Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Engel, for yielding, and to Mr. Smith also, congratulations on your work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 447, supporting the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people and their right to choose their country's future and to choose its direction, free from fear or intimidation, whether internal or external.

For 3 months now, countless scores of Ukrainians across the country have braved not only the bitter cold, but also the constant threat of government-authorized violence, to peacefully stand up for the universal principles of democracy and respect for human rights.

With this resolution, we, in the U.S. House, stand with them now.

A few weeks ago, I joined a large number of members of the Ukrainian American community that I proudly represent in the Ninth Congressional District to express support for those demonstrating in the still-colder winter in Ukraine.

As a founding cochair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus and original cosponsor of this resolution, I believe it is important that the House pass this expression of support for the Ukrainian people.

Those on Kyiv's Maidan and throughout the country need to know that the world is watching, that the U.S. is watching, that we here are watching, and we support them. I say to them, we are, and we do.

With colleagues, I recently had the privilege of meeting with opposition members of the Ukrainian Parliament. I was struck by what they indicated is their biggest fear and that of the demonstrators. There is the fear of riot police and government-backed thugs beating peaceful protesters, abhorrent behavior that has happened, resulting in numerous deaths.

There is a fear of being among the disappeared. According to reports, 20 opposition activists are still missing. What those brave democratic activists told us they are most afraid of is being forgotten, of the international community turning its attention elsewhere, of our global commitment to human rights and the rule of law being mere words, idealism overtaken by other foreign policy priorities.

The House today will take an important step to ensure that does not happen; that that fear is not realized.

Together with the Obama administration's continued forceful efforts, and the earlier passage of a similar resolution in the Senate, we present a unified American front. We show the people of Ukraine that we will steadfastly support their democratic and European aspirations.

We show Ukrainian President Yanukovych that America will not sit on the sidelines in the face of their government repression and gross human rights violation, and, as the Obama administration has shown, America will not only condemn, we will take action.

Like others, I welcomed the State Department's revocation of visas held by Ukrainian Government officials found to be responsible for violence against peaceful protesters.

I encourage the administration to take additional action, including targeted financial sanctions, should violence and human rights violations continue, which is what this resolution calls for.

It is time for the Government of Ukraine to immediately cease the use of violence, recognize the human rights of peaceful protesters and independent media, and participate in a true national dialogue with the opposition.

I urge all of my colleagues to stand and stand up with the courage, resilience, and indomitable spirit of the

Ukrainian people and pass this resolution.

Madam Speaker, let me express very personally why we are asking for a ``no'' on the previous question.

Unemployment insurance has lifted 11 million people from poverty since 2008. It kept 2.5 million people from poverty in 2012. So, for so many people in this country today, there is a personal emergency. Since the end of this program, December 28, they have been facing bills to pay--utility bills, house payment bills, rental bills, money for gas to keep looking for work. These are hardworking Americans who are facing the winds of poverty.

One of them today is with me for the State of the Union--Josie Maisano, from Michigan. She will tell you, as others will today at a press conference, that there is an emergency. There is an emergency for them. Extending UI is a moral American imperative. It is also a national economic benefit.

The Speaker asked for an offset. We are proposing one. So let us today have the chance to bring to the floor a bill to extend unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans, growing 72,000 every week.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think informed people are asking why are we taking up this bill this morning. I guess one reason is the Republicans will do anything they can to undermine ACA. Indeed, the more it is successful, the more desperate they become.

The administration says it quite clearly:

To implement this new reporting system, contracts may need

to be modified and new staff would need to be hired on an

expedited basis, adding millions of dollars in costs to

States and the Federal Government, without additional funding

from the Congress, for information that is already largely

being provided on a monthly basis, consistent with other

publicly funded health care programs.

Maybe a second reason we are taking up this bill is because the Republicans in this House think there is nothing else to do. This bill is going nowhere in the Senate, and you know that. You know that. But there is something else that we should be doing.

