Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay a heartfelt tribute to the men and women of the Capital Gazette. The staff at the daily paper, based in Annapolis and covering news across Anne Arundel County and the surrounding area, were recognized last month by TIME as one of its `Person of the Year' honorees. They joined murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi; Maria Ressa, a reporter in the Philippines working to expose corruption amid the country's drug war; and Burmese journalists Kyaw Soe Oo and Wa Lone, imprisoned for covering the plight of Rohingya refuges. TIME's award focused on the dangers facing journalists as they seek to fulfill their role as `guardians' of truth. At the Capital Gazette, that danger took the form of a deadly mass shooting on June 28, 2018, which killed five employees and injured several others.

On that tragic day, a gunman entered the Capital Gazette offices in Annapolis and took the lives of Gerald Fischman, Rob Hiaasen, John McNamara, Wendi Winters, and Rebecca Smith. It was a targeted attack by a mentally disturbed individual who should never have been able to acquire dangerous firearms. The attack came after months of vitriol leveled at the press, where reporters were called `enemy of the people' and lambasted as purveyors of `fake news.' To their credit, even after this deadly shooting took the lives of their friends and colleagues and after having to endure threats targeted at them and other journalists, the staff of the Capital Gazette continued their important work of reporting the news to the people of Maryland and released an edition of the paper the very next day. They would not be deterred from their mission, so critical to our open and deliberative democracy.

Madam Speaker, I hope all of the Members of this House will join me in congratulating the Capital Gazette and thanking its staff for the hard work they do every day--as well as all the members of the press who are risking danger to report the news. We must continue to stand up for the freedom of the press, which is critical to the liberty of our people and to all nations around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Aderholt from Alabama has just said this is ``veto bait.'' What is veto bait? A proposition to open up the people's government. Veto bait?

What is the Republican position? Unless the coequal branch of government, the House of Representatives, says ``yes'' to the President of the United States, you will continue to support, ad infinitum, closing down the American Government.

Our Russian--I won't call them enemies, but adversaries, at least, are very happy, I am sure, that the American Government is shut down.

Our Chinese competitors are very happy that the American Government is shut down.

We look ridiculous on the national and international scene.

I ask one of my Republican colleagues to stand, and I will yield to them. Tell me which government of the world shuts themselves down.

You are correct. The answer is, I can't find any government in the free world that shuts themselves down.

Is that what you won't vote for, opening up your government, the people's government? Is that what this fight is about?

Or is this fight about, Mr. President, you tell us what to do?

Mr. McConnell says he won't put anything on the Senate floor that the President won't sign. My, my, my, what a coequal branch of government we are.

Article I says we make the policy. We decide what is rational to spend $5.7 billion on. Experts tell us this wall won't work. Senator Cornyn, Senator Graham, Senator Kennedy, other Senators have said this is not a good investment. By the way, somebody else who said that was Mick Mulvaney, some years ago. He is now Chief of Staff at the White House.

This is not a partisan issue, and this is not about the wall, nor was it about the ACA, nor was it about the level of education funding when Gingrich shut down the government or when Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus shut down the government.

Thank God for John Boehner, who had the courage to say shutting down the government does not make any sense. It is a stupid policy. Thank God for John Boehner, who came to the floor, notwithstanding the fact only 87 of his Republican colleagues would support it, but with all the support of the Democrats, we opened up the government after 26 days.

Now, we have exceeded it this time. What happens 2 weeks from now when the President says: Either you do it my way or no way, or I am going to shut down the government.

We are paying a high price, Mr. Speaker, for shutting down this government, not only the 800,000 hostages who have been taken by the President of the United States, with the complicity of his Republican supporters in the House and in the Senate. 800,000 people, 440,000 of them forced to work without getting paid, 360,000 of them sitting home and saying: How am I going to pay my mortgage? How am I going to pay my car payment?

They don't know. I talked to a veteran just 3 days ago who represents a lot of veterans organizations. He said to me: Do you know the highest reason for veteran suicide?

I said: No, what is that?

Fiscal uncertainty.

We have a lot of veterans in the Federal Government. We have a lot of veterans who are either laid off or working and not getting paid. We are creating financial instability and anxiety among our employees. What a stupid way to run a business.

Yesterday, we had a motion to recommit, and it was to strike opening up the government of the United States. That was apparently, as the chairwoman has expressed, a poison pill for my Republican colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I don't get it. We were sent here by our people to make their government run more efficiently and effectively for them and for our country, and what have we done? We have said: If the President won't agree to opening up the government, we won't either.

Yes, we have tried every kind of alternative: opening it up for 7 days, opening it up for 14 days where we can negotiate, and now we are saying to open it up for a month, put people back to work, give them a paycheck.

And what does the President's Council of Economic Advisers say just the other day? We are hurting the economy of the United States, which hurts everybody and the international community.

I don't get it. I can't think that the American people will get it, that their Congress sits supine and says we will only pass something if the President says it is okay.

Have we come to this state where the Article I branch of government, given the power by the people to make policy, says to the person in the Second Article, given the responsibility of executing policy, to tell us: You guys who make policy, don't do it unless I tell you you can?

How sad, how lacking in respect for our own responsibility and duties to sit idly by while not only 800,000 people are held hostage, but also millions and millions and millions of others who are served daily by those 800,000 people.

I plead with my colleagues: Stand up. Reject this policy of shutting down government whoever does it, whichever side does it.

And we don't do it. We don't believe in it. Mitch McConnell doesn't believe in it. He said just a few years ago it was a failed policy. And he, Senator McConnell, was the guy that opened up government. That is what he said. He has now abandoned that, unfortunately, to the detriment of our country--not just to the detriment of our Federal employees, to the detriment of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope every American would call their Member and say: Look, you guys have differences. That is all right. But don't shut down my government; don't hurt my economy; don't hurt my neighbor; don't hurt my mom and dad; don't hurt my child; don't send people to the border to make us secure when you talk about border security and then don't pay them and have them worrying about when they are going to get their next paycheck.

