Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri is exactly right. It is the statutes that allow this President to do this.

The statutes don't provide for national emergencies on climate change. They don't allow for national emergencies on gun violence. But they do allow it in terms of this particular issue.

The President is exactly right. There is a crisis at the border, Mr. Speaker. But not only this President recognizes it. The previous President, Obama, in 2014, did as well when he requested $3.7 billion in emergency spending to secure the border.

Where was the outrage then? Where was the outrage from my colleagues across the aisle?

President Obama even went further to say that we needed to secure our border to deter both adults and children from the dangerous journey that they embarked on.

Where was the outrage across the aisle then, Mr. Speaker? It was not there.

Keeping criminals, human traffickers, and drug smugglers away from our communities is paramount.

Yes, indeed, we do have an opioid problem. We have actually appropriated billions of dollars to address that. And yet, somehow, the drugs flowing across our southern border are not a crisis?

Again, President Obama seemed to agree with this and declared a national emergency for transnational criminal organizations, specifically calling out Mexico's Los Zetas gang, and provided more authority for ICE to actually combat that; a national emergency. Where was the outrage across the aisle then?

But we don't even have to look just at the previous administration. President Clinton also declared a national emergency to go after narcotics traffickers.

Mr. Speaker, I just find it just unbelievable that here today, that we have got these newfound constitutionalists across the aisle, wanting to rein in the President's authority.

This is about defeating President Trump. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1063. I appreciate the gentlewoman's remarks as it relates to this particular bill. The bipartisan Presidential Library Donation Reform Act, which was introduced by the gentleman from Maryland, my good friend, Mr. Cummings, is certainly one worthy of our support, Mr. Speaker.

Under current law, Presidents can fundraise for their Presidential libraries through private, unlimited donations while they are still in office. There are no current requirements for any Presidential library fundraising organization to disclose the source or size of the donation it receives. Donations can be from individuals, companies, associations, and foreign governments, with no transparency.

Presidential libraries have become more expensive throughout the years. President Clinton's library cost $165 million. President Bush's cost $250 million. President Obama's is projected to cost more than $500 million.

This bill requires Presidential library fundraising organizations to disclose to the National Archives information about contributors who have donated $200 or more in any quarter. The National Archives would then be tasked with making the data available on its website in a downloadable format.

H.R. 1063 also sunsets the disclosure requirement to when the management of the actual library is transferred to the National Archives.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is a pro- transparency bill that has already passed the House, as my colleague mentioned, not once but three different times, with overwhelming support under both Democratic and Republican majorities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1065, the Social Media Use in Clearance Investigations Act of 2019, introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I was at one of these hearings where we were talking about this very issue and how it was just mind-boggling that we would not use current protocols, in terms of looking at national security clearances and the approval thereof.

It was Mr. Lynch's initiative here to actually address that in a legislative manner, and I support his good work there.

Millions of Americans use social media to interact with family members, friends, and followers. Public posts on social media websites occasionally provide a unique insight into a person's character and interests.

In several high-profile cases, Federal contractors with valid security clearances who leaked classified information had posted highly suspicious entries on their social media accounts.

For example, Edward Snowden used various online aliases to post suspicious content on the comment boards of a tech magazine before he received his security clearance. A simple check--mind you, a simple check--would have let us know of these suspicious activities and certainly could have worked to mitigate some of the damages that we all know too well.

Private companies and private citizens can and often do search publicly available social media accounts to learn more about job applicants. However, our government does not regularly check the social media of individuals who have applied for security clearances.

On May 12, 2016, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a new policy permitting the use of public social media information in security clearance investigations. Despite that legal clearance, most security clearance investigations still do not involve a social media check.

Various Federal entities have studied the potential use of social media information in background investigations for at least a decade. The National Security Agency, the Army, OPM, and others have conducted pilot programs on the effectiveness of social media checks, and it is not clear what use has been made of this data for these programs or whether the programs can be expanded to cover more applicants.

Concerning online behavior should be one of many factors used to evaluate a person's fitness to access classified information.