We are leaving here for 11 days. The House Republicans have said we are not going to be in session next week. 1.5 million Americans have lost their unemployment insurance because of inaction from this House of Representatives. Next week, 72,000 more will be added to the 1.5 million people, 50,000 in the State from which Mr. Camp and I come, 50,000 left out in the cold--left out in the cold--left, really, to their own devices, without a single bit of assistance that they really worked for. These are people out of work through no fault of their own, looking for work, and essentially they get, from this institution, action this morning on a bill going nowhere when there is somewhere we should be going.

I think this morning represents maybe more vividly than in recent times a reprehensible distortion of priorities of the majority in this House. There are 50,000 people in Michigan looking for work at a time when there remains a historically high percentage of the unemployed who are long-term unemployed. There are three people looking for work for every job that is available. And we come forth here with a bill that is going nowhere? Reprehensible. Inexcusable. You can go home.

I suggest you go home and talk--I guess you haven't done this yet--to the long-term unemployed. Every single person who votes for this bill should go home and talk to those out of work and out of luck, because the majority in this institution, in this House, are simply out of synch with the needs of the American people.

We shouldn't vote ``no'' on this bill, because we need the opportunity to vote ``yes'' on what really matters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on either side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as we meet, 1.5 million Americans are out in the cold, long-term unemployed, and added to that total 72,000 each week, an estimated, if we don't act, 3.6 million by the end of this year. Why is this? Partly because of myths, and I want to address them.

Myth one: the need for these benefits is over.

The truth, nearly 38 percent of the jobless are long-term unemployed, twice the rate when the emergency program started. The highest ever recorded before this recession was 26 percent of the unemployed were long-term.

Myth two: unemployment insurance creates dependency. As Senator Rand Paul claimed, it is a ``disservice.''

The long-term unemployed in these eyes need to get off their duffs. It is this Congress that needs to get off its duff because the overwhelming research rebuts this notion. Indeed, unemployment insurance helps people look for work. People have said, we need gas money to go and look for a job. Recipients must actively look for work under the rules within their States. By the way, the average benefit is $300 a week.

Myth three: jobs are there.

Get off your couch, it said, look. Wal-Mart came to D.C., had 600 jobs available; 23,000 people applied. A dairy in Hagerstown, Maryland, reopened; 36 jobs were available; 1,600 job applications. There are still 1 million fewer jobs today than when the recession began in 2007.

Myth four: North Carolina shows if you end unemployment insurance, the unemployment rate goes down because people go to work.

That is a myth. The unemployment rate in North Carolina went down primarily because people stopped looking for work. They gave up. This isn't America. It should not be North Carolina.

Myth 5: ninety-nine weeks is far too many.

Actually, the program hasn't had this emergency program 99 weeks for over 2 years. Last year, the longest was 73 weeks and only 3 States had that level. The average nationwide is 54 weeks. Now just one of four unemployed receive unemployment benefits at all, the lowest on record.

Myth six: you need to reduce the program as the unemployment rate goes down.

That is already done. We have four tiers, and already the amount of available benefits goes down in a State as the unemployment rate goes down.

The next myth: an extension must be offset.

This is an emergency program. None of the five UI extensions signed into law by President Bush--none of the five--was offset.

People don't need it, is the next myth. In 2012--this is the Census Bureau information--this program lifted 2.5 million people out of poverty.

The next myth, what we need--and we hear this all the time--is economic growth, not unemployment insurance. Well, the GOP has stymied every key program to assist recovery, the infrastructure, whatever. The fact is that unemployment insurance helps economic growth. The CBO estimates 200,000 fewer jobs this year without an extension.

As we fight in this institution over issues of economic growth, let us not punish the long-term unemployed.

I was reading a statement by the president of the conservative think tank, American Enterprise Institute, an interview with him in October. And he said this:

One of the things, in my view, that we get wrong in the

free enterprise movement is this war against the social

safety net, which is just insane. The government social

safety net for the truly indigent is one of the greatest

achievements of our society. And we somehow want to zero out

food stamps or something. It's nuts to want to be doing

something like that. We have to declare peace on the safety

net.