We are better than this. The Congress ought to be better than this.

In a bipartisan way, we ought to say to the President of the United States: We are for you, against you on this, that, or the other policy, but we are united in the fact that we do not want to shut down the people's government.

Pass this bill. Send it to the Senate. Let's open this government. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank the ranking member for his leadership as well.

Mr. Speaker, I join Mr. Himes in saying this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of America and whether or not we are going to hold accountable those who would threaten and undermine the interests of the United States.

I thank Mr. McCaul for his principled leadership on this issue, and I thank Chairman Engel for his continuing focus on making America secure.

Mr. Speaker, I am offering this joint resolution today because it is deeply concerning that the Treasury Department would terminate sanctions on companies owned by Oleg Deripaska.

Mr. Deripaska is a Russian oligarch--meaning essential is very, very wealthy--and is a very close associate of President Vladimir Putin.

The businesses he controls were sanctioned under the Russian sanctions legislation the Congress enacted through bipartisan action in 2017. As I have sponsored numerous bills with Mr. McCarthy when he was the majority leader to make sure that the Congress was on record and had policies which would staunch the attacks on our country and on our security by the Russians.

I was deeply disappointed that the Republican Senate rejected a similar resolution yesterday. When I say they rejected it, the majority of the Members of the Senate--57 to be exact--supported this resolution.

I talked to Secretary Mnuchin yesterday and the day before, and I asked Secretary Mnuchin: Given the concerns about this legislation, about this withdrawing of sanctions on RUSAL, that they give us until February 28 to have hearings to reflect upon and have further discussions with the administration and make a determination whether we thought this action was in the best interests of our country.

Unfortunately, when the Senate failed to get the 60 votes they needed to bring cloture so that they could get to final consideration of the bill, the Treasury Department decided to go forward.

It is crucial that the Congress, however, make clear that the allies of Vladimir Putin, no matter how wealthy or how powerful they are, face appropriate consequences for their actions against America's security and democratic institutions. That is what this is about.

As Mr. Himes said, it is not a partisan vote. As a matter of fact, in my view, if Barack Obama were President of the United States today, this resolution would receive unanimous support from my Republican colleagues and overwhelming, if not unanimous, support from my Democratic colleagues.

Now, I understand the Treasury Department's goal in this instance. It is trying to remove Mr. Deripaska from control of these companies. That is a good objective. I am also sensitive to the economic concerns of our European partners who are dependent on aluminum manufactured by RUSAL, which is the Russian aluminum company, one of the largest in the world and almost, maybe not a monopoly, but an overwhelming share of the aluminum market internationally.

However, I do not have confidence that this specific deal accomplishes that objective. I believe many of the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle share this lack of confidence. There are way too many remaining questions for Congress not to act on this resolution.

For example, I am not convinced that Mr. Deripaska would fully relinquish his control of RUSAL under this deal--as a matter of fact, I think it is doubtful that he would do so--or that the Treasury Department used its full leverage in this negotiation.

I am also concerned, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Deripaska would receive massive financial benefit from this deal--this is supposed to be a sanction--massive financial benefit, nearly unprecedented for a sanctioned entity.

Mr. Speaker, I hope our action today will force the Treasury Department to engage more thoroughly with Congress on explaining its actions on this deal and to seek a better one. I think their intent was an honest intent. I am doubtful they achieved it. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me and, hopefully, in a bipartisan way supporting this resolution and I call on the Senate to reconsider its position.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

I am not sure what is going on, but I object. It is done.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object--I understand there is a problem--and I intend to object.

We have told all our people to go home. It is not just a question of being in their offices, with all due respect. They are on their way to their planes. It is far after the time when we usually leave on a go- away day.

And I feel badly. I am going to look at the TV. I don't, frankly, think--I was sitting right here. I didn't hear or see anybody asking for a recorded vote. And, very frankly, you don't usually have to ask for a recorded vote because, when you were in the majority, it was always us that had to record the vote because we were losing. Frankly, I think that is what happened, I will be very honest with you.

But again, I would like to be able to correct this situation. But I cannot do that in good conscience because people have told me they had 1:30 planes, and they are gone. And I feel very badly about that, but that is the fact.

I don't think any games were played. I am going to look at the tape-- it is on television--and see. I understand the problem that most of you were not for the resolution that passed. We didn't stop anybody from asking for a vote, nor could we have stopped anybody from asking for a vote. I was surprised that it went without a vote.

The Speaker and the Parliamentarian indicate that the proper procedure was followed, but the vote was not asked for. Therefore, I feel badly about it, because I understand the problem you are in. But I have Members who have left for the airports and they are not going to be here.

The vote, if it was reconsidered, is equally important on our side as it is on your side. I cannot expose my Members to missing that vote, nor will I. And I apologize for that. But I hope you understand that, given the situation, I cannot let my Members be subjected to missing that vote, which is a very important vote for them. And, therefore, I will have to object.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the minority whip.

This is a very critical vote. The government is shut down. We think the government should not be shut down.

And the gentleman says he doesn't think we should go home. Very frankly, there is nothing we can do, because the majority leader has said he will not do anything unless the President of the United States gives him leave to do so, and the President of the United States wants to keep the government shut down.

This was not a small vote, and I will tell you, had it been on our side, you would have heard us demand a vote.

We raised an objection at the proper time and we got a vote. I understand that.

I will tell you--and you know that--you look around the room, all of your Members are not here. And, like my Members, they are back on the road going to a plane. I regret that we are in this position.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, we are going to have a colloquy in just a few minutes and we can go through that.

