Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the House on an important issue, and maybe the most important issue, Mr. Speaker, and that is the issue of life.

We brought a bill forward, H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that many wonder why is it even necessary that we need a law to say that if a baby is born alive, outside of the womb, we need to give it the full protections under law.

Many people ask, Mr. Speaker, why isn't that already protected? If a baby is born alive, it should have the full protections of anybody else. And yet, as we see in States like New York and other States around the country, they allow, in those States, the baby, even after it is born alive, to be killed. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is murder, and yet, in many States, they don't have the full protection that all of us enjoy. How could that be, in the United States of America, that a baby born alive can still be killed after it is born outside of the womb?

This issue transcends the abortion debate. In fact, people across every spectrum--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, even people who align themselves as pro-choice--believe it is wrong to murder the baby after it is born alive, and yet it is still allowed. There should be no reason that this is a gray issue.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I will be joining my colleague, Ann Wagner, the lead author of this bill, to start a discharge petition: an opportunity for every Member of Congress to make their voices heard loud and clear that this bill ought to come to this floor for a full debate and, ultimately, for a vote.

We ought to pass this law, Mr. Speaker. There should be no doubt. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. It shouldn't be an issue that we have disagreement over, and yet we do. For whatever reason, the Speaker will not allow this bill, though, to come up for a vote. We have tried time after time to move unanimous consent to bring this bill to the floor and, for months, that motion has been denied.

The most vulnerable among us should no longer be denied that protection under the law. Mr. Speaker, this bill has to come up for a vote. This bill has to be debated by the people's House.

Why not allow people all across the country to participate in this debate? As they find out about it, the reaction I get is not a debate on political lines, it is shock that this isn't already law.

Every baby born alive, Mr. Speaker, ought to have the full protection under law that is currently provided to all of us. H.R. 962 should be one of the easiest things that we pass through this House, yet, unfortunately, it has become one of the most difficult. But that is okay, Mr. Speaker. We know that it is the difficult things that we come here to do, not the easy, because it would have already been done.

So we are going to be leading the charge today, standing with people all across the country. And, in fact, we are actually bringing in people, Mr. Speaker, who survived an attempted abortion. It happens all across this country. And when that baby is born alive, that baby ought to have the full protection under the law. We will start the process today to ensure that that full debate happens and, ultimately, that the vote happens to pass the Born Alive Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to sign on to this discharge petition.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on healthcare.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which has nothing to do with actually helping improve healthcare, the costs, especially, that so many millions of people are enduring, because the Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable.

Mr. Speaker, let's keep in mind what this resolution is about. It is not about changing any healthcare policy. It doesn't do that. It has been made clear. It is attempting just to try to take cheap shots at the President while diverting attention away from what this lawsuit that you see moving through the courts is really all about.

Mr. Speaker, if the healthcare law that my friends on the other side of the aisle rushed through Congress and passed is held unconstitutional, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Let's keep in mind--and they want you to forget this, Mr. Speaker--and let's go back to those days when they rammed this bill through and the infamous statement: You have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.

Nobody read that bill who voted for it. We said back then that it was unconstitutional.

And, oh, by the way, not only was it that, but it has actually led to dramatic increases in cost for families. So someone with a preexisting condition--whom we want to protect, by the way, Mr. Speaker. But we don't just want to protect the fact that they shouldn't be able to have costs go up. We want to help them lower the costs for health insurance and lower their premiums.

So many millions of Americans are not only facing double-digit increases, but people with preexisting conditions, in many cases, are facing a $10,000 deductible, so they have no access to healthcare, Mr. Speaker.

Why don't we focus on the underlying problem?

We on the Republican side support protecting people with preexisting conditions, but we also want to lower their premiums and lower their deductibles. The other side wants to see their costs continue to go up. That is the biggest difference between the two sides.

We ought to focus on lowering premiums. Let families make those decisions, not unelected bureaucrats in Washington. That is what we ought to be focused on. This resolution falls short.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for two important reasons. One is to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week, and also to inquire of the majority leader the score of the LSU-Maryland basketball game from last week.

I yield to my good friend from Maryland.

I will be happy to ask both questions again.

I look forward to the Maryland crab dinner. I think, as the gentleman from Maryland knows, a lot of times when you go to places and they say it is Maryland crab, it is really Gulf of Mexico crab, because they want the best quality to offer the patrons.

We were excited to see the buzzer beater. I know both of us were waiting in those last 12 seconds to see which team would walk away with the Sweet 16 banner. I am proud that my mighty Fighting Tigers of LSU were in that number. But we will come to D.C., and, hopefully, the gentleman will now be rooting for us so that he can say he rooted for the eventual national champion, LSU Tigers, to win the Final Four.

I yield to the gentleman to hear about the schedule for the coming week in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the schedule update.

I would like to inquire, we know that there are only 7 legislative days left for Congress to meet its required deadline to provide a budget, the April 15 deadline. What troubles me is that there has been no budget brought through the House Budget Committee. In fact, there have been reports that your majority doesn't plan to bring a budget at all.

Obviously, the budgets are very important to show the priorities of our Congress, to show the priorities of each of our majorities, as we did in 7 of the 8 years we were in the majority, not only doing a budget, but then, this last year, we were able to reach a 2-year budget agreement, so we were able to know with certainty what the budget numbers were that we would actually be working on to draft our appropriations bills. Again, the bills carry out the priorities of Congress, to show the country how we are going to properly fund government at the levels that we, as a Congress, set, which is what the budget does.

As I have seen, there is no current budget agreement negotiation going on that is yielding anything. So, without a budget agreement, does the gentleman plan to at least provide and bring a budget to the House floor?

I yield to the gentleman.

I will be happy to walk through the last 8 years.

Mr. Speaker, last year, as the gentleman knows, we were working under a 2-year budget agreement. Typically, we don't have a 2- year budget agreement. You bring one budget, and that is the budget for that year.

For fiscal year 2012, the House passed a budget. In our majority, we passed a budget to establish those numbers to then start the appropriations process.

In 2013, we passed through the House a budget to establish the 2013 budget numbers to work off of.

In 2014, we passed a budget through the House to establish the budget for that fiscal year.

In 2015, we passed a budget through the House to establish a budget for that year.

In 2016, we actually got an agreement, both between the House and the Senate, and passed the budget, of course, through the House and the Senate.

In fiscal year 2017, we passed a budget through the House and the Senate and got a full agreement to do an appropriations process.

In fiscal year 2018, as the gentleman knows, we actually agreed to a 2-year budget agreement to not only set the fiscal year numbers for 1 year, but for 2 years, which was tremendously helpful in making sure that our Nation's defense, which many times had been used as bargaining chips for other budget negotiations, we took that off the table. We made sure our men and women in uniform had the certainty of a 2-year budget agreement, which doesn't happen often. Frankly, it should happen more often, and we should strive toward that, so we achieved that.

In 2019, as the gentleman knows, we passed a budget out of the House Budget Committee, but we already had a budget agreement to work through the appropriations process because we had done a 2-year budget the prior year.

We don't have even a 1-year budget agreement right now. And as the gentleman knows, there are no fruitful negotiations to get a 1- or 2- year budget agreement, so there is no budget number to work off of, which is why you produce a budget.

Last year, we did bring a bill out of committee, but we didn't need to pass a budget because we already had the budget number agreed to from the 2-year deal prior.

And so with that, is the gentleman willing to engage in or come to an agreement on at least a 1- or 2-year budget agreement so that we can actually have an appropriations process that works for the country and shows the priorities of this Nation?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am hopeful that we are able to start an appropriations process and, ideally, to complete it by summer--well in advance of the September 30 government funding deadline--because we shouldn't be operating under deadline after deadline, where we go until the midnight hour.

But as the gentleman knows, you can't start an appropriations process until you actually set what are known as the 302 numbers, the 302(a) and (b) numbers, so that we know what each appropriations bill can target in terms of its overall spending number, to have that caps limit.

Ideally, it would be done through a budget with the April 15 deadline, but maybe the gentleman is going to be able to work with the committee to get a budget passed out of committee before the deadline and, if not, as the gentleman urges, a hopeful desire to get a caps deal. I would like to get a caps deal as well.

I supported the last caps deal because it gave us 2 years of certainty. It was bipartisan. It was an agreement that, while we may disagree on top-line numbers--and we want more money for defense, and some on your side might want more for nondefense discretionary--we finally came to an agreement. That did give tremendous certainty to our men and women in uniform. So over 70 percent of this Federal Government was fully funded for the fiscal year.

Clearly, we had a difference on border security, and that remaining area of our budget wasn't funded. But at least the 70-plus percent of the people of this country who rely on those services and want a strong defense were able to see us achieve that. Hopefully, we can do something like that again well before the deadline. That is the objective.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, you have two methods within which to set those caps: You can do it through the budget--which 7 of the 8 years we were in the minority we did--or you can do it through a separate caps deal, which 2 years ago we were able to do for a 2-year period, which is why we didn't do a budget last year. We passed it out of committee and at least showed what our priorities are, but we didn't need to pass a budget to get a caps deal because we had a caps deal in place from the prior year.