The Congress needs to act and the Republicans need to end their war on the long-term unemployed.

Thank you to the gentleman for yielding.

More than 1.5 million long-term unemployed have now been cut off unemployment insurance with the expiration of the Federal program, thrown out of work through no fault of their own, and desperately, desperately looking for a job. They are powerless and, to many in Washington, they are nameless, only a number.

So those who oppose extending this lifeline of unemployment insurance can talk about their compassion, but rather than meeting and talking with Americans searching for work, they are throwing them to the wolves, whether of hunger, helplessness or even homelessness.

We, I promise everybody, will strive to help change that these next 11 days, as House Republicans recess.

Consider this: when Walmart advertised 600 jobs in D.C., 23,000 people applied. When a dairy plant was reopened in Hagerstown, Maryland, 1,600 people applied for a few dozen jobs.

This should not be a partisan issue. Republicans are making it such with their cold shoulder and their stonewall in this House.

It is unconscionable for Republicans to close down this House without lifting a single finger to help 1.5 million Americans and to prevent a vote by those of us ready to act. It is unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority's service to the Oakland County community.

Currently, only 28 percent of Americans with a diagnosable mental illness receive the treatment they need, and even Americans who do have health insurance too often find themselves unable to receive care because of discriminatory policies in their health plans. The Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority helps to fill this void by ensuring that more than 22,000 Oakland County citizens have access to high quality mental health services. The Authority provides lifesaving services to those adults and children who are affected by mental health illness, emotional disturbance, or substance abuse. Most notable is the Authority's dedication to serving the under- and uninsured.

Today, the Authority serves as a national leader in the delivery of quality mental health services that improve the health and quality of life of those who are in need of mental health support.

As part of its services, the Authority is opening a new Resource and Crisis Services Center for Oakland County citizens. This facility will serve as an accessible centralized resource for individuals facing crisis and seeking referral to quality support and mental health services. I congratulate Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority for its new Resource and Crisis Services Center, and I look forward to the Authority's expanded impact in our community.

Mr. Speaker, the Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority will celebrate its many contributions to the Oakland County community on December 17, 2013. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority, and its dedicated staff, for its five decades of service to Michigan residents.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are talking about unemployment insurance.

We are not showboating--we want to vote--and you misunderstand, if I might say so, the issue.

If we don't act on December 28, 1.3 million people will lose every cent of unemployment insurance. These are people who have exhausted their State benefits. They have exhausted them. These are people who have been laid off through no fault of their own, and they are looking for work. When Walmart came to D.C. and asked for applications, 23,000 people applied for 600 jobs. That is the shortage of jobs for people. So these 1.3 million people are people who have exhausted their State benefits and who are long-term unemployed.

Historically, we have never, never ended these emergency provisions when long-term unemployment has been as high as it is today--37 percent--and we have already reduced the average number of unemployment insurance weeks in this country to 54. I want to point out to the gentleman and to everybody else that, if we don't act, another 1.9 million unemployed people will lose every cent of their unemployment insurance in the next 6 months.

So, under this bill, SGR is now extended for 3 months. We asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment--paid for--to extend unemployment insurance for 3 months, and here is what we said: if we can prevent a 25 percent cut to doctors' pay, surely, we can prevent a 100 percent cut for 1.3 million uninsured.

So what has been the response?

The answer from House Republicans is this--an empty box.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate your courtesy.

I always enjoy coming before the Rules Committee.

Just two points. First of all--maybe three quick ones--SGR was outside the budget agreement. It was decided to place it within it. All we are asking is for a vote on UI. And the third point, December 28 is a few days away. The ax falls on the livelihood of 1.3 million people.