The problem is--and I say this honestly, and I think most Members know--if I thought you had asked for a vote and the Speaker had not recognized that vote--I was sitting right here. I was not distracted, and I was surprised that a vote was not asked for because I understand that most, if not all, of you were not for opening up the government.

The fact of the matter is that a vote was not asked for. We have now gone through business, and we put ourselves in a very difficult position. But I cannot agree to a proposition where I have told Members: No, you can go catch your plane. Some had 1:30s, and they left right at the dot of 1. I don't know whether they are going to make it.

And, you know, we are in a bad situation, but I cannot agree to a unanimous consent that is going to require our Members to come back from wherever they are. I don't know that they are on planes yet, but they are going to be on them shortly.

And both sides have that problem. I think you probably have that problem anyway. And, very frankly, I am absolutely convinced the outcome would be no different.

The problem is so many of your Members wanted to vote against the proposition--I understand that--and I would like to give them that opportunity. I am not in a position to do so, and I feel badly about that, but that is the position I made.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be in session next week. We are going to be back here. It was a recess week. The reason it is not a recess week is because the government of the American people is shut down. We have tried now nine times--this was the ninth time--to open up the government.

Nobody was surprised. Everybody knew. It was debated on the floor. I spoke on it for, I think, 8 or 9 minutes myself, so there was no confusion, should not have been confusion on the floor. And I think a vote should have been demanded. It was not, and I am not in a position to agree to a unanimous consent. But I am in a position to tell you, there will be at least two or three votes next week on opening up the government.

My presumption is those of you who have voted against such motions in the past will do so again. So it will not be as if you don't have an opportunity to vote on this same proposition. It was not a complicated proposition, and I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in a position to try to cure the failure, in my view, because I didn't hear it, and I was, as I say, sitting here.

And the Speaker obviously didn't hear it either. I am absolutely convinced that the judge would not have--if he had heard a request, he would have honored that request for a vote. So we are where we are.

I would urge the Members--clearly, I will stipulate to the fact that almost all of you would have voted against the motion if a vote had been taken, and you can put that in the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, from time to time, for whatever reasons, people want to vote and, either because they don't get down the aisle or they don't request a vote, they do not get the opportunity to vote on issues that they think are important to them.

From time to time, frankly, on our side we have felt that we have been shut out when the majority was in the hands of the Republicans. We would

want fairness. In return, we ought to extend fairness.

There are obviously many, many Members who wanted to vote on the continuing resolution which was the subject of one of the votes, but from our point of view--and having reviewed the tapes--that did not happen. That happens.

But because we want to assure Members on both sides of the aisle that their opinion can be expressed as they would wish it to be expressed-- and I think Mr. Scalise will say that. Mr. Butterfield, former judge, who is one of our fairest and best Members, I would hope we would acknowledge that he handled the matter fairly and consistent with the rules.

Given that, it will be my intention to now ask for unanimous consent to provide for the opportunity, when we return on Wednesday, so that we have all Members here--we are going to return on Tuesday. And I would say that we will return before that. We may return tomorrow if we can open up government, if we have an agreement on that. But we will return as soon as that option is available to us.

But we will return, if that does not happen, on the evening of Tuesday at 6:30, and we will then, as a result of the unanimous consent request I am about to make, vote--revote--on the issue at hand on Wednesday at the first of business.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate proceedings by which the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 28) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes, was passed, and the motion to reconsider laid upon the table, to the end that the Chair put the question on passage of H.J. Res. 28 de novo; and, further, that if a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered--in other words, requested--on the question of passage of H.J. Res. 28, further proceedings may be postponed through the legislative day of January 23, 2019, as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Again, Mr. Speaker, that will have the effect of allowing a revote on the resolution so that my Republican colleagues can reflect their view on whether that measure ought to pass or whether it ought to fail.

Don't say that too strongly, lest I withdraw the unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, before I end, we have just been through a very difficult week in which one of our Members was reviewed and disapproval was passed almost unanimously, I think, with just one vote opposed to it, on our side.

I must mention: I don't want any argument or we don't need to debate on this, but, unfortunately, at a height, I know, of a lot of emotion, one of our Members, a respected Member of our caucus, Tony Cardenas-- who is, by the way, from California--was met with a call from the other side of the aisle to return to Puerto Rico.

We ought to all be cognizant of the fact that we need to be civil to one another. We need to be polite to one another, even. We can disagree very strongly and, obviously, we do on issue to issue.

But we have been sent here by 750,000, give or take, of our fellow citizens, and I respect all of you for having been selected by 750,000 people. I may disagree with them on selecting the policies that you pursue, obviously--I understand that--but I would hope that we could refrain from any implications which have any undertones of prejudice or racism or any kind of ``-ism'' that would diminish the character and integrity of one of our fellow Members.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I am moving to refer this resolution to the Committee on Ethics.

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

The previous question was ordered.

The motion to refer was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, the Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy, went on ``Face the Nation'' and said the following: ``It is unacceptable that 800,000 U.S. employees are not being paid.'' He didn't add, but he should have, that 440,000 of them are being made to work while they are not paid.

But I agree that it is unacceptable that 800,000 U.S. folks are shut out. It is unacceptable that Republicans and Donald Trump would shut down the government and deny paychecks to 800,000 Americans because they couldn't get congressional approval for an expensive and ineffective border wall, even when they controlled all levers of government.

Let me repeat that. They didn't get it done when they controlled all levers of government.

The Republican leader went on to say: ``You know what we're arguing over? One-tenth of 1 percent of the Federal budget.''

He is dead wrong on that. This isn't about a wall, or healthcare, or the debt limit, or spending levels. It is about whether it is appropriate policy for a President to threaten shutdowns and take the country hostage to get what he wants.

It is malfeasant and malevolent to hold 800,000 Americans and, indeed, the millions they serve hostage to the demands of a President who, days before he shut down the government, told us that is exactly what he intended to do.

