. It took me over a year to accept that I actually needed help of any kind, but when I did finally get to that point, one thing that helped me was readjustment counseling at a local vet center.

Readjustment counseling is another term for mental health services that help veterans and their families transition from the battlefield to civilian life. Readjustment counseling helped me to better understand that the physical and emotional reactions I had returning from Iraq were, in fact, normal. Once I understood this, it became easier for me to deal with these reactions head-on.

I know firsthand how easy it is for real life to get in the way of seeking the mental healthcare that a veteran needs. You will make almost any excuse that might come your way--or reasonable excuse, sometimes--to avoid seeking these services, so I think it is important to knock down those barriers and make it as easy as possible for veterans to access the ability to go to an appointment.

Knowing how difficult it can be sometimes when life gets in the way, I am not surprised that 10 percent of veterans have had to cancel a necessary VA appointment because they didn't have childcare. When you consider that number, it is clear that veterans and their families sometimes need access to childcare so they can get to their mental healthcare appointment.

This bill, the Veterans' Access to Childcare Act, makes that childcare available to vets and their families when they need it.

None of my fellow veterans should have to choose between caring for their children and getting the mental healthcare that they need; and, just like I did, many veterans need readjustment counseling. My amendment makes sure that readjustment counseling services are covered under this bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Chair, I also want, in closing, to urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I also want to thank Congressman Roe for his service as well, and I appreciate the gentleman recognizing that for me as well.

Having already thanked, with the previous amendment, the chairman and ranking member, I want to thank Congressman Brindisi for cosponsoring this amendment. The gentleman comes from a place similar to mine, a very rural area, which leads me to the subject of the amendment.

Too often in this country, I think that Congress can make laws that benefit cities and urban areas without understanding fully how those laws impact rural communities. I represent Maine. It is one of our country's most rural States.

Almost a quarter of all veterans in the United States, about 4.7 million, return from active military careers to reside in a rural community where they experience the many rural healthcare challenges that are only intensified by combat-related injuries and illnesses.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, 58 percent of rural veterans are enrolled in the VA healthcare system, significantly higher than the 37 percent enrollment rate of urban veterans. In rural areas, basic levels of healthcare or preventive care may not be available to support residents' long-term health and well-being.

Compared to urban areas, rural communities tend to have higher poverty rates, more elderly residents, and fewer physician practices, hospitals, and other health delivery services.

The Veterans' Access to Child Care Act would help our veterans and their families get the care that they need, but the program has to work just as well for veterans in rural areas as it does for veterans in urban regions. I offer a second amendment today that would help ensure this new program works for veterans living in rural areas.

The amendment would require the VA to study whether the VA childcare program is as effective and accessible for veterans in rural and very rural areas so that the program can later be improved upon if it falls short in helping rural veterans.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Chair, I would like to end, again, by urging all of my colleagues to support this amendment as well, and I want to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and the entire committee and Rules Committee for entertaining these two very important amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a commonsense, bipartisan bill with Congressman Crenshaw and Congressman Rose. It is called the Solidarity in Salary Act. It is a simple bill that says if Federal employees aren't getting paychecks because of a shutdown, Members of Congress and the President shouldn't get their paychecks.

People back in Maine have heard me talk about when I was a young private first class joining my unit in the Marines at mealtime out in the field when they brought a hot meal out, we had a simple rule that we followed. What we would do is the private first class and lance corporal would go first to eat followed by the NCOs and staff NCOs, after that, the officers.

The idea was that good leaders should take care of other people before stopping and thinking about themselves. That is the principle behind this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to join Congressmen Crenshaw and Rose and me in supporting this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, this shutdown has been brutal on working people across the country. Many of them are my constituents, and I came down here to let their voices be heard.

Back home, a Border Patrol agent from my district said about all of us here in the House, in the White House, in the Senate: ``I blame all of you for the financial and emotional damage you are causing to the very people tasked with protecting your Nation and your homeland, but ultimately, this falls on the White House.''

Suzette from my district, her husband is an essential Federal employee working without pay. She asked me, ``to bring sensibility to this senseless power struggle that is currently going on. The Democrats,'' she says--and she is a Democrat, by the way--``need to back down from their `must punish Trump and deny him everything' stance and the Republicans need to get some control over the ill-equipped man who is running our country.''

Another Federal employee from Milford, Maine, tells me: ``I am very concerned with the furlough, lack of negotiations, and lack of pay. I do not know who is right or wrong. I just want to get back to work, complete my job, and receive my pay.''

We owe these people a solution that gets them back to work and gets them paid. I can only imagine that, back home, people are amazed to hear the ways in which both sides are right now talking past each other. I think it is wonderful that we expressed, on both sides of the aisle this morning, a desire to reopen the government and to secure our borders.

I would like to point out that the CR that will be voted on today does have border security funding: over $1 billion in new funding for new border security. I know that the Republicans say that they want to reopen government and secure our borders, I also know that my party has said the same, so let's do it.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, support the CR today, let's reopen government, let's put people back to work, let them work. They are public servants. They want to serve the people. Let's start securing our border. And with those extra billion dollars we can also move on to a more robust debate about border security that I look forward to.

Madam Speaker, due to the inclement weather, my flight to Washington, D.C. was delayed and I was unable to vote on January 14, 2019. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 30.