H.R. 1065, the Social Media Use in Clearance Investigations Act, is a step toward creating a more holistic security clearance review process. The bill requires OMB to evaluate pilot programs conducted to date and estimate the costs of wider implementation of publicly available social media checks.

This report is due within 6 months and will help guide subsequent legislation to require checks of publicly available data. We cannot wait any longer to modernize our security clearance process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this thoughtful piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the gentleman, again, for his thoughtfulness on this particular piece of legislation. I know that he has worked with my previous colleague, now the Governor of Florida, Mr. DeSantis, and we have great bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the adoption and passing of H.R. 1065, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1064, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership on this effort. Any time that you support whistleblowers, it is a good day in Congress; and to do that a bipartisan way, with

the gentlewoman's leadership, is certainly a day that should be applauded. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

Whistleblowers in the Federal Government should be able to tell their supervisor when something is going wrong. That is the truth, no matter what, especially in cases involving classified information which implies, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter of national security.

Under the current law, whistleblowers dealing with classified information in the intelligence community can make protected disclosures to their supervisors. However, whistleblowers dealing with classified information outside of the intelligence community do not have the same protection.

With fewer legally-protected options, employees outside of the intelligence community may be more likely to make an illegal disclosure to people or entities without the proper security clearance.

Federal employees dealing with classified information outside of the IC community must be reassured that they can report wrongdoing to the appropriate people, including their supervisors.

With that protection, whistleblowers will be less likely to disclose protected sensitive information on waste, fraud, and abuse to the media or other entities or individuals without the proper security clearance.

This bill would allow whistleblowers to make protected disclosures of classified information to individuals within their chain of command, as the gentlewoman has already suggested.

There are very few conceivable circumstances in which a whistleblower complaint to a supervisor would jeopardize national security, but such disclosures are not currently protected.

There is no reasonable basis for concern about whistleblowers throughout the Federal Government having the right to contact individuals within their chain of command about waste, fraud, or abuse of a classified nature. These additional whistleblower protections will make it easier for Federal employees to do the responsible thing when it comes to classified disclosures.

I urge my colleagues to support this. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 995. But before I do, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman on the passage, I believe, of her first bill here on the House floor; and go even further to say that, in keeping with this bipartisan support of H.R. 995, the Settlement Agreement Information Database Act of 2019 that was introduced, and is introduced, by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. Speaker, transparency and public participation are critical to maintaining the public trust in its government. However, Federal agencies have increasingly resolved litigation by entering into settlement agreements rather than going through a lengthy public trial.

Now settlement agreements are often negotiated behind closed doors. Those secret negotiations effectively prevent the public from participating in important policy sessions.

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate this. When these settlements are done, when they are actually consummated, they set up future public policy, and to do that behind closed doors is certainly not something that a transparent government should be about.

State and local governments, industry stakeholders, and taxpayers are often directly affected by these settlements, but unable to provide input.

For example, through the settlement agreement, the Environmental Protection Agency required the city of Fort Smith, Arkansas, to overhaul its sewer system in 12 years. Sewer utility bills increased by 167 percent in 3 years to fund the obligation of this agreement. At the same time, Fort Smith residents' income actually decreased by 11 percent.

The burden of a Federal settlement can be difficult to see and understand. Poor recordkeeping makes it impossible for Congress and the public to determine the full impact of the Federal settlement agreements.

Agencies release information about settlements at their discretion. Some agencies rely even on press releases to release the amount of information. So, as a result, the public only sees the facts through what the agency puts out and only in the most favorable light.

So, in many cases these closed-door negotiations, the terms of the settlement are deemed confidential. Without an explanation to the public, the process becomes even more opaque and seemingly arbitrary.

H.R. 995 will shine a light on Federal settlement agreements. This bill will require the establishment of electronic and publicly available databases for agencies' settlement agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this particular bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), the sponsor of this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for his leadership on this particular bill. I urge the adoption of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1079, the CASES for Constituents Act, introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and, as was mentioned, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

I have some prepared remarks, Mr. Speaker, but let me just deviate from that for just a second.