The other 7 years there was no caps deal, so the budget laid out that number, and the gentleman's majority has done neither. You don't have a caps deal or a budget, and so at some point you are going to have to produce the number to show what we are going to start the appropriations process using.

The other part of the budget, which isn't talked about as much but is equally important, is the establishment of the priorities for that majority. How do we get back to a balanced Federal budget, for example? We laid that out in our budget multiple times.

We have programs like Medicare. Medicare is going bankrupt if we do nothing. It would be irresponsible for us to let Medicare go to bankruptcy. Actual reports show it could go bankrupt in the next 8 years, which we

think is irresponsible. That is why we put, in our budget, a plan to save Medicare from bankruptcy.

Whatever the gentleman's plan would be to save Medicare from bankruptcy, I would urge him to show it. Show the American people what the priorities are. But they haven't done that.

And why? Why haven't they done that? Because they have spent the last 2 years trying to impeach the President, trying to lay out this foundation that there was collusion.

The gentleman will yield in a moment.

But let's be clear, for the last 2 years we heard this clarion call that there was some collusion between the President or his family and Russia. We heard all this talk about impeachment and everything on down from the highest levels, including, now, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who went multiple times on national TV and said there was more than credible evidence of collusion.

Finally, everybody was waiting on the Mueller report. Many were hanging their hat, saying it is going to show all these things. There is going to be a list of indictments. Go look at all the tapes from every national TV show you can imagine of some of the most outlandish claims that were made. And now the Mueller report comes out, and it is clear those claims are baseless. There was no collusion.

There was no collusion.

We will see the full Mueller report.

Clearly, we have seen assessments of it. If the gentleman thinks it is going to show something differently, then please share it, but they made it clear there was no collusion and there will be no further indictments.

In fact, the Attorney General of the United States said this: ``But as noted above, the special counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.''

So multiple times they were offered, they never even came close. There was no collusion.

These conspiracy theories, the witch hunts, it is time for it to end. There was no collusion.

If you or any of your colleagues have proof of collusion, as your chairman of the House Intelligence Committee claims, they need to show that to the Attorney General of the United States, because it completely contradicts what the Attorney General has now said based on the findings of the Mueller report.

There was no collusion.

And so when Chairman Schiff says, ``more than circumstantial evidence''--that he has seen--``that associates of President Trump colluded with Russia''--in August, ``I think there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.''

And even now that the Attorney General makes it very clear there was no collusion, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee will not recant his previous statements that have been discounted.

Today, as the gentleman knows, this morning, every member of the minority party on the House Intelligence Committee called for the chairman of the Intelligence Committee to step down, every member.

So I would ask the gentleman: Will you call for the chairman of the Intelligence Committee to step down as chairman after losing so much credibility in the wild and vicious claims that he has made that have been disputed by the Attorney General of the United States based on this Mueller report after 22 months and over $20 million of taxpayer money that found no collusion?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Crimes of collusion?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there are a number of items that need to be addressed in what the gentleman just said.

First of all, to claim that there was any collusion as you said, ``on behalf of the President of the United States with Russia'' goes in complete contradiction to the findings that were delivered to us by the Attorney General of the United States, and I am going to read it one more time.

As we noted above, the special counsel did not find that

the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or

coordinated with the Russian Government.

Anyone who would make a claim to the contrary is either being irresponsible or ought to show the evidence. If there is evidence that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee has, and

let's be clear, he has tweeted things out, here is what we know. This is from Chairman Schiff. In 2017, here is what we know: The Russians offered help. The campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help. The President made full use of that help. He has claimed, again, that he has more than circumstantial evidence that there was collusion.

Yet, the Attorney General of the United States, after reviewing the entire Mueller report, which we hope we all see, obviously, within the confines of the law--the law makes it clear how something like that gets reported--I hope the gentleman understands and wouldn't suggest that classified information should be disclosed--but the report ought to be disclosed and show the American people what they have found. But we have seen the summary of it, and, of course, we are going to look at the entire thing.

And maybe then after reviewing the entire thing, if the gentleman does see, as the report summary shows, that there was no collusion with the President of the United States, then maybe this gentleman and all of the other people who have made outrageous claims that the President was in collusion, will maybe acknowledge they were wrong, will maybe offer an apology. Who knows. We can hold out hope for that.

But let's be clear about the statements that were made and the things that were alluded to that aren't true, that weren't the case. Maybe it was wishful thinking and it shouldn't have been. No one should hope that the President of the United States, any President, conspired with a foreign government.

But to suggest it over and over again for 2 years, and then for all of this 22 months of investigation, thorough investigation, multiple countries visited, over $20 million of taxpayer money, more than our committees have to run all of their oversight operations to thoroughly investigate, they found there was no collusion.

Sure, the Russians tried to meddle with elections and they have done it before, and we ought to make sure that it doesn't happen again, and we can work together on that. But to suggest that the President of the United States colluded when he didn't, is irresponsible. And it has happened over and over, and it continues to this day. It has got to stop.

This idea that maybe some other attempt to go and harass the President and his family is going to find something else, it gives credence to the claims it was a witch hunt. It is time for us to focus on the real problems of this country.

It is also time for us to hold people in our intelligence agencies accountable, those who showed up at their job with a partisan agenda.

The FBI, CIA, or any intelligence agency is no place for you to bring your political agenda. We all have political views. But if someone puts that badge on and accepts that responsibility, and then uses that position to abuse power, we all ought to call on it to be rooted out, and I hope it is rooted out.

If there were abuses of the FISA process, which is a very important court that has a very narrow focus to protect the national security of this country, if the FISA court was abused by people in positions of power because they wanted to carry out a political agenda because they didn't like the results of the 2016 Presidential election, that is not the place for it.

The ballot box next year is the place to go carry it out, not wearing the badge and being a member of law enforcement in this country. So I hope that is rooted out, because we want to see the integrity of those institutions like the FBI restored. I want the country to have full faith and confidence that the people working there are carrying out the national security interests of the country, not their own political interests.

There are a lot of questions raised over whether or not that happened. But in the end, when we review the report--we have seen the summary. If people are still hoping that there is some mystery indictment out there--they said there are no further indictments. They said there was no collusion with the Presidential campaign.

So at what time is the gentleman's side going to acknowledge it didn't happen? If you want to change the results of the Presidential election, the results are changed at the ballot box. That is how we resolve it in America. We don't try to go find something on a President that doesn't exist.

We have done oversight. You have done oversight. The Mueller investigation was the ultimate oversight for 22 months and it rooted out and found there was no collusion between the President and the Russians. Maybe some people are disappointed to hear it.

We should all celebrate that as a country, but we all ought to be concerned that no President of the United States is targeted by an intelligence agency, or by a Congress, or a majority, or a minority because they don't like the results of the election, so they are going to abuse power to go and try to take them down. That is not the way we do it.

I hope we can finally focus on the real problems of this country and not continue to use these committees even after they didn't find what they were looking for to keep finding something that is not there.

The former chairman that was alluded to, Mr. Nunes, did a very impeccable job of carrying out his duties to find the facts. It was always about the facts. And if you go and look at how he carried himself and managed his committee, the entire time it was about finding the facts. They looked and we looked. There was no conclusion that we found.

If someone has proof of that conclusion that they keep alluding to, it is time for them to show it. Show the American people what you have. Don't run around hiding saying you have something when the Attorney General says it is not there.

If someone knows about collusion, they owe it to the country to show it. But if it is not there, stop saying it. It is irresponsible, and, hopefully, everybody heeds those words and we get back to focusing on what is important for this country. Express our political differences.

Obviously, if there is a political difference that we have with each other, with the President, with a Cabinet Secretary, we have all kinds of forums to express that opposition to correct it, to bring legislation to the floor.

But if we just don't like somebody personally, that is not what we are here to do. And I hope we can get beyond that.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, whether or not there is an ultimate move towards something like impeachment, which I hope wouldn't come, and with all the things we know--there are no high crimes or misdemeanors and there is not even collusion--there are still committee chairmen in the gentleman's own party who are talking about impeachment. It is not something made up. There are leaders in the gentleman's party talking about it.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee issued more than 80 subpoenas. Again, the majority can keep looking. Look at the summary of the Mueller report--2,800 subpoenas, more than 500 search warrants, and interviews of approximately 500 witnesses. So the gentleman can talk about people who were indicted who have nothing to do with the collusion and nothing to do with any ties to the President. Maybe somebody had filed a false tax return, then go throw the book at him.

Mr. Cohen came and lied to Congress, and he deserves to go to jail for it. What did the majority do? They brought him back as their star witness, a man who was already guilty of lying to Congress. He came, swore himself in, and likely lied to Congress again. So, again, throw the book at him.

But in terms of what the basis of the investigation was, it was to find collusion, and they found none: no further indictments; no evidence of collusion; in fact, saw the Trump campaign pushing back and even offers for help.

Foreign governments like Russia trying to interfere with our elections clearly happened--not just Russia, other countries too--and we all ought to be concerned about it. We all want to make sure that our defenses are as high as we can make them so that they are not able to collude.

We have seen companies in America that were taken advantage of during that campaign season, and they have taken corrective actions, too, so that Russia can't use social media companies in this Nation to try to take advantage of our electoral system.