So if you will say today that the Speaker will sit down with us on a bipartisan basis today and tomorrow and find an answer, fine. But just to say you are skipping town not addressing this and leaving an empty box, that is not a good answer.

It is true, isn't it? We are leaving?

Mr. Speaker, this countdown clock at democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov says 25 days and 10 hours, and it is ticking. That is the countdown to an immediate cutoff of emergency unemployment insurance for 1.3 million Americans. Without an extension of this vital program, they will lose their entire coverage--every dime of it.

Who are they? They are Americans laid off through no fault of their own, struggling to find jobs and recover from the worst economic crisis in 70 years. They are an estimated 20,000 veterans who have exhausted their State benefits after leaving the military and are unable to find work. They are mothers and fathers to an estimated 2 million children. And they are counting down to December 28.

So far, the economic recovery has left them behind. Congress must not simply do so as well. We must extend this vital insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow Co-Chairs of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, Representatives Marcy Kaptur and Jim Gerlach in rising today to support the passage of H. Res. 402, supporting the European aspirations of the people of the European Union's (EU) Eastern Partnership countries, and to express continued support for Ukraine as it moves closer to signing the EU Association Agreement.

In order for Ukraine to progress democratically and economically, it is imperative that the conditions of this agreement, as jointly initialed by the EU and Ukraine, are fully met--in law and in practice.

The critical November 28-29 Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania is quickly approaching, bringing with it the deadline for signing the Association Agreement. Accordingly, we urge the U.S. Department of State to advance all appropriate opportunities for cooperation with Ukraine to address the remaining required reforms, including electoral and rule of law reforms as well as issues related to selective justice, particularly the release of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Along with the clear democratic and economic benefits, we believe these reforms, coupled with international monitoring and oversight, provide the best opportunity to ensure free and fair elections in Ukraine in 2015 and beyond.

Consistent with our support for H. Res. 402, we applaud the EU's progress--much of it through the Eastern Partnership program--in helping to build democratic, prosperous, and stable societies throughout Eastern Europe and the Caucuses. Building on that progress is in the national interest of the United States; consequently, we call on the U.S. Department of State to direct needed resources to help support Ukraine's European choice.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are on a mission of destruction. Nothing will satisfy them except that very mission. The Upton bill is another weapon in that mission. What the Republicans fear most of all is that health care reform will eventually work. The Upton bill is a bill to make sure that it does not work.

The President has taken a step to help people keep their policies. The Upton bill opens the door to anyone at all to make sure that health care reform is not workable and that the private market cannot work. So back to the time of 50 million uninsured. So back to the time of cancelation for preexisting conditions. So back to the time of no cap. The alternative is bankruptcy.

Eight years ago, the Medicare drug program that Republicans had passed got off to a rocky start. Did we Democrats pounce on it for political gain? No. We put the country first and helped make the program a success. The Republicans are marching in the opposite direction--the path of destroying instead of making something work.

Let's work together to make it work rather than destroying what Americans want: a healthy health care program for all Americans.

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

Just a short time ago, a number of us joined many others in paying tribute to Speaker Tom Foley. There was a commemoration ceremony just 100 feet or so from here.

There was a lot of discussion, appropriately, of the need for bipartisanship.

There was much reference to the role that Tom Foley played in that in trying to reach across the aisle.

Bob Michel, the former leader on the Republican side, spoke so eloquently as to how there was a level of trust and how there was an effort at bipartisanship.

I think what has happened in this House is that the increased polarization has really twisted this institution and has even, to some extent, twisted the ability to have close relationships. I say this because I think this resolution is not within that spirit.

It was only the week before last that 87 House Republicans joined 198 House Democrats to pull this Nation back from the brink of a default that would have magnified the economic damage inflicted by the Republican shutdown of this government. That was a bipartisan effort with leadership support from both sides of the aisle.

And I can understand why those who voted ``no'' on October 16 might vote ``yes'' on this bill in order to be consistent. And while I disagree with the policy, at least their vote would be consistent. I think the vote would be consistently wrong, but it would be consistent.