Finally, two people have come together to get rid of the archaic way that we have to get disclosures, that only go to hurt our constituents whom we aim to serve. I mean, only in the government do we have this kind of way where we actually have to make sure that we run it over by a carrier pigeon to get something done.

All of us have been together where we are trying to serve our constituents. Sometimes it is very time sensitive, Mr. Speaker, and what do they want?

Well, you need to go get the privacy release form.

And if you go get the privacy release form: Well, no. That is not okay. You have got to get their actual signature.

And so we are sending people all over.

So it is with heartfelt gratitude, Mr. Speaker, that I want to thank these two gentlemen for doing something that is not only common sense but much needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) in support of this particular piece of legislation that he and the gentleman who just spoke have led so eloquently and diligently on.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go ahead and close, if we can, at this particular point, but before I do so, I want to thank all of our staff.

It is so easy at times for us to get up here, and yet the legislation that gets introduced oftentimes is not just due to our personal staff in our offices, but the committee staff, and so I want to make sure that I emphasize that today.

Mr. Speaker, I will close with this final comment.

I had a constituent not long ago who said: You know, I will just email you a release, and we won't have to go through all of this getting it in writing.

I said: No, no, no, no, no. That will take an act of Congress.

Well, let me just tell you, today the Congress has acted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill to provide real consequences against those who would seek to commit fraud at the expense of America's Veterans.

H.R 450, the Bipartisan ``Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act,'' would close loopholes in existing laws and provide law enforcement with additional tools to crack down on fraud cases in connection with Veterans' benefits.

In recent history, financial predators have increasingly begun targeting America's veterans, particularly those in low income housing, looking to commit fraud and rob them of their federal benefits. Many of these fraudsters pose as federal caseworkers, offering to expedite Veterans' claims or assist them with unanswered questions--only to charge them exorbitant fees while providing little or no service in return.

Absolutely no veteran should be defrauded of their well-earned benefits, particularly those in need. Those who defraud veterans and their families of their benefits not only harm these victims, but they also diminish resources required to pay the claims and fund the programs needed to assist those who have served our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has both a responsibility and an obligation to step up and protect our Veterans against this activity.

Unfortunately, current law hamstrings prosecutors and allows for criminals engaging in this type of conduct to escape with minimal penalty.

H.R. 450 would make needed changes to that process. It would impose new penalties on fraudsters--including a fine, imprisonment of up to five years, or both. By attaching a criminal penalty to this behavior, the bill provides prosecutors with the tools to take adequate and appropriate legal action against those who seek to defraud veterans.

This is a common sense reform that would send a loud and clear message of support to those who have served our country so faithfully and protect them against any effort to rob them of their hard earned benefits.

Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, Ted Deutch, who is the lead Democratic cosponsor, for his leadership on this important measure.

I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the vote on H.R. 450-- Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 70.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his words on the importance of making sure that our Federal workforce is properly compensated. Indeed, this is an important subject.

Mr. Chairman, I guess my question here today is, fundamentally, if it is so important, then why haven't we had a hearing? Why haven't we had a markup? Why the rush to push this bill on the floor?

Not too long ago, my good friend from Maryland, the chairman of the committee, would be on this same floor arguing the same thing: Why are we not having a markup? Why are we not going through regular order?

Mr. Chairman, I remind this body that, less than 30 days ago, there was a vote on the House floor that said we are going to return to regular order; we

are going to make sure that every bill goes through the committee, has a markup, and actually has fair debate.

Yet, here we are, less than 30 days into this new Congress, and we are putting forth a messaging bill that, quite frankly, has not been vetted. The amendment process has not come out of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

I will also say, and this is no laughing matter, I have been one of the few Members on our side of the aisle on this committee who has actively engaged in trying to make sure that our Federal workforce is not only compensated, but properly recognized.

Mr. Chairman, here is my problem. According to Federal workers, over 25 percent of them believe that raises do not happen based on merit, that everyone gets a raise. Indeed, this bill does that. It says, regardless of how you perform, we are going to give everybody the same increase.