But in terms of collusion with the President of the United States and a foreign government, it didn't happen. If anybody has evidence to the contrary, then show it to the American people. Stop alluding behind some cloak-and-dagger conspiracy theory that it happened still to this day when the Mueller investigation concluded it didn't happen.

We will get the full report. I look forward to reviewing it just as the gentleman from Maryland is looking forward to reviewing it, and maybe we will continue this conversation.

But if all of the findings that the Attorney General gave us in his summary are accurate, which I don't discount they will be--I think they will be at the highest level of confidence that the Attorney General's summary is accurate. If it is not, then clearly we will take that up separately. But if it turns out to be accurate, then I think we all ought to celebrate, number one, the fact that there was no collusion, but then move on.

The people who made accusations that turned out to be baseless ought to apologize and recognize there are people's personal lives and integrity that were being questioned. If it turned out they were wrong in making those accusations, then they ought to hold themselves accountable and to a higher standard. Those are the points that I was making.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I share the gentleman's concern about addressing those important issues.

I will say, for the five people whom the gentleman referenced, anybody who broke the law ought to be held accountable. But after 500 witnesses are interviewed and over 2,800 subpoenas, all looking to find collusion with the Russian Government, not one of the people the gentleman mentioned had anything to do with colluding with the Russian Government.

If they made misstatements or if they didn't pay their taxes, after 2,800 subpoenas, then make sure that they are held accountable for the things they did, but don't suggest that it had anything to do with collusion with Russia, because it didn't.

Again, Mr. Speaker, go pull 500 names out of the phonebook, and if you put the full weight of the United States Government and 2,800 subpoenas into looking into 500 random people, I am sure not one of them will have done anything wrong--and hopefully not. But if they did and it had nothing to do with what you were initially looking for, let's not try to suggest it had anything to do with collusion, because it didn't.

We will see the full report. We look forward to seeing that. Again, hopefully, if the full report shows what we have already seen in the summary, that there was no collusion, then people who have been claiming there was collusion will also hold themselves accountable and maybe apologize, maybe recant, but surely stop continuing any kind of witch hunt and then focus on these important issues like getting our economy even stronger; working with this President to solve big problems which we have the opportunity to do to get a real trade agreement with our neighbors Mexico and Canada, all of whom want to have better trade relationships with us and help benefit our economy, create more jobs, and have fairer labor standards; something we have in front of us, an opportunity to do in a bipartisan way, maybe get a budget agreement so that we can have, certainly well before the September 30 deadline, how we are going to fund our government in a responsible way, make sure our men and women in uniform don't have to wonder whether or not they are going to get paid while they are deployed in a foreign country; make sure we can focus on lowering healthcare costs; and immigration reform that can solve some of the big problems on border security and some of the other areas.

So, hopefully, we can find agreement on that, and I am sure, in the coming weeks, we will on some, if not all, those issues. I look forward to working with the gentleman to do that.

I appreciate, while we go back and forth sometimes, we can have a little fun with our hobbies, but we also have big, important tasks; and I know that the gentleman carries out his role in the most responsible way to promote the agenda that he thinks is best for this country, as do I, and, ideally, we can find a lot of intersection where we can work together to get really good things done for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the House majority leader, for the purpose of explaining the week to come.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time from the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I do also want to thank Virgil for his time and his service to the House for so long and to work so closely with my friend, Cedric Richmond, but also with the entire Louisiana delegation. We have had a long history of working incredibly well together on issues that are important to our State and the country.

Virgil has been right there from the beginning of Cedric's career and a great part of the Louisiana delegation but also a great part of what makes this House work.

Mr. Speaker, while we will miss Virgil, I wish him well on his new life ahead, a lot of exciting times. I continue to look forward to seeing you in New Orleans at our great restaurants.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I thank the gentleman for walking through the schedule, and I would like to ask the gentleman from Maryland about the process that we have had so far this Congress in terms of amendments that have been submitted on the House floor on legislation and the way that it has been incredibly closed, especially in a partisan way to Republican amendments.

If you look just at the bill we debated a few minutes ago, H.R. 1, only 11 percent of Republican amendments were made in order. More than 60 amendments of Democrat amendments were made in order. And if you look at the entire Congress so far this year, there were only 16 percent of Republican amendments made in order while 73 percent of Democrat amendments were made in order, which does reflect poorly on the promise that this would be a more open process.

I would ask the gentleman from Maryland, can you address at least in the future to make this a more fair and open process so that you are not closing out opportunities over and over again for Republican amendments to be made in order?

And I yield to the gentleman.

Well, I thank the gentleman. I would like to point out, of those 72 amendments that you identify that were made in order, only nine were Republican amendments. So when we talk about a fair and open process, the government shutdown has nothing to do with the fact that your side committed to having a more open process, and it is not. In fact, it is the reverse of what we saw last Congress.

If you look at the entire last Congress, the entire 2-year period, there were more Democrat amendments made in order under a Republican Congress than there were Republican amendments made in order. In fact, if you look at the numbers for the entire 2-year period, 38 percent of Republican amendments were made in order; 45

percent of Democrat amendments were made in order. In the overall number, 752 Democrat amendments made in order, 752. There were only 640 Republican amendments made in order. So more Democrat amendments were made in order under our majority than Republican amendments.

In this Congress so far, it is been a harshly partisan process through the Rules Committee. Again, the entire year, only 16 percent of Republican amendments made in order; 73 percent of Democrat amendments made in order.

And just looking at H.R. 1 again, we had on our side a colleague of ours, Representative Fitzpatrick. He actually led the FBI's agency on campaign finance and election crimes enforcement. He actually put people in jail who committed voter fraud, and this is a voter bill, a bill on voting rights, and you have a Member of Congress who actually worked with the FBI to put people in jail for voter fraud. He submitted seven different amendments to clean up some of the corruption that was in your bill that you just passed. Not one of his amendments was made in order. This is an FBI agent who actually put people in jail for voter fraud, not a partisan issue, and yet not one of his amendments was made in order.

So you want to talk about a closed process, let's also talk about the policy that is being closed out, and if you want to shut out efforts to clean up voter fraud, that is your prerogative, but ultimately it is not what you promised when you took the majority and if you compare it to the last Congress. Again, the entire 2-year period, more Democrat amendments were made in order than Republican amendments were made in order under our Republican majority.

I would hope in the future this process is less partisan and more fair, as it was promised to be.

On that note, I would like to ask the majority leader about a word that is swirling around regarding changes to the motion to recommit. Now, when you look at the history of Congress, this motion to recommit is more than 100 years old. It had been a custom. It had been a custom where the majority party brings a bill to the floor under a rule, and regardless of all the amendments that are allowed, at the very end of that process, the minority party gets an opportunity to make a final amendment to the bill. That is the motion to recommit.

It wasn't in the rules for a long time. And then towards the end of the Democrat majority, right before the 1994 revolution, there were efforts to take that away from the minority. So when the Republicans took over in 1994, the Newt Gingrich majority, they actually put in the rules the motion to recommit. Again, it was a custom going back 100 years. They formalized it. As the majority, they gave the minority that right in the rules. And it has always been there. It was cleaned up a little bit over the years, but it is a tool that has been always allowed to the minority.

We are hearing--and it is rumor maybe--I would like to ask the majority leader to clarify, are there any efforts or attempts being made to change and diminish the motion to recommit?

And I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for clarifying that. And I hope that tradition continues on, that this motion to recommit stays in order, because there are some Members that, if the motion to recommit passes, would vote for final passage. So that is one of the tools that are used. And if you cite, as you did, the motion to recommit that we had on H.R. 1 just a little while ago, it actually was identifying a serious problem.

It mentioned in that motion to recommit what happens in some communities where they are allowing illegals to vote, people that are here illegally, to vote in elections, whether it is school board elections or any other, and then you have a process where somebody has an ID, they are automatically sent to the voter registration files. And it creates a process where corruption can occur, where people who are here illegally can get on voting rolls and maybe you catch it at the local level and maybe you don't, but it creates that opportunity. So we had a motion to prevent that from happening, and, unfortunately, that motion to recommit failed. But again, that is a tool that has been available for any minority to use.

And in fact, when you bring up H.R. 1 from last Congress, our bill to cut taxes for working families so that we can rebuild our middle class, which we are finally doing now because we cut taxes for everybody, people are seeing more money in their pockets; higher wages because of that bill. Heavily debated in committee; lots of amendments in committee on both sides. When it came to the floor, yes, there were no amendments on your side or on our side, but you did have a motion to recommit. So you had an amendment opportunity that we didn't have on that bill. But at the end of the day, obviously all Members on your side voted ``no.''

But you can see how the economy has taken off and how families actually have more money in their pockets and wages are up for working families because we cut those taxes.

So I would point that out as we move forward, hopefully, those rules don't change in a way that would try to diminish even further the opportunities that both sides have to bring amendments to the floor.

Finally, I would like to ask about the resolution that we had on the floor yesterday, the resolution to condemn all forms of bigotry, hatred. Unfortunately many of our Members felt it fell short of the objective that was stated by the majority at the beginning of the week, that there would be a resolution brought forward to actually condemn comments that were made, that were anti-Semitic by one of our Members.