That is why House Democrats, joined by several Republicans, passed six of the seven remaining appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019, all of which had bipartisan support in the Senate, and a continuing resolution to reopen the Department of Homeland Security on the first day of the new Congress.

It is also why, last week, House Democrats passed, on an individual basis, four of those same appropriations bills to reopen portions of government that the Senate approved by a vote of 92-6, over 90 percent, almost 95 percent of the Senators.

Our colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) was concerned that these were not products of the House. He is right. So vote to open up a government with a CR, which you will have an opportunity to do three times, my Republican colleagues. Let's conclude the appropriations process by passing bills agreed upon by the House and the Senate.

What we have been saying all along is: Reopen the people's government. Shutting it down is an illegitimate, immoral act.

I disagree with the Republican leader's characterization of Democrats' position as taking a stand for a certain level of funding.

Just give us X amount of money for a wall, Republicans and the President say, and the shutdown will end.

This is not about a wall. It is about trying to gain an end by threat, rather than by democratic debate. One side cannot, must not, continue to threaten shutdowns to get its way in a democracy.

Our research does not show us another democracy in the world that shuts itself down. That is not how the system should work.

If Donald Trump is permitted to bully the American people and their representatives into giving him whatever he wants, does anyone think, for a second, we won't be right back here in a few weeks, or a few months, with yet another shutdown over the next item on the President's wish list?

Give me more tax cuts for the wealthy, or I will shut down the government, he will say. Cut Medicare and Social Security, or I will default on the debt.

This is about more than money to build a wall on our border. It is about whether to firm up the wall around our democracy.

We need to end this shutdown now, reopen the government first, and discuss, rationally, how best to secure our borders, an objective many of us have voted to do over the years, with substantial increases in our investment in security at all of our borders.

The only beneficiaries, very frankly, of this shutdown are Russia, China, Iran, and our other enemies and those who would like to see us fail. If this

shutdown continues, it will further weaken us on trade, on national security, on protecting our interests around the world, and in serving our people here at home. And it will continue harming our economy, which has already lost nearly as much in GDP as the President wants for his wall.

Mr. Speaker, if Leader McCarthy truly finds it unacceptable for this shutdown to continue, I ask him and all my Republican colleagues to join us in urging Senator McConnell, who has called shutdowns ``failed policy,'' and President Trump to end it by taking up the bills the House has already passed to do so.

Mr. President, open our government for the people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I think this is my first time in a long time of having a magic 1 minute, so I have some things to say.

I was on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years. I came here in 1981. Between 1981 and 1995, we had 10 shutdowns. Those 10 shutdowns averaged 1.9 days a shutdown. The longest one was 3 days. They were because of differences, not because of a strategy.

In 1995, Newt Gingrich adopted shutting down government as a strategy, as a taking hostage not only of Federal employees, but taking hostage of the American Government and taking hostage of everyone who is served on a daily basis by the Federal Government. The reason I know it is a strategy is because it has happened a number of times.

The next one, long-term, was in 2013, when Ted Cruz, a United States Senator, came over here and talked to a number of Members and said: Unless the President will repeal the Affordable Care Act, we are not going to fund the government. In other words, unless the President didn't take healthcare away from Americans, the Republicans would take government services away from Americans and hold hostage the Government of the United States.

And now, just a few years later, ladies and gentlemen, the Republicans have again taken hostage not only 800,000 people who work for the Federal Government, expecting them to work for no pay to protect our borders, to protect our seas, to protect our food, and so they have taken hostage the Government of the United States one more time.

So we have a crisis, but the crisis is not at the border. There is a challenge at the border, and we need to make our border secure. We are for that.

The proposal the President made in a campaign speech which got a lot of roars all the times he gave it was: We need a wall, a big wall, a wall along the whole border, a wall that the Mexican Government will pay for. It was total campaign rhetoric and demagoguery. It was not a policy.

And I agree with my friend from Idaho. Mr. Simpson is the former speaker of the Idaho House. The far right in his party ran a candidate against him a few elections ago and they got beaten badly. Thank heavens for that; thanks to the judgment of voters in Idaho.

I agree with my friend, Tom Cole, in part. But if he were here-- unfortunately, he has left the floor--but I would say to Tom Cole: Mr. Cole, as you ended the Congress with your side in charge, you rejected a bill from the United States Senate, passed with unanimous consent, that would have opened up all of government.

And you rejected that bill because the President told you to put $5.6 billion in the bill, which you knew--and I am sorry, Tom Cole is not on the floor because he says, you know, this bill is not going to pass--which you knew would not pass the United States Senate, but you sent it anyway. Why? Because the President of the United States told you to do so.

Let me remind all of us that we are a coequal branch of government. We are the Article I branch of government. We are the policymakers of government, not to sit as stooges and be told

by the President of the United States: If you don't do what I want, what I tell you to do, I won't sign the bill.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night, the President went on television and tried to argue that the American people should continue to endure a painful government shutdown until Democrats give in on funding for a border wall that has bipartisan opposition. Democrats and Republicans alike--not all--oppose this $5.7 billion waste of money on a physical wall along the border.

Representative Will Hurd--now, who is Will Hurd? He is a Republican Member of the Congress of the United States. He is a Member of the Congress of the United States from Texas. He represents a district which has more border than any other district in America. What does he say?

Building a wall is the most expensive and least effective

way to secure the border.

But the President of the United States says: You don't do that, I am not playing. And because he is not playing, none of you are playing.

I say to my Republican friends: How sad. You were not elected by your constituents to do what Donald Trump tells you to do. You were elected by your constituents to do what is best for them and their country.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a friend of the President, a Republican, and a Senator from South Carolina said this:

The border wall is probably not a smart investment.