Now, that same Federal workforce went even further. One-third of them said that we don't do enough to get rid of poor performers.

What message are we sending to the Federal workforce here today? We are rushing a bill that has not gone through committee. We have not provided meaningful amendments that are actually appropriate. We have a Federal workforce that says they don't get raises based on the merits of their work, on the hard work they put forth. Indeed, they are saying that a third of the employees are getting compensated regardless of their performances.

Now, when we look at that, what message does this body send to the Federal workforce? It says that it doesn't matter what kind of job you do. I think that is a terrible message to send.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, as we look at this bill--and I am sure we will debate the merits of this particular piece of legislation--we have the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, here, and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, both Members who I respect greatly. Yet, this rush to put this messaging bill on the floor does nothing but damage the underlying support that many of us on both sides of the aisle have for the Federal workforce.

I strongly object to this particular measure. Let's slow it down. Let's go through the appropriate time to make sure that, indeed, we have a markup, that we have a bill.

The chairman knows full well that Federal workers, not only in and around Washington, D.C., but across the Nation, deserve our full attention, and this deserves a full debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend, the ranking member of the committee, and a champion for the American people.

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

I am glad the Chairman made this admonishment because some of the comments that were just offered actually seemed to be directed at me from a standpoint of respect. I would remind the gentleman from Maryland, both gentlemen from Maryland, that this is one of the individuals who has actually worked in a bipartisan fashion on TPS and a number of things. The majority leader knows that well.

I would also say if we are going to make broad-sweeping statements that impugn the motives of individuals, it needs to start with the previous President of the United States, Barack Obama, because he froze the Federal workforce at zero three different times.

I didn't hear the outrage on this floor, Mr. Chairman, that I am hearing today. It is somehow always one side of the aisle's fault, unless it happens to be their party's President that invokes the freeze.

So I would say, Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that those broad- brush characterizations are not conveyed here on the House floor.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I appreciate the gentleman, but I want to make sure, Mr. Chairman, we correct the record because the gentleman is correct in 2009 and 2010. But we gave them raises in 2010. The Federal pay freezes were 2011, `12, and `13 when the same President was saying that everything was going fine. So I want to remind the gentleman that if we are going to look at history, then I think--to use the gentleman's words--let's not use revisionist history.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to direct it to you. The same gentleman who is making the argument here today was not on the House floor talking about how evil the President was and how he should not be doing that. So I just want to make sure we correct the record here today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, before I make some statements, I would notify the gentleman from Maryland, my good friend, Mr. Cummings, that I have no additional speakers on this particular topic, so I am prepared to close at any time he would like to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time based on the speakers the gentleman might have.

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

We hear a lot of discussion today on what is reasonable and small amounts. In fact, the pay raise that they are talking about is about $5.5 billion a year or $55 billion over 10. Actually, CBO would probably score it higher than that, closer to $60 billion over 10 years. Yet this whole shutdown that we are talking about could have been solved with a compromise between zero and $5.7 billion for a wall.

So it was an extreme amount of money when we are talking about securing families, securing our borders, and protecting our communities. It was a price too high to pay. But now, all of a sudden, it is not too high of a price to pay because it is a small amount of money? I fail to see the logic, Mr. Chairman.

When we are looking at this, if we are really talking about compromises, where was the compromise over the last 35 days? There was zero money for a wall on day one. There was zero money for a wall on day 35. Yet, here today, we are talking about $5 billion or $6 billion as if it were pocket change.

I find that interesting, Mr. Chairman, because, as we look at this particular issue, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle would have the American people think that it is only the Republicans who are totally responsible for everything. Yet we know that history shows that, when there was a Democrat in the White House, indeed, there was a pay freeze 3 different years.

We also know that there were two votes during the economic and financial meltdown in 2008 and 2009 where they gave Federal workers a 3 percent increase while everybody else was out looking for a job. Now, where is the parity in that?

The last question I would have for you, Mr. Chairman, is this: Where is the parity, when we look at our military men and women's faces, when we start talking about 2.6, that they are getting the same amount? They are not getting the same amount. Talk to a chief master sergeant who has been on the job for 15 years. He is getting far less pay than the Federal worker who is getting this same increase when you have over 25 percent of the Federal workforce making over $100,000 a year.