And I would like to ask the gentleman, is there going to be any action taken, especially as it relates to the Foreign Affairs Committee, to remove the Member that we are talking about?

And I yield to the gentleman.

And as we disagree with the underlying bills, we all agree that anti-Semitism is wrong. We have been very vocal in rejecting anti-Semitism and any form of bigotry.

The issue with the resolution that was brought forward--first of all, as the gentleman, over months, has promised a 72-hour rule where there would be 72 hours to review legislation, as you acknowledged, that resolution continued to change over and over again. By the time it was filed, before Members had the opportunity to vote, there wasn't a 72- hour rule. In fact, there wasn't even a 72-minute rule. There was less than an hour to review the legislation

As Members went through it, it included some things that we all agree should be rejected. But many Members--and I would refer the gentleman from Maryland to the statements made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), who eloquently stated why that resolution fell short at its original objection: to equivocate anti-Semitism, to refuse to acknowledge that as Members spew anti-Semitism. If we can say that anti-Semitism is unacceptable--and I agree. If we say that we should reject those policies, the dual citizenship question, which is anti- Semitic, the money influence, which was offensive and anti-Semitic, we keep coming back to this because these statements continue to be made.

But if that is unacceptable, if you agree that anti-Semitism is unacceptable and bad policy, then why do you continue to leave a Member who is anti-Semitic on the committee that deals with the policy of the foreign policy of this Nation?

It is a high-profile committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee is a plumb spot. Many Members on both sides want to get on that committee because it is so important at stating our foreign policy to the world, at standing with our allies.

When you go to other countries and meet with officials, if you say you are on the Foreign Affairs Committee, it is a higher level of respect and acknowledgment that implies that your views represent the views of the United States Congress.

That is the concern where the resolution fell short.

And so many of our Members said: How many times are we going to have to keep voting on resolutions that talk generally but don't act specifically to address the problems?

And if you want to talk about the President, President Trump has been very clear and vocal, speaking out against anti-Semitism.

You saw him, just a few weeks ago, from this podium, in his State of the Union Address so eloquently bringing members to the gallery, people to the gallery: the three men who stormed Normandy Beach on D-day to liberate France and to defeat Nazis; the gentleman from Pittsburgh, the Holocaust survivor, over 90 years old, who survived the Pittsburgh shooting, who also was at Dachau.

And then for the President to so eloquently refer to one of our heroes who stormed Normandy Beach and then a year later help liberate Dachau, what a special moment for this House to see how hatred and bigotry is evil but how the might and power of the United States stands up against it.

We should all speak out against it, but we should also take the actions that, if somebody is continuing to exhibit those kind of beliefs in this Congress, they shouldn't be making policy on the committee that has jurisdiction. That has been the concern.

I hope we don't have to come back to it. I hope we don't have to keep coming back to address this problem. It shouldn't be a growing problem.

We should all stand up against it when we see it. And hopefully, we don't see it anymore because we are so clear--not just in our words, but clear in our actions.

So as we continue to, hopefully, find common ground--and there is common ground to be found. This wasn't a good week for the United States Congress to see the kind of divisions, to see it take days to come up with a simple resolution that should have taken minutes to stand up clearly against anti-Semitic actions.

So, hopefully, next week we can return to making policy where we are able to come together in a bipartisan way to address concerns and problems of this Nation.

And I know I look forward to working with the gentleman if we find that common ground. And we will, we ultimately will.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, if we talk about H.R. 1, what the gentleman fails to mention is that bill gives billions of dollars of taxpayer money to politicians. Many have called it the ``For the Politicians Act.'' Most Americans across this country are hardworking. I don't want to see their taxpayer dollars go to some politician that they strongly disagree with so that they can run negative attack ads, things that people don't like to see on TV.

If somebody wants to contribute to a campaign, that is their prerogative, but no taxpayer should be forced to give billions of dollars of their taxpayer money to politicians, whether they agree or disagree with them, by coercion from the Federal Government. That is in the bill. It has felons voting. Many States have laws against felons voting.

For example, somebody brought this up and we weren't even able to get a clear answer. If somebody was convicted of child molestation in a State that prohibited them from going to schools, under your bill if they go to a school to vote--because now as a felon, as a child molester, even though that State bars them from voting, and that State bars them from going into a school--the bill gives them a hall pass to go into that school as a child molester, who, otherwise, under their State law, would be prohibited from going into that school where children are.

So there are obviously a lot of other things in that bill that concern many Americans across the country.

Getting back to the anti-Semitism debate we are having. The gentleman brought up the minority leader and other Members. The minority leader has been very vocal against anti-Semitism. Clearly, when you saw people giving outside money, over $100 million of their own money to influence campaigns, of course, that is a subject people talk about.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield on that point, but I would like to make the point that the minority leader has been very vocal against anti-Semitism, and I just wanted to make sure that the gentleman wasn't inferring anything different in his comments.

Who is also Jewish.

We have supporters on both sides that, regardless of their faith, give lots of money to politics.

Now, if the criticism was that there were big donors to Democrats, of course, that is who was being mentioned. Regardless of their faith, those were the people who were giving large amounts, tens of millions of dollars each. As you have criticized, or brought up the name of the gentleman from Nevada, nobody questions that you are making a comment about his religious faith.

And neither should the assertion be made to anyone who brings up the three gentlemen who were mentioned.

Reclaiming my time, the bigger issue is, it is interesting that the gentleman mentioned a bunch of names. He mentioned a lot of names, but the one name he didn't mention is Ms. Omar, who, at the beginning of this week, that was initially what the resolution was going to be, trying to address the comments made by Ms. Omar.

Ultimately, the resolution went much further and left out that key component that many of us wanted to see addressed, many of us expected to see addressed, but a lot of people found it real interesting.

For example, in section 7 of the resolution, it condemns death threats received by Jewish and Muslim Members of Congress. Why, interestingly, were death threats to other Members of Congress left out? I surely can speak to that as so many others of our colleagues can.

All death threats against Members of Congress are wrong. Why did the resolution fall short in so many areas? Because it was so hastily put together. That is not the way we should address an issue this important.

It was supposed to be a narrow resolution. Clearly, on your side, you had a lot of division over it. There shouldn't have been division over it. This is what we ended up with, and so, yes, many of our Members felt that while we have been very clear in rejecting anti-Semitism or anti-racism, or any kind of bigotry, that the resolution fell short of what its original objective was.

Again, I hope we don't have to come back to this. I hope it doesn't continue. We can continue speaking about this, but let's be clear about who is speaking out against it, and who is continuing to engage in it.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, if he would like to comment further.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the diversity that we have. We obviously strive to be even more diverse, but the most important diversity that we have and that we are proud of is our diversity of thought.

We are proud to respect people of all faiths. This was a Nation founded under a deep belief in God, but we don't have an established religion. We appreciate and respect people of all religious backgrounds.

One of the things I love most about going to Israel as a Catholic is that so much of the history of my faith of Jesus Christ is represented there in Israel, where you can walk the streets of Jerusalem and literally walk in the steps of Jesus. The fact is that Jewish people in Israel respect that diversity; they respect people of all faiths. And that is one of the proud, crowning achievements of the Jewish state of Israel.

If you look at where we are as a Nation, clearly, slavery is one of the stains, probably the greatest stain, of this Nation. The country struggled with it in its founding, and, ultimately, President Lincoln-- the first Republican President--President Lincoln gave his life fighting to end slavery. It was in this Chamber, newly built, where they had that great debate to finally pass the 13th Amendment, one of the proudest moments of our Nation.

It was very contentious, but, ultimately, it was a struggle that had finally come to a head. Again, President Lincoln gave his life for that fight, and we still honor and respect him. In fact, we have a room right down the hall, the Lincoln Room where Abraham Lincoln as a House Member in the 1840s spent time, and we can all go, literally, sit or talk in the same place that Abraham Lincoln sat and talked as he was starting to build coalitions to end slavery, which he was ultimately able to secure.

So we continue to fight. It was wonderful to see John Lewis on the floor, a true hero, not just a hero of this Congress. We had the honor to serve with Sam Johnson, who was a great hero. He spent 7 years in the Hanoi Hilton.

It is a true honor to serve with John Lewis. And whether we disagree sometimes on politics, to be able to sit and talk with somebody who truly lived some of the toughest history of our Nation, and has the scars to prove it, and, yet, he still has love in his heart. He exhibits that love and that passion, so we are honored to be able to celebrate that diversity.

Ultimately, it is a diversity of thought that we all should fight to achieve, equality and opportunity for all men and women in this great Nation.

I yield to the gentleman, if he has anything else.

I agree. We should continue to honor all of those goals with our words and our actions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Pelosi for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is really a special moment for all of us to pay tribute to Don Young for this great achievement, being the longest serving Republican in the House, especially for someone who loves this institution so much. As we talked about John Dingell and had the honor of serving with John Dingell in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and seeing his passion, not just for the issues he believed in, in fighting for the auto industry and so many other issues, but for his love of the people's House, Don Young has that same love. In fact, anybody who knows Don Young knows that his secrets to longevity are always speaking his mind,

fighting every day to be a champion for the great people of Alaska, and always speaking his mind.