But the President has told Lindsey Graham: You are not for my wall, I am not for your bill, and I won't sign it. And I am going to shut down government.

One person is responsible for shutting down government. Donald Trump. Most of the people he shut down and is not paying, they don't have a dad they can go to and say: Give me some money, dad. Maybe he doesn't know that experience.

Opposing a new barrier, Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney--listen to me, my Republican friends--said in 2015:

You go under. You go around. You go through. What they need

is more manpower, more technology, and more willingness to

enforce the law as it exists today.

He said that in 2015. Not a wall. More manpower, more technology, more willingness. That is essentially what Will Hurd said.

Senator Ron Johnson, one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate said he always thought that the President's wall was a ``metaphor.''

Now, if it is a metaphor for security, we are in, because we Democrats want a border that is secure; that does not allow people who are not authorized to come into the United States. We want to be sure that the people, the criminals that bring drugs into the United States are caught and prevented from doing so, and that people who traffic in human lives are caught and stopped. We are for that.

When the President was at the border he said that Democrats don't care about crime. They don't care about human trafficking. That is baloney. It is a lie. It is unworthy of a President of the United States to make such an assertion.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas said:

I don't think we are just going to be able to solve border

security with a physical barrier, because people can come

under, around it, and through it.

That is why so many Republicans said the wall is not the answer. Ranking Member Michael McCaul--now he is the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I tell my Republican friends, Mr. Speaker-- but he was chairman of the Homeland Security Committee when he said this:

A 30-foot concrete wall is a very expensive proposition and

there are a lot of other things we can be doing technology-

wise to make it a smarter border that is more effective and

more cost efficient.

So don't accuse the Democrats because they are against the wall of being against border security. Your Republican leaders don't believe that, so they ought to stop saying it.

They are among the Republicans and Democrats who believe we need a smarter, more comprehensive strategy to improve border security; not just building a physical wall with taxpayer money.

President Trump said over, and over, and over, and over, and over again that Mexico was going to pay for this wall. God knows how any American voters believed that. Now, of course, not surprisingly, he admits that is not going to happen.

So let's discuss border security, which is important to Democrats and Republicans alike. Let's sit down and figure out how best to do it. That is a debate on policy.

But, by the way, my Republican colleagues did not bring the homeland security and the border security issue to the floor until December 20, 11\2/3\ months after they took control--or they were in control, because it was the last of the session. So they waited 11 months and 20 days to bring this critical issue to the floor. My, my, my.

Now they shut down the government if we don't do it their way. This is a debate on policy, not politics. That is why I quoted so many Republicans. There is no reason to maintain a dangerous and costly government shutdown while that debate occurs.

Let's end this shutdown right now and turn to the real discussion about border security without holding hostage America's workers, their families, and the people they serve, all of our constituents. Let's have a vote in the Senate which I believe would reopen government.

Leader McConnell has a responsibility to do so. Leader McConnell has a responsibility to the Senate and to his oath of office to the Constitution and to the country. He swore no oath to President Trump. None of us swear an oath to the President of the United States. We swear an oath to the Constitution, to preserve and protect and serve our people.

On August 24, 2014, Senator McConnell said this: ``I am the guy that gets us out of shutdowns. ``Shutdowns,'' he said--this is Senator McConnell--``is a failed policy.''

That is what Mr. Simpson said. That is what Mr. Cole, I know, believes. I have talked to him about it. I hope every Member here believes that. So my plea is to stop pursuing it as a strategy.

Remember, 10 shutdowns averaged 1.9 days. Your shutdowns, 21 days, 16 days, and now we are going to have the longest shutdown in history, because you have taken captive the Government of the United States. How sad that it is us who are the enemy of the Government of the United States.

Senator McConnell, I hope, will bring bills to the floor to open up the government as he did in December when he sent a bill here and you would not take it up, my Republican friends, when you were in charge. You were the leaders. You rejected that bill that would have funded government, kept government open, kept serving the American people. But, no, you took a hostage, and the government is shut down.

The Democratic-led Congress is doing its part. The first day we came here, we passed a bill that was exactly like the Senate's bill. So one could assume that the bill they had passed, when they got it back, would, in fact, pass. And the homeland security we did for a short time so we could continue negotiations in a positive way without having hostages being taken.

Last week, we passed a package of funding bills for fiscal year 2019, a continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security, in order to reopen government and end the Trump shutdown. The Trump shutdown. The Trump shutdown.

If Trump said to Senator McConnell: Yes, I will sign the bill; the bills would be passed by the United States Senate. No one disputes that.

If Trump said to the House Members here, Mr. Speaker, that he would sign, they would pass the bill. Trump articulated at the White House that he would not open government until we agreed to do what he wanted to do. That is not democracy. That is despotism.

Because Leader McConnell was refusing to bring up our package of appropriation bills, the very same bills written by the Republican Senate, as has so often been said--and I would prefer that they were bipartisan bills--we are now sending him each of the bills individually.

On Wednesday, we passed a bill that would, among other things, reopen the IRS so taxpayers can get their refunds. They paid in more than they owed and they ought to get it back and they

ought to get it back in a timely fashion. But the folks who process the refunds are not being allowed to come to work.

Yesterday, we passed the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act which will continue nutrition assistance for those facing hunger, and reopen programs helping farmers in rural America. Many of you represent rural farmers, and they are relying on payments from the Department of Agriculture to sustain them, and they are not getting them.

Yesterday, we also passed the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to restore safety to air travel and keep low-income Americans from losing rental housing assistance. I don't think there is any Republican that wants to see people out on the street because they couldn't make their rent because they didn't get their payment from the Federal Government.

Today, we are bringing this Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to the floor to reopen America's National Parks and restore services to Native Americans and Tribal communities.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) for the leadership that she has shown and the work that she has pursued to bring this bill to the floor. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote on the merits of this bill, and I hope that many Republicans will join us.