What is hard to understand is how anybody who voted ``yes'' on October 16 to avoid a default would now vote ``yes'' on this bill that would bring about a default. So you talk about the message. Essentially, the message of this bill is once again we will utilize the threat of default. That is what this bill says. When you vote for it, that is precisely what you are saying. So you are saying that serious impairment of our Nation's full faith and credit, which economists warned would plunge us back into recession, was a bad idea on Wednesday, 2 weeks ago, but doing so is a good idea on Wednesday, 2 weeks later, when we vote tomorrow. That is precisely what you are saying. That is your message. So the same person who voted one way then is soon going to vote the other way.

Let me just say why I think this is not within the spirit of an effort at bipartisanship that I referred to earlier and that I think is so important, and the lack of any effort at that has really twisted--I use that word--the strength of this institution.

Just a short time ago, a few weeks ago, as the Republicans took us to the brink of default, the minority leader on the Senate side said:

There is no education in the second kick of a mule, and we

are not going to do this again in connection with the debt

ceiling or with a government shutdown.

That is precisely what this legislation says--precisely. It says-- forget about the second kick of a mule. What it says is that you would do it again in connection with the debt ceiling. So that is your message. And you would do that; you would take us to the brink of default that, earlier this month, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated lost 120,000 jobs that would have been created in October and private forecasters estimated slowed fourth quarter GDP growth by between 0.2 and 0.6 percentage point.

So I think there is no escape from the inconsistency. There is no escape from essentially saying once again there is no real effort to reach across the aisle. There is no real effort to try to instill some belief that the two parties can work together. So that is a bad message, and I guess a lot of you think you can be inconsistent because it will never come up in the Senate. And it won't. But that doesn't take away the fact that there is an inconsistency here, I guess to try to cover some people's votes, to somehow minimize their impact.

But when it comes to the default of the full faith and credit of this country, there has to be something more important than providing us cover. We need to provide cover for the citizens of this country so that they are not vulnerable to playing with the default and the full faith and credit of this country.

So you shouldn't be bringing up this resolution. It will pass, I guess. There will be enough inconsistent votes, and it will go nowhere, but it sends the very, very wrong message.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman from Indiana mentioned about spooking the market--and Halloween is in a couple of days. Essentially, what this bill says is you would be willing to spook the market if you could. That is the wrong message.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a veteran of these battles and a friend of Tom Foley's.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to

the gentleman from Illinois (Danny K. Davis), a distinguished member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time, and I will speak very briefly because the message here is so clear, that those who vote for this bill are saying they are willing to use the threat of default once again, and we shouldn't be doing this.

I don't think the Nation believed that this government and its programs would be shut down; but it turned out, because of the way the Republicans handled it, this government was shut down, and programs were very much undercut that were needed by the people of this country.

We came within a flicker of default. The consequences of playing with that were very, very substantial.

So now, once again, the Republicans bring up a bill, and whatever the reason is, are giving people a chance, once again, to say that playing with default is a legitimate method of operation. You shouldn't do this.

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

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

Well, for a week now, the Republicans said no to a CR funding the entire government unless there was defunding of health care reform. That was the bludgeon. It did not work.

So the Republicans shut down the government. It turns out that tactic was in the works for a year, as described in The New York Times yesterday:

One morning in a location the Members insist on keeping

secret, came a little-noticed ``blueprint to defund

ObamaCare'' signed by leaders of more than three dozen

conservative groups. It articulated a take-no-prisoners

legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative

circles: that Republicans could derail the health care

overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push

fellow Republicans--including their cautious leaders--into

cutting off financing for the entire government.

So now we have a shift. Keep the government shut down, let government not pay its bills. Why? Because the Speaker said it would be ``unconditional surrender.'' That isn't what's needed. We don't need another supercommittee. What we need is to be allowed to vote.