We hear all these statistics that are low statistics, but let's at least be honest in our debate. When we look at what we have, if this is a small amount of money, I guess I would challenge my colleagues on the opposite side: Let's find a compromise on border security measures.

What amount of money is proper to save families from losing loved ones? I have looked in the faces of angel moms and angel dads, where they have lost their kids. Are we going to just turn our back on them as well?

Perhaps there is a spirit of compromise here where we can work together and find a compromise where there are no more shutdowns. Let's look at passing a bill that freezes congressional pay if there is a shutdown. I am all in. Are all the Democrats in? Let's look at it, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

Let me close by saying a sincere word of compliment to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

We have great differences on this piece of legislation, and, indeed, we represent very different districts. It has been said many times that you can disagree without being disagreeable, and I want t compliment the two gentlemen for their vigorous debate today yet where they didn't make personal attacks. I hope that, Mr. Chairman, they have seen the same from me, and I have high respect for both of them.

I also believe that, at times, where perhaps we deescalate the emotions--and I know this is a highly charged, emotional debate, as it should be--we can find common ground.

Mr. Chairman, I commit to the two gentlemen with whom I have had the privilege of working for the last 6 years that I will continue to work hard and with great resolve to find ways that we can not only recognize and compensate our Federal workers, but we can do so in a manner that is fair and equitable and certainly makes sure that the servants they are is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I would also say that this particular piece of legislation, hopefully, will provide the fodder for us going back to the committee and going through a markup process to look at how we actually address this, where we actually have hearings and bring in experts, because, Mr. Chairman, we have had the majority leader of the Congress on this House floor citing one particular survey and we have had me here citing the CBO, and those two statistics are at odds. So I think it is important that we hear from real experts and figure out how we do this.

The time is now for us to find a way to work in a bipartisan manner to truly move this country forward. The Federal workforce is an important part of that.

I believe this particular piece of legislation sends a bad message to those Federal workers who believe that pay raises are not based on merit, that they don't identify the poor performers. We have to address that as well, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment suffers some of the same defects as the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, while there are numerous dedicated civil servants in all parts of the Federal Government, offering an additional across-the- board pay raise is simply not good policy. It rewards the bad along with the good.

The United States Secret Service is made up of many brave men and women, very honorable men and women. However, in 2015, the bipartisan report issued jointly by then-Chairman Chaffetz and the new chairman of Oversight and Reform, then-Ranking Member Cummings of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, detailed significant personnel problems. The report describes ``an extraordinarily inefficient hiring process which overburdens the USSS with low-quality applications.''

So the men and women of the uniformed division render critical services to our government. Many of them are friends. And, truly, as we see their dedication, they have to sacrifice so much. Whether it is at the Vice President's residence or whether it is on the complex just a few blocks from here, there is no margin for failure with respect to their protective mission, and I acknowledge that.

However, an across-the-board pay increase does exactly that. It rewards the good along with the bad. That is why we have to have, indeed, a merit-based system that truly recognizes the great performers--the vast majority of whom are great performance--but does not recognize and reward those who are not doing it. We need to do that. And for that reason, I would reject this particular amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, to rehash all the reasons, both good and bad, I am willing to work in a bipartisan way with the chairman of both the committee and the subcommittee to try to find ways to address this issue. This amendment does not do that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to keep my remarks brief as we have got a number of different amendments going through.

I acknowledge the gentlewoman's tenacity and her willingness to offer this. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, though, this particular across- the-board pay raise, it really shouldn't apply to the very individuals that she is talking about because they have flexibility already. We know that. I mean, they get different pay raises.

That is not to undermine the wonderful work that they do. I have been privileged to be able to talk to NASA folks from here in Washington, DC, to her home district in the great State of Texas and across this country. Remarkably, they are one of the best run agencies--and I say that under the previous NASA Administrator and under the current NASA Administrator.