If Members are for reopening government, vote ``yes.'' If you vote ``no,'' you are for continuing this Trump shutdown.

I hope Leader McConnell listens to his Senators. Senator Susan Collins said this on the House-passed bills last Thursday.

It would be great to have them signed into law because

there is not great controversy over them and at least we

would be getting those workers back to work.

Senator Cory Gardner, Republican from Colorado, added: ``We should continue to do our jobs and get the government open.''

I agree, Mr. Speaker.

Hopefully, when we vote today, we will have in mind the 800,000 people who are not getting paid, half of whom are working. Hopefully, we will have in mind all those who are looking for a tax return, all those who are looking for a supplemental nutrition payment so they can put food on their tables, all those who are looking to make sure they can settle on their house because FHA is operating, and all those who need a visa extension or something of that nature.

Hopefully, we will be thinking of them, not just the small-bore politics of: If you don't do what I say, I won't play.

Vote for this bill. Send it to the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I say to Senator McConnell to put it on the floor, pass it, and send it to President Trump.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee, Mr. Cummings, and I also thank Mr. Hurd, who, if he

was in the leadership, this shutdown would not be happening, and if he were in the leadership, this bill would not be required. I thank him for bringing it to the floor with Mr. Cummings. I also thank him for his leadership in trying to get this government open.

Madam Speaker, the 800,000 Federal employees affected by this shutdown deserve to know that they will be paid once it ends.

I was with a veteran at a veterans organization last night who told me the highest incident of veteran suicide is brought about by financial instability, fear of being unable to pay their bills, fear of being unable to support their families, fear of being unable to pay their mortgage. That is what this bill is about, to give confidence and stability to those who work for us, who work for the American people. That is why this bill is coming to the floor.

I congratulate Senators Warner and Kaine from Virginia, and Senators Cardin and Van Hollen from Maryland, for shepherding this legislation through the United States Senate.

Normally, I would be proud to bring this bill to the floor, but none of us should be proud that this bill is necessary. No one should have to go without a paycheck just because the President thinks he can bully Congress into giving him what he wants, taking them hostage in return for a ransom of agreeing with him.

The American people and the hardworking Federal employees who serve them should not be held hostage until they give their hard-earned tax dollars to pay for an expensive and ineffective border wall for which the President promised Mexico would pay.

So here we are, Madam Speaker, 21 days into what is now the longest shutdown in our history, with 800,000 Americans missing their paychecks today because of Donald Trump. How shameful, how sad.

I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this bill, and I thank both parties for bringing this bill forward. It was a bipartisan bill in the Senate, and I am sure it will be a bipartisan bill here, because it is not whether you agree with the shutdown, it is whether you agree to being fair to our Federal employees. It is about whether you recognize and value the service and contribution of our Federal workers.

I am proud, Madam Speaker, to represent 62,000 Federal employees. I am proud to represent them, and I am proud of the work they do. They deserve better, frankly, than what they have gotten from the Congress over the last 8 years of the Republican majority.

I made the point a little earlier today that this is a strategy, shutting down government. The government was shut down 10 times between 1981, when I came here, and 1995, an average shutdown of 1.9 days because you couldn't reach agreement--it was going back and forth, but the government was open--but not a strategy to hold hostage for many, many days and weeks our Federal employees until the other side did what you told them was absolutely essential for them to do or you were going to hold hostages.

They deserve better than this shutdown, as do the millions of Americans impacted by the lack of services provided by these Federal employees.

This bill would provide a permanent solution to this problem, not only providing for backpay during this shutdown, but guaranteeing that Federal employees will get paid if any future shutdowns occur.

I might also observe, although it is not in this bill, it will be our intention, and I look forward to working with Mr. Hurd on this, that there are State, county, and municipal employees also impacted who rely on the flow of Federal funds to pay their salaries that we will address, hopefully, in the future. I look forward to working with Mr. Cummings and Mr. Hurd toward that end.

Meanwhile, Democrats will keep working. We will keep working to end the current shutdown. And I call once more on Leader McConnell and President Trump to do their part and reopen the people's government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have reversed positions, of course. For a number of years now I have had the privilege of having a colloquy with Mr. McCarthy who was then the majority leader. So Mr. Scalise has now undertaken my role, a role probably he didn't welcome, but I know that he will do well as minority whip.

As majority leader I am still here doing the colloquy, and I am proud to be doing it with Mr. Scalise who is an outstanding Member. I congratulate him on his position and look forward to working with him through the years toward trying to create agreement, consensus, and action by the Congress on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour debate and noon for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business with last votes no later than 3 p.m.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions, as is the natural order, will be announced at the close of business today.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider H.R. 268 which is the Disaster Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2019. Chairwoman Lowey released this legislation last week. It will provide relief and recovery assistance for Americans affected by recent hurricanes--some of which were historic in their power and devastation--wildfires, typhoons, and other natural disasters.

Mr. Speaker, we will also consider additional legislation related to fiscal year 2019 appropriations.

We are on day 21 of the shutdown. The House Democrats will continue to work so that it comes to an end as soon as possible.

Members will also be advised that additional legislative items are possible. I might add to that, it is possible we will deal with one, two, or three of the appropriation bills that haven't been passed, but it is also quite possible that, hopefully, we will deal with the balance of the appropriation bills which have not been enacted. We will have to see what transpires over the next 24, 48, 72, or 96 hours. Hopefully, we will be able to move forward to get our Federal employees back to work.

I thank the gentleman for his observations.

Of course, as the gentleman knows, we have and continue to be and are today even more so concerned about the fact that the President of the United States has taken hostage the Government of the United States and shut it down. As a result, what we have asked for before we get into serious negotiations is to let us open up the government; for, after all, when we have border security being our focus, nobody that is protecting the borders for the United States of America is getting paid. The morale is low; the apprehension is high; and we believe very strongly that the first step we ought to take is open up government.