On a somber note, Don started his career out of a tragedy. A lot of you remember that back in October of 1972, there was a plane crash in Alaska. Nicholas Begich and Hale Boggs, who at the time was the majority leader, went down in a plane crash. There was a massive search to try to find the plane. They never did find that plane. Ultimately, when they finally recognized that we had lost two great leaders, they had special elections.

I get to serve and actually work every day in the office that Hale Boggs once worked in, the same office that Majority Leader Hoyer worked in as well, and I think about Hale a lot, as we think about Nicholas Begich as well. But I know Don was elected in a special election. That is when he came to Congress. Somebody else came to Congress: Hale Boggs' wife, Lindy Boggs, who some of you may have served with. They are probably too very different personalities, but they formed a special bond because of the unique nature in which they came to Congress. He shared with me some of those stories.

It just shows you how sometimes our differences can, ultimately, bring us together to at least pay tribute not only to an institution, but to respect our backgrounds and how we all come here from different walks of life. Ultimately, it is our desire to serve the people who we represent.

That is the thing I love the most about serving with Don Young. It is that he has such a passion. He fights for his beliefs, and he works with other people.

We all know that, for 37 years, one of his great causes was to open up ANWR. Finally, we were on the White House lawn in December 2017 to have that ceremony and watch Don Young giddy as a schoolchild as the President was making that announcement, and then to see him still this day, and every day, come to work with the passion of representing the great people of Alaska and continuing to work with all of us on all the different issues that we come here to address.

As we celebrate this great achievement, I think, as we all know, he comes and sits in that same spot and he yells ``order,'' and he yells a few other things, and he pushes us all to do our job in a much more efficient way. But how fitting it is that the United States' largest State has such a larger than life personality as its representative.

Congratulations, Don. It is an honor to serve with you.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Illinois for those kind comments. Go Tigers.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill that instead of being called For the People Act should be called ``For the Politicians Act.'' Let's take a look at some of the provisions of this bill that involve a Federal takeover of the elections process.

First of all, section 5111 of the bill will allow billions of dollars of taxpayer money to be funneled into political campaign accounts. That is your hard-earned dollars, in many cases, going to fund a candidate for office that you oppose. Think about that.

Now let's look at section 1402 of this bill, Mr. Chairman, where they allow felons to vote. Let's take, for example, a State that might have a law against felons voting, heavily debated in the State, where they are allowed that ability to set their laws enshrined by the Constitution. Here comes the Federal Government telling a State, for example, that if somebody went to Federal prison for voter fraud, they now have to let them be involved in the political process and vote, even though their own State law prohibits that person who was a felon for voter fraud.

One thing we can't even get an answer on--and there are many, unfortunately--we can't even get an answer on the cost of this bill. Many estimates are that it will be billions of dollars, but nobody can truly tell you because they continue to make changes after changes without even going through the normal committee process that should have been done.

If you look at the felons who can vote, think, for example, Mr. Chairman, a State--and many States have laws against felons who are child molesters from going into public schools. In many places, the polling location is a school. Under this bill, if someone who is convicted as a felon of molesting children and is banned by that State from going into the school, if they show up on election day, now, under this law, they have a hall pass. They can go into the school because of this new Federal law where the State said that child molester shouldn't be allowed in the school.

Again, it goes on and on, the kinds of things you can't even get clear answers on.

What would the cost be? Because they tell you the felons would be able to vote in the Federal election, but if your State law says they can't vote, then you have to have multiple ballots. If somebody shows up to vote, the State is going to have to try to figure this out at what cost to the State, not only the billions it costs the taxpayers?

This bill enshrines voter fraud in so many different places. Many States have voter integrity laws to make sure that the person who votes is the person who is the name on the roll. This says you don't even have to have an ID if the State has a voter ID law. You can show up and just sign your name. You can say this is who I am, and you can vote. The Federal law overrides the State law in this case.

Finally, I would like to talk about the constitutional infringements. And don't take it from me. Let's take groups as divergent as the ACLU and National Right to Life that all cite serious First Amendment concerns.

ACLU says provisions ``unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech

rights of American citizens and public interest organizations.''

National Right to Life: Enactment of H.R. 1 ``would not be a curb on corruption, but itself a type of corruption, an abuse of the lawmaking power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions . . . to reduce the amount of private speech regarding the actions of the lawmakers themselves.''

This is a bad bill. It ought to be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to these gun control bills that are being brought forward. They are brought forward under the guise of background checks.

Let's look at what these bills would actually do. We had identified any number of problems with this bill that we were trying to improve, and every one of those was shut out, shut out by the Democratic majority who wanted to try to stifle the opposing side's debate because they think just saying background checks makes this a good bill.

Let's talk about what this bill will do to make criminals--felons-- out of law-abiding citizens. If you loan your gun to a friend under this bill, maybe they are thinking of buying a similar gun to protect themselves and they want to go to a shooting range to see if this gun is the right kind of gun to protect themselves with, which they have a right to do under the Second Amendment of this Constitution, loaning your gun to that friend in that act would make you a felon subject to a year in jail and subject to a $100,000 fine, Mr. Chairman.

We tried to fix that. They shut that amendment out.

In this bill, if you loan your gun to a friend who maybe has been a victim of domestic violence--and one of my colleagues who is here in opposition to this bill is one of those victims of domestic violence. She had an amendment to fix this bill to say, if she has got a temporary restraining order against her boyfriend who has been beating her and she is afraid he is going to come back tonight, under one of the bills, if she goes to buy a gun tonight and the Fix NICS system isn't working, she may have 20 business days to get that gun.

Now, good luck if the boyfriend shows up to beat her up that night and she says: Don't worry, I am on day 8. I only have another 12 days before I can buy the gun. Will you come back so I can defend myself then?

Do you really think that is going to happen?

You know what that means to her.

So in the bill we said: What if you can loan your gun to her?

She goes to a friend and says: I know you have a gun. I don't have a gun. I am trying to protect myself because I have got a TRO, but I know he is probably going to come back.

Under this bill, you will be a felon, a year in jail, $100,000 fine. We tried to fix that, too, Mr. Chairman, and they shut that amendment out. That is what this bill does.

Oh, by the way, we are talking about law-abiding citizens here. If you go hunting with a buddy and you try to loan your gun to a buddy, Mr. Chairman, they say there is an exemption in the bill. But it is written so vaguely that you not only need to bring your hunting partner, you might need to bring your attorney to find out if loaning your shotgun to your friend makes you a felon under this bill.

These are law-abiding citizens. These are people who use guns to defend themselves, which is the basis of the Second Amendment. Our Founding Fathers believed every American has the right to defend themselves, because every day, on average, in this country guns are used by good people to defend themselves against bad people, and it is going to make it harder for them to get access to these guns to defend themselves. So, again, we tried to fix some of these problems.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about another problem we tried to identify and fix. If you loan your gun, you will be a felon.

So now we have identified areas where law-abiding citizens can become felons. We tried to fix it; they wanted that to stay in place.

So what is that motivation?

But then we identified another problem. If someone who is in this country illegally goes to buy a gun and the system flags them, and it says: Wait a minute, this person is not even here legally. They are breaking Federal law trying to buy a gun. We said that we should notify ICE so at least our Border Patrol agents in the interior can deport them. They blocked that amendment.

So now a law-abiding citizen can become a felon under their bill, but someone who is here illegally trying to buy a gun in violation of the law can't be turned over to authorities. This is a bad gun control bill, and we ought to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Terrapin from Maryland, for yielding.

I want to say, first, we are going to miss Karen Haas. Karen Haas served this body so well, as the majority leader talked about, and in such a fair way, treating all Members with the dignity and respect that they all deserve as we all carry out the work of the people's House.

When you think about the different roles that she has played, serving this Chamber, this body, for decades in a number of different roles, but, of course, most notably to all of us, twice as Clerk of the House. She was actually here once before, left, realized just how much fun it is to be in this House and work for this great body, and came back.

We thank you for coming back again and for your great service during these times.

So much work goes into the operations of the House. The things that we do on a daily basis, whether it is a Member filing a bill, when you go down to drop your bill in the hopper, it is Karen and the entire team that she has put together at the Office of the Clerk that receives the bills, that processes the bills.

When we all vote for and sometimes against the Journal, it is the Clerk that puts together the Journal of the House to make sure that the things that we do are properly recorded throughout time for people to go review.

It is an important job. But it is the work that she has done that we all see on a daily basis that we are going to miss.

As Cheryl Johnson takes her place, best of luck to you as well. We wish you all the best, but we are going to miss Karen.

We wish you the best in your next endeavor. You can come visit us from time to time.

Karen, thank you so much for the work that you have done on behalf of not just us as Members of Congress, but on behalf of all the American people who count on this institution to function properly, for helping us make sure that it is done in a proper, efficient, fair, and impartial way. Best of luck to you, Karen.

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, I want to share and join in with him in the tribute that has been paid to our former colleague John Dingell.