So it is not to not acknowledge their good work, but the whole premise of being able to give them a bump, there is already great pushback among some Federal workers about the flexibility of those individuals and the way that they get their pay raises. There are claims of unfairness. So I think that this sends a wrong message.

Mr. Chair, I urge the rejection of this particular amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would highlight one thing.

We are going through all these amendments that are clarifying and technical amendments and all of that. That could have all been avoided if we had just had a hearing and had a markup and we had gone through it, and yet here we are today on the House floor trying to make amendments to a bill that, candidly, is missing the mark.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that when we look at sending a message, this sends entirely the wrong message. We need to make sure that we reward Federal workers, but we also hold them accountable. I urge rejection of this particular amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I notice a smirk on your face. We find it laughable as well. But I enjoy the gentleman from Missouri.

Is that the way you say it, the gentleman from Missouri?

Missouri. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the humor, but unfortunately, there is nothing funny about this.

I find it just unbelievable that the gentleman opposite would be talking about how important this resolution is. They just dropped it on Monday night. I mean, it hasn't been out there for any length of time. In fact, it violated the very rule that this Chamber passed in the beginning of this Congress, yet somehow this resolution is so unbelievably important.

It is nothing more than a message meant to go after the President of the United States. Quite frankly, I find this resolution nothing more than a political stunt. I am troubled by it, Mr. Speaker, because here we are today arguing over this resolution that could have been dropped--we were here working. It could have been dropped long ago, but the gentlewoman from Virginia drops it just on Monday night of this week.

Maybe they were working on the wording in Puerto Rico when they were down there caravanning with lobbyists, Mr. Speaker, that you know very well.

Maybe when Christmas was here, when the President was in the White House willing to negotiate, they were working and fine-tuning this message to make sure that it is here.

No, that is not what this is about. This is about a political stunt. This is literally a political messaging point meant to garner, hopefully, the support for some Member of Congress who has a swing district, so that they can send a message and take it.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to let you know that we don't need words. We need compromise.

I take the gentleman from Missouri's word. If we are willing to work together and find a compromise, I think we all would prefer that there is never another shutdown.

In fact, I think that we ought to propose legislation that would suspend congressional pay for every Member of Congress if there is ever another shutdown. Hopefully, my Members opposite would join me in that, where we can put some kind of pain to make sure that we are there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, the comments that we just heard from the well, from the majority leader, fail to mention one critical point about this resolution.

This resolution doesn't do anything to stop a future shutdown. It is designed, in its purpose to give cover to a number on the other side of the aisle who voted in this very Chamber to not fund those who were deemed essential pay at a critical time. In fact, indeed, the very sponsor of this resolution voted against giving pay to those men and women who continue to show up to vote and now somehow are going to vote on a resolution and make it all okay. If we are going to have history, let's make sure it is accurate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, in consultation with my friend opposite, we are going to yield to the gentleman from West Virginia and then recognize the Republican leader after that, and then I will be prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

We have dozens of people who are willing to speak, but in the interest of time, none more important than the Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

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

Mr. Speaker, these are powerful words by our Republican leader. There has been a lot of debate. I don't think a more somber moment have I experienced this week on the House floor than when the 50 names were read out, where their loved ones will never be able to welcome them home. There will be ball games that are missed. There will be calls that are no longer made of, ``Welcome home, Daddy,'' or ``welcome home'' to a son or a daughter.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about the pain and anguish of Federal employees. Indeed, there are real hardships there that are undeniable. But, Mr. Speaker, they are getting their pay back. For the lives of the 50 people who were just named on this House floor, there is no returning. Their lives were extinguished, Mr. Speaker, and we must do something about that as well.

I am committed to my colleagues opposite to work with them to protect Federal workers, as long as they are willing to work with us to protect the communities and the safety of moms and dads from coast to coast.

On that, it is important that we have no more show votes. This resolution is meaningless other than to provide cover for some on the other side of the aisle who voted against giving pay to those who were essential employees.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

I appeal the ruling of the Chair, again.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise today because we have just heard, an hour before we came on the House floor, more debate about opening the government than we actually have had people negotiate to actually open the government.