Then, as the gentleman well knows, we have articulated on numerous occasions--and I hope the gentleman believes we are honest. And when the gentleman reviews the record of when we were in charge of the House and the Senate, we made very substantial investments in border security, as I think probably the gentleman knows.

Furthermore, we have been ready to support and offered the bills that the Republicans have passed. And, in fact, I think the minority leader in the Senate said that he would accept the number that the President suggested, and

we made some counteroffers. They were rejected.

In fact, Senator McConnell believed he had an agreement with the President on keeping the government open. He sent us a bill to do just that in the waning days of December, and as the minority whip well knows, that bill was not taken up on the floor of this House.

In fact, a bill which had been pending for 11\1/2\ months in committee first came to the floor with 10 days left in the year. That bill included a number far above the number that the President originally asked for and far above any number that had been discussed. Although it passed the House, the House knew then, very well, that it did not have the votes in the Senate to pass, and it did not pass. As a result, the government shut down.

And we continue to be in a place, as we said at the White House, to negotiate on border security to secure our borders, to protect our people from those who would come across our borders to commit crimes, protect against drugs being imported, protect against the trafficking of human beings. We all share that view: Republicans and Democrats. The issue is how we most effectively accomplish that objective.

Pending that, the government, as we took power--and it was our responsibility--what we have done over the last 2 weeks is to pass, essentially, your bills. I don't know how we can be much more bipartisan than that than to pass your bills.

Mr. President, the Government of the United States partially has been shut down. That is the issue here. We can have the debate that the gentleman just discussed--not a word about opening up the people's government, not a word about 800,000 people who are not getting their salaries, not a word of the financial instability that he is subjecting 800,000 people to, ``he'' being the President of the United States. They are being held hostage for the ransom of doing what they believe is the right thing to do on border security.

However, Mr. Hurd says--a Republican who has more border mileage on

the border than any other congressional district in America--what the President wants to do is not the right thing.

Senator Ron Johnson says a similar quote. Lindsey Graham said he thought it was a bad investment. Now, he didn't say it yesterday or the day before. He said it about a year ago.

The government is shut down. There is no excuse for that. But the President wants his way, and he has taken 800,000 people hostage, and the ransom he demands is his wall.

Nancy Pelosi has nothing to do with shutting down this government. We have passed bill after bill over the last 2 weeks to open up this government.

If the minority whip thinks it is good for border security not to pay people who are protecting the border, he and I differ.

Let me tell you what Mick Mulvaney said. Now, he wasn't there last night, and I talked to Senator Graham last night. He made the statement that I just reflected to you.

Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said, in 2015--I understand it is not when he is working for the President, who is paying his salary-- ``To just say build the darn fence and have that be the end of an immigration discussion is absurd and almost childish for someone running for President to take that simplistic of a view.''

He said that on WRHI on 8/25/15. Look it up.

The government is shut down. If the minority whip will look at the record, we funded more money for border security in 2009 than was funded in the next 7 years under Republican control.

They didn't bring their bill, Mr. Speaker, to the floor until 11\1/2\ months had passed. But now border security has to be done right this second or we are going to close down government, keep it shut, and keep hostage 800,000 people and millions and millions and millions of Americans who rely on the services of government.

A, we are for border security. We do not want people coming into this country who are not authorized to come into this country.

B, we care about crime. We care about drugs. We care about investing money to stop drugs coming into the country and to treat those who are afflicted with drugs.

The record reflects that, Mr. Speaker. But the record also reflects that the Republicans have, over and over and over again, used the shutting down of government, the taking hostage of the people's government, to get their way.

Newt Gingrich did it first for a long period of time in 1995 and 1996, 21 days. We are going to surpass that this time. He did it because President Clinton said: I am not going to allow you to cut education spending for the people of United States as deeply as you want to cut it.

Then Senator Cruz came over here and talked to the so-called Freedom Caucus and said: Unless Obama agrees to repeal the Affordable Care Act, we are going to shut down government.

And they shut down government. Very frankly, when we tried to open it up, the minority whip didn't vote to open it up. So maybe he doesn't care about opening up government, paying people who are working for the people of the United States. I don't know.

Then, just recently, a few weeks ago, when they came to the end of the fiscal year, they had not done their job. The Republicans are in charge of the Senate; they were in charge of the House; and they have the Presidency of the United States.

So we did a CR, and we voted for it because we didn't want to shut down government. Then we came to the December date to which that CR ran, and, lo and behold, the majority leader of the United States Senate sent us over a bill. It was not our bill; it was a bill from the Republican majority leader. It came here under unanimous consent. Their Republican-led Senate sent it here, and, lo and behold, the leadership in the House would not take up that bill.

Why? The President, who had told Senator McConnell he would sign it, changed his mind. Whether it was Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, I don't know who the principal adviser in that decision was, but one person communicated: I won't sign that bill.

So the Republican leadership decided: We won't put that bill on the floor.

They put a bill on the floor--they said over and over and over again: This week, we put bills on the floor that wouldn't pass the Senate.

They put a bill that they knew would not pass the United States Senate on the floor, sent it over there. It didn't pass, and government has been shut down.

The gentleman continues to want to talk about, can we negotiate? We can negotiate. The President walked out. He walked out because Nancy Pelosi, when asked, ``Thirty days from now, will you support the wall?'' said, ``No.''

The President had a tantrum, and he walked out. He said: Well, this is a waste of my time.

This is not a process where the President tells us to do things. As I recall, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States, Article I, says we are the policymakers; we are the ones who pass the laws; we are the ones who say what the executive department carries out as policy.

So we ought to pass these bills. Then, yes, we ought to deal, honestly and openly and together, to make sure the borders are secure.