I served proudly on the House Energy and Commerce Committee with Chairman Dingell, and what a giant, what a true institutionalist of this House, the longest serving Member, a colleague of whom we will have fond memories and will share those fond memories, I am sure, in the days and weeks to come.

I know, Madam Speaker, and to my colleague from Maryland as well, every time we go into that room, the committee room for the Energy and Commerce Committee, we always get to look up now and know that it is named after our colleague John Dingell and always remember his wit-- because he was tough, but he had a great wit to share along with the combat that you would always get to engage in with him.

I will always remember, when the vote was finally called, he always had his own unique way. As the clerk would be calling the roll of the committee and they would call a member and the member would say ``aye'' or ``nay,'' he would always say: ``Dingell votes aye.''

He would have his unique way of addressing the issue of the day, and we will always remember him. To his wife, Debbie, and his family, we keep him in our prayers.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for going through the schedule, and I would share that assessment as well, that if those arrangements are made early next week, I would expect a large contingent of our colleagues to want to be there. We will all be there in spirit with John and his memory, as well as our wishes to his family.

As he and I may have disagreed on some issues, he was a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and we would talk about that. Mostly, when I had those conversations with Chairman Dingell, it was about this great institution, this people's House that we both have the honor to serve in, and his appreciation for what this institution means to our great Nation. Those will be memories I will always cherish.

As we look to the schedule, I know the gentleman alluded to the conference committee that is meeting. I am encouraged, as I talk to different conferees, by the conversations, the issues that they are tackling. Clearly, the issue that has been at the front and center of the differences that we are trying to work through deals with border security.

As we look to resolve the differences, ultimately, it is my hope that we find a way to properly fund the tools that are needed to actually secure the border, as our experts, our men and women who risk their lives to keep our border safe, have laid out in detail: obviously, technology to help them do their jobs better, the need to increase security at ports of entry and to have more of the drug-testing equipment that can do a better job of keeping drugs out of our country.

Clearly, part of that solution has to be some form of physical barriers--whatever you want to call them, wall, physical barrier--along areas where we have the worst problems.

If I can bring to the gentleman's attention, there was a story yesterday in the Washington Examiner titled, ``Border agents just apprehended convicted child molesters and an MS-13 member at the Texas border where there's no barrier.'' This is a Washington Examiner article from yesterday, and I include it in the Record.

[From the Washington Examiner, Feb. 7, 2019]

Border Agents Just Apprehended Convicted Child Molesters and an MS-13

Member at the Texas Border Where There's No Barrier

(By Eddie Scarry)

U.S. Border Patrol agents said Thursday that they

apprehended several illegal immigrants at the southern border

in Texas, in places where there are no physical barrier walls

to deter illegal crossings.

Among those caught crossing into the U.S. were a Mexican

man with a previous conviction in Georgia for child

molestation, a Honduran man with a record in North Carolina

showing a conviction for ``Indecent Liberties with Child,''

and another Honduran male with a Florida record that

identified him as a member of the violent M-13 gang.

The apprehensions occurred in the Rio Grande Valley sector

of the southern border on Monday and Tuesday, according to a

release by the Border Patrol.

I toured a portion of that sector in January, and agents

said that areas that feature a 25-foot barrier of concrete

and steel have proven critical in blocking illegal border

crossers, forcing them to attempt their crossings in specific

areas where they can be apprehended. They've asked for more

of the same kind of border wall to fill in the long gaps that

current exist.

When President Trump said during his State of the Union

address Tuesday that his proposal is for new barrier that

``will be deployed in the areas identified by the border

agents as having the greatest need,'' this is what he meant.

Madam Speaker, for my friend, the majority leader, I want to read this comment and ask a question about this.

Among the other things that they were able to identify as they were able to stop, just earlier this week, some of these people coming in, a person with ``a previous conviction in Georgia for child molestation, a Honduran man with a record in North Carolina showing a conviction for `indecent liberties

with a child,' and another Honduran male with a Florida record that identified him as a member of the violent MS-13 gang.''

This is just one more example, earlier this week, of people who are coming across our border illegally in areas--and the article notes that this happened in the Rio Grande Valley sector of the southern border on Monday and Tuesday, according to our Border Patrol agents, in areas where there is no physical barrier.

So as the gentleman himself has said just a few days ago, and I quote, ``physical barriers are part of the solution'' to improve border security, I would ask the gentleman, when we get this conference report hopefully wrapped up this weekend, can the gentleman give an assurance that there will be money to properly not only secure the border but to include the physical barriers that are not there in those areas where we have child molesters and gang members coming across our southern border?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I think we are all going to be encouraging those members of the conference committee to continue the work that they are doing. That headway seems to be going in the right direction.

Hopefully, we come up with a bill by early next week that we can vote on next week before we get to the deadline on the 15th to continue to properly fund those other areas of the government that haven't been funded. That includes the border security that is necessary, including physical barriers.

Shifting gears, I would ask the gentleman about a piece of legislation that we filed that we have been trying to get unanimous consent to bring up, and this is H.R. 962, a bill by my colleague, Ann Wagner from Missouri.

As we saw earlier, in these last few days, you had the Governor of New York signing legislation that, among other things, would allow for a baby that comes out of the womb alive, whether it is from an abortion that wasn't successful--whatever the case, if a baby comes out of the womb alive, the fact that in the State of New York, and now we saw the Governor of Virginia talking on a radio show about how that process and procedure would be carried out where the baby, after it is born alive, can be killed legally in those States.

As we talk about the sanctity of innocent life, clearly, there are many different divisions amongst the parties on the issue of abortion. But to many, this issue transcends abortion. This isn't related to abortion anymore. If a baby comes out of the womb and is alive, the fact that in only 26 States there are protections that that baby can't be killed, that means in nearly half of the States in this country, that baby still can be killed legally.

I still don't completely grasp how that is legal in America, that someone who is born alive can still be killed and have that be legal in certain States.

So we have a bill called the Born-Alive Protection Act that would ensure that, regardless of how you feel about abortion--pro-life, pro- choice--after the baby comes out of the womb alive, it shouldn't be able to be killed. H.R. 962 gives that protection that it can't be killed. I would ask the gentleman if he would allow that bill to come to the House floor for a vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that when we did bring that piece of legislation last year, the Born-Alive Protection Act, it did pass the House, 241-183, in a bipartisan way, with six Democrats voting with us to pass that bill to the Senate. It did not get passed in the Senate.

However, as you look now, there have been a number of alarming developments that have raised the profile of this issue.

When the Governor of New York signed into law his legislation and celebrated the fact that, in his State, you can kill a baby after it has been born, and you saw applause in the legislature over that, it shocked people across the country. It horrified and angered people across the country.

When the Governor of Virginia, just a few days ago, went to a radio station and described, in detail, how a baby born alive can still be killed, can be killed after it is born alive, and it is legal in that State, it is legal, and not protected in nearly a majority of our States, this issue has come to the forefront of Americans.

Again, pro-life, pro-choice, wherever you are on this issue, the vast majority of Americans feel strongly that you should not be able to kill the baby after it is born alive.

So we can talk about a long, drawn-out legislative process, but now there is more interest and more anger to confront this violent act of murder. How can it be anything other than murder to kill a child after it comes out of the womb? So I know we can talk about a long, drawn-out procedure.

I have made it very clear I will be filing a discharge petition if we can't get to the point where we get this bill brought to the floor in a quicker way. There is a quicker way to do this and address this problem.

Again, if you ask most pro-choice people in America, they don't think it is right that you can kill the baby after it comes out of the womb. And so, as the gentleman can talk about a regular order procedure, this bill has passed the House before, and now there is more interest in the Senate to confront this issue. We have the ability to give them that opportunity.

I would just ask if the gentleman would reconsider, to move this in a quicker way and allow the unanimous consent motion to go through. If no one objects, we can bring that bill to the floor. And so far, as we have been making the motion for unanimous consent, there has been no opposition expressed. They have just not allowed the motion to go forward and be recognized.

So I would just ask the gentleman to reconsider and allow us to, at least, have that opportunity to try to bring this bill to the floor in the quickest way possible, to stop this barbaric process from being allowed anywhere in America.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. I would just ask if the gentleman would urge the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to move swiftly to bring this bill up for a vote as we continue to use every legislative tool we have available to, hopefully, try to get a unanimous consent agreement to bring the bill to the floor. But ultimately, if that is not allowed, and if the committee process doesn't work and actually take attention to this in a quick way, then we will go a different route and use the discharge petition route.

So we have continued to try to make the point that this issue needs to be addressed by this Congress. The President, in his State of the Union Tuesday night, was very clear that Congress ought to address this issue. And the President, in his speech--and I thought it was an incredibly eloquent speech, confronting the challenges we face, but also talking about the greatness of this country and highlighting some of the people who achieved greatness, the three men who stormed the beaches of Normandy, and the challenges they faced to liberate Europe, to keep America free.

Ultimately, one of those gentlemen actually went on to help liberate Dachau; and to see the Holocaust survivor who was at Dachau, and liberated by that very gentleman, to both be on the same row of the gallery, was a special moment, a special moment that reminds us of the greatness of this country.