This poster shows 195 Democrats willing to reopen the government; 22 Republicans on record. That's a majority of the House. Mr. Speaker, let democracy prevail. Let us vote.

Mr. Speaker, this will be a short 5-minute, indeed a short 1-minute, because it all can be said in a very few words.

Yesterday, the Speaker said ``there are not enough votes in the House to pass'' a clean bill to fund the government and end the shutdown.

There is one clear way to find out, Mr. Speaker: let us vote on the floor of the House.

On Saturday, 195 of us Democrats sent a letter to the Speaker, saying we are willing to vote ``yes.'' And the reports are also 22 Republicans at least are ready to vote ``yes.'' That's a majority. There are enough votes to end the shutdown.

And Mr. Speaker, if you don't believe it, let us vote.

Mr. Speaker, we should not be debating a bill that's going nowhere. We should be debating a bill that will end this shutdown.

Yesterday, the Speaker said this: There are not enough votes in the House to pass a clean bill to fund the government and end the shutdown. The truth of the matter is, if the bill will come up, it will pass.

On Saturday, 195 Democrats wrote to the Speaker and said, Bring up the bill. Informed reports say there are 22 Republicans who will also vote ``yes.'' That is a majority of the House.

I say to the Speaker: Let all of us speak.

The President today said this:

The truth of the matter is there are enough Republican and

Democratic votes in the House of Representatives right now to

end this shutdown immediately, with no partisan strings

attached. The House should hold that vote today. If

Republicans and Speaker Boehner are saying there are not

enough votes, then they should prove it. Let the bill go to

the floor, and let's see what happens. Just vote.

Then he continued:

There's no reason that there has to be a shutdown in order

for the kind of negotiations Speaker Boehner says he wants to

proceed. Hold a vote. Call a vote right now, and let's see

what happens.

We say to the Speaker: Let democracy prevail. Bring the Senate bill up for a vote now.

Madam Speaker, let's be clear about what's happening here. We are in day-four of the shutdown of the federal government for one reason, and one reason alone: The desire of a radical wing of the Republican Party to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

To that end, House Republicans have rejected the clean government funding bill passed by the Senate, and shut down the government. The shutdown could end today if Speaker Boehner would bring up the Senate- passed funding bill. There are more than enough votes to pass it and send the bill to

the President, who would sign it. The only reason we aren't voting on the Senate bill is because Speaker Boehner has not stood up to a radical group of Tea Party lawmakers who are demanding repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Instead of re-opening the entire government, the Republican Leadership is playing more games as they continue to bring up piecemeal bills to fund the most visible casualties of the shutdown they caused. Earlier this week, we had a vote to reopen the Smithsonian and the National Parks. Then we had a vote to reopen the National Institutes of Health. Then the Republicans began to feel the heat from veterans, so they brought up a bill to reopen the VA. These Band aid bills are an attempt by Republicans to give themselves political cover for causing this shutdown in the first place.

Today we have another Band aid bill before us. This bill would restart funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children through December 15. Nearly 9 million moms and kids under five living near or below the poverty line rely on WIC for healthy food, breastfeeding support, infant formula and other necessities. It's as if Republicans have just figured out that closing down the federal government has health consequences when mothers cannot provide food and nutrition for their kids.

Let me read a statement from the National WIC Association, which urges the House to reject the bill before the House. They call this Republican bill ``a cynical ploy to use low-income nutritionally at- risk mothers and young children as political pawns for political ends. Funding the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) in this piecemeal, short-term, stop-gap manner is not an acceptable solution. . . . NWA urges Congress to end the uncertainty that exists in our fiscal environment and the already challenged lives of vulnerable mothers and young children by responsibly discharging and fulfilling its moral obligations to the nation. NWA will not tolerate efforts to leverage the nutritional health and well-being of pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, their babies, and young children to satisfy the political ends or strategies of policy-makers.''

It's time to stop playing politics, and have a vote on the Senate's clean funding bill. It's time to end the shutdown.