You know, there are all kinds of reasons why everyone is saying that the government is shut down, but the biggest reason is because no one is willing to negotiate on the other side of the aisle.

I can tell you, the President, 16 blocks from here, was sitting here over Christmas and over New Year's, and, indeed, he was sitting here last weekend when 30 of my colleagues from across the aisle went to Puerto Rico on a junket with lobbyists to talk about how important the government shutdown must be to them.

Well, I can tell you that the biggest fallacy in all of this is that all the perils that my colleagues opposite seem to demonstrate, and the urgency that is there, I haven't seen the urgency.

We come in; we get sworn in; and what happens? They go home. The second weekend, what happens? They go to Puerto Rico.

Even today, while the President invites Democrat colleagues to go 16 blocks from here and negotiate on how we may solve this, what do they do? They turn down the President.

Now, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that there are a lot of things that are said on this particular House floor, but none more appropriate than today when we have our colleagues who were suggesting that this is easy to fix. They are exactly right. It is easy to fix. All we have to do is provide a little funding for border security and build a wall, because what we have at stake are the lives of innocent people.

Madam Speaker, I looked in the face of moms today who had lost their kids. It truly broke my heart to think that, here we are debating this issue, and yet, for some reason, my colleagues opposite won't give a single dime.

Let's find a single Democrat who is willing to give any amount of money to border barriers, and let's have a negotiation.

But you know what? You can't find them. You can't find them, not because they are in Puerto Rico. You can't find them because they have built a wall between them and fair compromise.

So, Madam Speaker, I am here today to suggest that we are here willing to negotiate. We are here willing to open back up the government, but not until the Democrats are willing to meet us halfway.

I can tell you, this President stands ready to make a deal, but, quite frankly, it has been only one side of the equation willing to negotiate.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I thank all my colleagues for being willing to stand up.

Let's get this done right. Let's secure the border once and for all. And let's, indeed, make America safe again.

Mr. Speaker, I find it just fascinating that my Democratic colleagues come down here to the well of the House to talk about opening up the government when, indeed, it is their reluctance to negotiate at all that is keeping the government shut down. On day 1 of the shutdown, it was zero money for new border barriers. On day 20, it is still zero money for new border barriers.

And to suggest to this body and to the Nation that, indeed, they are negotiating in good faith, I just find it incomprehensible.

I can tell you that we are ready to negotiate. In fact, they have been saying, it is their way or the highway. And do you know what? They are going to hit the highway in just a few hours and get out of here.

I think we ought to all stay here, let's negotiate, let's get a result, let's open the government, but, more importantly, let's protect our borders and communities across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to stay in the fight to make sure that we help this President deliver on a promise that he made years ago.

I am sad that tonight we are here, and we are on a backdrop of a potential government shutdown; but, really, what it is is more a function of the fact that we have not done our job like we should have done already.

The President, many, many months ago, said that he would not sign another funding bill unless we gave him wall funding. So what did this House do? It passed a bill to fund the Department of Defense and passed a short-term CR. And they said: Do you know what? We are going to have that fight, but we are going to have that fight after the midterms.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is after the midterms, and we are here with a number of my colleagues tonight to say that we are ready to fight on behalf of all the freedom-loving Americans to make sure that we have secure borders and that never again do we have to worry about terrorists and drug traffickers coming across our southern borders.

So I have a number of my colleagues tonight, Mr. Speaker, who want to speak on this to encourage the American people to stand with us in this fight.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to another gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree with the gentleman more. It is time that we deliver on behalf of the American people and fulfill the promises that the President made many months ago.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), someone who has been key in that, who knows this problem better than most, because he represents a district in New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, as I close out this particular Special Order, I think it is appropriate for us to remind the American people that there is a bad case of Potomac fever up here in Washington, D.C. They forget what they promised the American people, yet what they must do is not forget this time.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to back up the President. If he vetoes this bill, we will be there. But, more importantly, the American people will be there. They will be there to support him. Let's build the wall and make sure that we do our job in Congress.

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