And as the President talked about that at the end, he challenged us, he challenged Congress to reach for greatness, not gridlock, but for that same greatness as we confront the challenges that this great Nation faces today.

This action, the fact that, in many States of this Nation, it is allowed to kill a baby after it has been born, is a moral wrong that we need to fix. That is another act of greatness that we need to rise up to; and I hope we do in the quickest way possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act, and I ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

I understand the guidelines the Chair decided, Mr. Speaker, but seeing no objection from either side of the House, would that constitute clearance and allow the Chair to entertain my motion under the rules of the House?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Again, seeing no objection on either side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, can the Chair advise what is required pursuant to section 956 of the House rules to allow my motion to be considered?

So, Mr. Speaker, is there any guidance under section 956 of the House rules to have that motion be in order?

Mr. Speaker, can the ruling of the Chair be challenged?

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair to rule on the motion of unanimous consent.

So, Mr. Speaker, is there a motion that can be made under the rules that have been cited to allow for the immediate consideration of H.R. 962?

Mr. Speaker, if this unanimous consent request can't be entertained, I would urge the Speaker and the majority leader to schedule the born-alive bill immediately so we can stand up and protect the sanctity of human life, and I would ask all others to join in in that request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring as to the schedule for the week to come.

Madam Speaker, as it relates to the suspension calendar, I know, this week, there was an extra bill added to the suspension calendar that wasn't on the list by close of business last week. Do you anticipate this Friday's list being amended again the following week, or should that be a complete list?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, clearly, as a suspension, it wasn't in the traditional sense--obviously, it went down. There being a sense of the House resolution, typically, those are resolutions where both sides work together.

I ask the gentleman, do they anticipate approaching senses of the House in a partisan way or, hopefully, in a bipartisan way, where we can work together to get a true sense of the House that could pass?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, as we approach bipartisan resolutions, we hope that the gentleman from Maryland and his side would work with us on those. It could have been a resolution that actually passed, had we been able to work together and, hopefully, include some language about border security.

As we look to the conference committee that is now meeting, as we talk about border security especially being the centerpiece of the big debate over government funding that, hopefully, we get agreement to, there were reports that, last week, the Democrat majority was going to roll out their plan for homeland security. Ultimately, that plan wasn't, in fact, rolled out. Is there going to be a rollout? As we have these negotiations----

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland to let him know that his side said they wouldn't negotiate during a shutdown. Obviously, the shutdown is over now. Will there be a counteroffer now put on the table?

Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing that proposal laid out. As the House and Senate Republican and Democrat conferees meet together, I do think, and have an optimistic approach, that we are not that far removed from reaching a deal, if we can ultimately find a way to put a real amount on the table that shows how we can secure the border, as our experts--the men and women who risk their lives to secure the border--have suggested in their proposal, if we can come to a place where we can agree on a way to actually achieve border security, and that includes physical barriers.

When the gentleman from Maryland, I think it was 2 weeks ago, was talking about some Democrats who were going over to the White House back then, it was said that they didn't have the authority to negotiate. Do the Democrat conferees have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the Democrat majority in the House?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's quick candor.

Madam Speaker, as we wrap this up, I would ask about an issue that a number of our Members were concerned about and hope this is not a trend. In the House Natural Resources Committee, the majority, yesterday, as they were proposing their new rules for the committee-- and each committee, as we know, proposes their new rules as a new Congress is sworn in and established on a committee level--in the oath that is administered to men and women who come before the committee to testify, the original proposal suggested removing ``so help you God'' from the oath. One of the Members on our side noticed that omission and put an amendment in place to restore ``so help you God'' in the oath. Fortunately, that was added back in.

I would ask the gentleman, is this going to be a trend? Is there going to be some kind of general movement by committees to try to remove ``so help you God'' from the oaths that are administered to witnesses?

Madam Speaker, hopefully, it is not a trend that we see.

Madam Speaker, I know the last few weeks have been contentious. We have a lot at stake as we try to get an agreement on something that actually can work to properly fund the government and properly secure the border.

I am glad that the conferees are finally meeting. I hope we don't see any attempt to run out the clock, because we do have a limited amount of time, although it is far more than enough time to reach an agreement, if all parties are truly there in earnest, and I do think they are.

I hope that they put all options on the table and listen to all the proper expert testimony that has been given on why we need to have certain amounts to secure the border and certain tactics and techniques and technology that are all going to be part of this.

Hopefully, at the end of that discussion, very quickly, they can reach an agreement that we can then bring to the House and the Senate and pass in a bipartisan way that the President can sign to finally properly fund the government and secure our Nation's border.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I know we look forward to welcoming the President of the United States to this House Chamber on Tuesday night for the State of the Union Address.

I appreciate the work that we are going to do together to secure our Nation's border and properly fund our government, and unless the gentleman has something else he would like to add, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding and for bringing attention to what we are here to talk about tonight.

This would have been the State of the Union that the President was initially invited by the Speaker to deliver back on January 3. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that, ultimately, we got a new date that the Speaker has invited the President to come to this Chamber, the people's House, on February 5, when President Trump finally will have the opportunity to address the people of this country on the state of Union, as the Constitution prescribes.

We have seen, over time, it has been done in many different ways. George Washington started the tradition in 1790 by actually addressing a joint session of Congress, as opposed to just sending a letter. It has been done different ways over time.

But over the last 50 years, it has been done here in this House Chamber every single year, and I am glad that we will finally have that opportunity to see the tradition continue.

Mr. Speaker, when you talk about the state of the Union and some of the things that President Trump has been fighting for, the main things he has been fighting for are to deliver to the American people on getting the economy back on track and keeping America safe.

Part of keeping America safe, Mr. Speaker, means securing America's border. That is really what was at the heart of the fight over the last month of this government shutdown.

A lot of people in Washington are so focused, Mr. Speaker, on who is to blame or who won the week, who is the winner or who is the loser. You hear everybody saying that, okay, well, Nancy Pelosi was able to hold the State of the Union hostage and somehow that is a victory for the American people that she denied the President the ability to come here to the people's House to share his message.

I wouldn't be bragging about that as a victory if I were Speaker Pelosi, because, ultimately, what that means is that she is afraid of having the American people hear the message that President Trump had to say.

That message will be distributed next week, but part of that message involves why we need to secure the border. That is really at the heart of this debate.

Why do we need to secure America's border? There are some people questioning whether or not we need to secure America's border. The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that there are not many people in this country that wonder whether or not we should secure the border. The bad news is that of the few people who are in that category, one of them is the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

We are going to continue to have this debate. On February 5, when you hear President Trump give this message, I am sure some of the things we are

going to hear are the horror stories that we have had because we don't have a secure border.

I have experienced something, and I have heard firsthand from constituents in my district about what is at stake. I had the opportunity to get a call from the mother of a fire chief in south Louisiana, Spencer Chauvin.

Spencer Chauvin was responding to a call, like he did. He was a public servant, a fire chief in St. John the Baptist Parish. As he was responding to that call, Mr. Speaker, he was killed by someone who is in this country illegally.

He never got to go home that night to his 6-year-old and 8-year-old. He doesn't get to talk to his mother anymore.

But after his mother and I talked, she mailed me this just last week, Mr. Speaker, and it is a coin. It is a coin in tribute to Spencer Chauvin. I keep this coin with me as a reminder of what is at stake in human terms, because we could talk about who won the day or who won the week, but is it really victory when the result of Speaker Pelosi's victory is that there may be more victims like Spencer Chauvin across this country because we haven't secured our border?

President Trump didn't campaign saying he needed $5.7 billion to build a wall. President Trump talked about building a wall to secure our border. When he became President, the experts who risk their lives, men and women who are not partisans, men and women who wake up every day, whether it was Barack Obama President or whether it is Donald Trump President, they just go to the border and risk their lives to keep the bad people out.

There is a way for good people to come in. If you want to come in legally like a million people every single year who we let in our country legally, there is a legal way to do it. If you are seeking asylum from around the world, Mr. Speaker, there is a legal way to do it.

In fact, this caravan that you saw coming into America, they stormed through Mexico's border on the southern border of Mexico. They stormed through that border. They wanted to storm through our border because we don't have a physical barrier. They were offered asylum by Mexico, and they were offered work permits by Mexico, and they turned that down.

Are you really an asylum seeker if you turn down asylum along the way here? It is not about asylum. It is about whether or not we are going to get back to rule of law and secure our border.

The experts who risk their lives say it is going to cost $5.7 billion to secure our border, to give them the tools they need, and that includes a physical barrier.

Now that we are seeing a growing list of Democrats, including the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, say physical barriers ought to be part of the solution, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what I would say, when we open back the people's House to the President on February 5, is let's heed the call of Republicans and Democrats alike who recognize we need to secure our southern border so that we can get back to rule of law and prevent more Spencer Chauvins from becoming victims to an open border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend and the majority leader of the House, for the purpose of inquiring as to the schedule for next week.

As we, Mr. Speaker, work to reopen the government and to secure the border, clearly, there has been a divide on the other side. We were trying to get some kind of agreement on how much the majority is willing to work with us on, to put an offer on the table.