The gentleman said the immigration system does not work; it is broken. He is absolutely right. The Senate, 5 or 6 years ago, passed a bill, in a bipartisan way, with over 62 votes, 14 Republicans, and sent it to the House under Republican leadership 6 years ago. They have never brought that bill to the floor. We have pleaded with them to bring that bill to the floor to fix the immigration system. It has never come, Mr. Speaker, to the floor of this House.

But what we should never do, we should never take hostage the government of the United States, the employees who toil every day on behalf of the policies that we adopt and on behalf of the American people. We should never take them hostage and say: If you don't do what I say to do, we are going to keep them in an unpaid status, working if they are critical employees and locked out if they are not.

Mr. Speaker, it is very, very unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position. I would urge that the Republican

whip, who is my friend and whom I respect, talk to the President of the United States and say: Let's open up the government. Mr. Hoyer has told me we will sit down and have a rational, reasonable fact-based, expert- based discussion on how, in fact, we accomplish the objective we all say we want to accomplish, and that is to make our borders secure.

We are prepared to do that, open this government.

Will the gentleman yield?

Does the gentleman remember how long that lasted?

Oh, no. I think there was an election, and he did raise that question. As I recall, that is why I am the majority leader and you are the minority whip.

We could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is the Senate sent us a bill to keep the government open. They passed it unanimously, under Republican leadership. The President said he would sign it. He changed his mind, and this House folded. And the Republicans who were in charge at the time wouldn't even put the Senate bill on the floor.

We are not prepared to be bludgeoned by taking hostage 800,000 people who work for the Federal Government and who are not now being paid, some of whom are working.

And, ironically, they are working to protect the border and to make sure our planes are flying, to make sure people who fly on planes are not in danger.

We want the President of the United States to open up this government. We want the Republicans to help us open up this government. We just passed four bills that are the Senate bills. Senator McConnell is not going to take ``yes'' for an answer because the President tells him: I am not going to sign those bills.

Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. I have been a Member of this body for some period of time, and I served with George Bush. He was President of the United States, and we had a Democratic House, and we didn't have a shutdown. He signed appropriations bills. We worked together. We respected one another.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that the whip would, in fact, help us open up the government, and then we are prepared to sit down-- he knows me--and talk about how we make our borders secure and protect our people and, yes, give humanitarian services to those who are seeking asylum, running from violence and mayhem and murder. We are prepared to do that. We want to do that.

I would hope the whip, I would hope Senator McConnell, who was quoted just a few years ago as saying, ``shutdown is a failed policy''-- shutdowns ought not to occur. Adults who are responsible ought not to allow that to happen, realizing full well that in order to preclude that from happening, compromise is absolutely essential on both sides.

President Trump is the President of the United States. We have to work with him to compromise, to come to agreement. But there are an awful lot of Republicans--I quoted Will Hurd; I quoted Ron Johnson; I quoted some other Republicans--an awful lot of Republicans who think the President has the wrong idea. And, frankly, as Mr. Mulvaney said during the course of the campaign, it wasn't a very realistic idea.

But, that aside, it is time for us to open up the government, and then we will have an extensive discussion, as we must, as we should, in the best interests of the American people, to keep our borders secure and keep them safe.

How many Republicans were in the House at that point in time?

You had 240-plus.

That bill passed, did it not?

Was that bill brought up in the House?

The gentleman has a different concept of negotiating than I do. If somebody takes somebody that I care about hostage and says now I want to negotiate with you, it is not a negotiation. That is a demand. That is a ``if you don't do it, I am going to harm people.''

When you said the President of the United States said: This is the last time I am going to open up government, I am going to sign an almost overwhelmingly supported piece of legislation by Republicans and Democrats--George Bush never did that. I don't ever remember Ronald Reagan doing that or George H.W. Bush doing that or Bill Clinton doing that. They did it when it was a close vote, but not when it was overwhelming that we ought to open up the government.

As long as hostages are held by your opponent, you are not negotiating. You are subject to being demanded, ``Do what I say.'' That is not the democratic process, and it is harming, literally, millions, tens of millions of people in the process in order to get his way. I have not seen that before.

The other two shutdowns were legislative shutdowns. There is no doubt this is an executive shutdown, and you just said it: I will never sign something like this again unless it gives me what I want.

Frankly, that is what we saw in the negotiations over the 3 days we were there. The last day, of course, was about a 10-minute day because the President stomped out.

Mr. Scalise, all I can tell you is I share your view of the objective, but because we don't agree with the same ways and means to accomplish that objective, shutting down government ought not to be the alternative. The alternative ought to be to keep talking and getting to a place where I think you and I both want to get, where these borders are secure, where people are not being transported across it for human trafficking purposes, where murderers don't come across the border.

But there is a surge right now across our border, and that surge is of mostly

mothers and children seeking asylum, coming to ports of entry--not across any fences or borders, coming to ports of entry. The border guards are telling us they are turning themselves in. They want to, because they are seeking refuge from a country that has purported to be a country of refuge, that raises a statue in New York Harbor to send that message. But we need to make them known to us when they come into the country. We agree on that.

So, rather than all this rhetoric back and forth, Mr. Speaker, it is a simple proposition. Senator McConnell has said, unless the President says he will sign on opening up the government, he won't put it on the floor. That is the only person who is stopping you, because we have sent bills.

Mr. Cole of your side said: I don't like the bills because they are only Senate bills. We don't like them either, but we like, less, government being shut down. We like, less, 800,000 people being put at risk. We like, less, the anxiety that we are causing our Federal employees in terms of the financial stability of their homes and their ability to put food on their tables and pay their mortgage and pay their rent.

Surely--surely--we ought to be able to come to agreement that that is not what we ought to inflict to get our way. I hope we open up our government.