If you look, Mr. Speaker, last week on Saturday, the President of the United States addressed the Nation and laid out a new proposal. And, Mr. Speaker, what the President laid out was not only a proposal that reopens the government and secures the border, but also offered the suggestion that DACA could be a part of this negotiation, at least to start working on some kind of solution on DACA.

In the past, Mr. Speaker, we were just talking about the request from the Department of Homeland Security, the $5.7 billion that was requested by the people who risk their lives to keep our country safe. Their request, Mr. Speaker, was that is how much it was going to cost to secure the border.

So far, we have not seen a single counteroffer from the majority. In fact, when the President spoke to the Nation at 4:07 p.m., before the President even walked to the microphone at 4:07 p.m., at 4 p.m., the Speaker of the House had already put out a statement opposing the plan that hadn't even been presented.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask the majority leader is, if we are trying to get a resolution and if the President continues to try to lay out alternatives, if the President's latest alternative wasn't even offered until 4:07 p.m., why did the Speaker of the House already reject it before it was even presented? Is there an actual desire to work together to solve the problem, or is the answer going to continue to be no alternative, no alternative?

At some point, we have to get an agreement on how to solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman uses terms like ``hostages.'' The gentleman uses terms like ``ransom.'' I was in those meetings in the White House with the gentleman from Maryland and the Speaker of the House. In fact, in our third meeting--by the way, in all three meetings, not one time did the Speaker of the House put any alternative on the table.

President Trump isn't the one who said: I need $5.7 billion to secure the border.

Our experts, our experts at the Department of Homeland Security, who risk their lives to keep our country safe, said it is going to take $5.7 billion to secure the border.

We can all talk about border security, Mr. Speaker. At some point, you have to be willing to put the dollars behind the rhetoric. So when the Department, Mr. Speaker, says we need $5.7 billion, if your side thinks that there is some lesser amount that it is going to take to keep our country safe, then put the amount of money on the table. So far, the only offer that has been put on the table by the Speaker of the House, she said a dollar, and she laughed about it, a dollar. That is the only offer that has been put on the table. It is not a joking matter, by the way. And a dollar is not going to secure America's border. So what amount will the other side agree to?

The President of the United States looked at the Speaker and said: Okay, I will tell you what, we disagree on a lot of this, but I will agree to keep the government open, even with the things I disagree with, for the next 30 days, if, at the end of that 30 days, you are willing to negotiate with me on the wall and the border security.

The Speaker of the House said no. She said no to that offer from the President. She wants to keep everybody hostage. She wants to keep the pay of workers hostage.

In fact, now the Speaker of the House wants to keep the State of the Union hostage. How ludicrous is that? George Washington, in 1790, addressed a joint session of Congress. They were meeting in New York back then. George Washington addressed a joint session of Congress.

This is a constitutional requirement of the President. Historically, for generations now, every single year, for generations--Republican Speaker, Democrat Speaker, Republican President, Democrat President-- the Speaker of the House has invited the President to give a State of the Union.

In fact, that agreement and that offer went out on January 3. The Speaker sent a letter to the President, inviting him to come here in this Chamber and address the State of the Union next Tuesday, and the President accepted that offer. And the Speaker of the House this time, for the first time in the history of our country, rescinded the offer, took it back. She doesn't want the people in this country to hear what the President has to say about the security of this country.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House doesn't want the country to hear the President's message, but do you know what? The people of this country want to hear the President's message and deserve that opportunity. So who is holding whom hostage?

Look at some of the votes. We had a vote today on the House floor to pay everybody, to pay everybody who has worked or who has been furloughed. Those people who are securing our border today without pay, they ought to get paid. We had a vote on the House floor, and we almost got there: 200-214. Mr. Speaker, every Republican voted yes; 13 Democrats voted yes. Last week, only six Democrats voted yes.

The good news is, Mr. Speaker, a growing number of Democrats are recognizing they have to be willing to work to solve this problem and pay people who have worked. So we have had those votes on the House floor.

The gentleman talks about opening government. The gentleman talks about bills they have brought to the House floor that we voted against. The gentleman talks about the Senate bills that were passed. At the beginning, the first week of this new majority, when they brought a bill to the floor to fund what was so-called, or presented as, the Senate bills, some of those bills had passed the Senate, Mr. Speaker, but not all of them. In fact, one of those bills would not have passed the Senate because it would have allowed taxpayer funding to go to foreign government entities that provide abortion.

So let's get this right, Mr. Speaker, and let the Record reflect that the other side was willing to bring a bill to the floor a few weeks ago that allows taxpayer money to go to fund abortion in foreign countries, but they wouldn't put a dime of money in that bill to secure America's border. There was not a dime of money from the President's request to secure America's border, but taxpayer money went to fund abortions in foreign countries. That was in that bill.

Sure, I voted no on that, because those are not the values of this country. Let's be serious about this.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about what it will take to resolve it, I think the gentleman from Maryland and I could come to an agreement. So far, for whatever reason, the Speaker has been unwilling to put a counteroffer on the table.

When you have a negotiation, when two sides are apart--frankly, I don't know why we are apart on this. It is not the President's number. The $5.7 billion request is from the people who are risking their lives to keep our country safe. If they say that is what they need, we ought to take them at their word.

And if we disagree with them, if we disagree, Mr. Speaker, then at least show what their offer is, what their amount of money is, and put that on the table and back it up with something.

If they say the wall is the issue, maybe it is personal, maybe it is because President Trump wanted it. Back in 2006, Chuck Schumer voted for the Secure Fence Act, which would have authorized $50-plus billion to build fencing, which, in essence, is a lot of what the Department is asking for today. If he was authorizing $50 billion--by the way, they didn't put any money behind it.

Again, it is always good to give the Fourth of July speech and say you are for something. Unless you are willing to put the money behind it, you are not there.

So he said $50 billion was okay for fencing, but, today, he is not willing to put a dollar behind, in essence, fencing, or whatever you want to call it.

The President said he is willing to negotiate and let you ban a cement wall. The President said he is willing to do that. Right now, the experts are saying steel slats are the best approach.

The majority leader himself, just a few days ago, said, ``Physical barriers are part of the solution.'' I think we are making headway. The majority leader agrees that physical barriers are part of the solution, maybe because the Speaker is saying that walls are immoral. In some strange way, people who build a house, you could build the strongest door in the world--and I agree, the gentleman from Maryland and I agree on enhancing port security, the points of entry.

We have points of entry all around our country. If you want to come here and seek asylum, if you want to come here and just be a part of the American Dream, like more than a million people a year who we let in, we have that. And we need to bulk that up. There is a lot more we can do with technology there.

But you don't put a door in your house and then leave the windows

open. Who would do that? Who would call that security of your house?

What the President is saying is, we have more than 500 miles of area in our country that is not secure. So you have a big door, and we are going to strengthen the door. But if you are going to leave 500 miles wide open, you are going to wonder why people are coming in illegally.

If we are for border security, it is going to take something to actually back that up. I would ask the gentleman: What amount is the majority willing to put on the table for real border security, which includes a physical barrier? And I quote the gentleman again: ``Physical barriers are part of the solution.''

And I agree with the gentleman from Maryland on that. But I guess maybe the question I have is: The experts have told us it is going to cost $5.7 billion to build that physical barrier. How much of that $5.7 billion is the gentleman willing to support?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let's reflect on why we are here.

We are here because the President said we have a difference of agreement on parts of government. We negotiated over the course of months to fund 75 percent of our government.

The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that the vast majority of our government has been funded, including our troops. Our military are being paid. We were able to come to an agreement there.

The bad news is, Mr. Speaker, we were not able to come to an agreement over the remaining 25 percent. And people around the country, I am sure, wonder: Why can't they work it out?

And I think, Mr. Speaker, you just saw a display of why this can't be worked out. Because, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States got a request from his Homeland Security officials, people who risk their lives to keep our country safe. They said, Mr. Speaker: It is going to take $5.7 billion to give us the tools we need to secure our border.

And I asked the gentleman just a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, once again, how much are you willing to support if you won't support the $5.7 billion? The entire time, not once did the gentleman from Maryland give a number--not once.

If the gentleman would give a number, I would yield, but there are a lot of other things that he said that need to be corrected that I want to also address.

Is the gentleman willing to give a number over $1, which is the Speaker's number? $5.7 billion, $1. Is he willing to give some number more than $1 that would secure the border?

Mr. Speaker, I yield if the gentleman would give that answer.

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to tell the gentleman.

I think the gentleman knows, one of the dilemmas we have been facing with negotiations is that the Senate has a 60-vote requirement. The Senate had that 60-vote requirement back when you all were in the majority last time. When we were in the majority, they had that 60-vote requirement as well.

When we were negotiating all of those bills, all the bills that fund our government, we were able to get an agreement on 75 percent of government funding. We had that negotiation with the Senate. We can't just negotiate with ourselves.

As you see, you can pass bills in the House and they go nowhere in the Senate. We brought a bill in December--and, by the way, the gentleman from Maryland said we didn't have the votes, that is why we didn't do it. The Speaker of the House went into the Oval Office and told the President: Your side can't deliver the votes for the $5.7 billion. She said that.

Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker. We did deliver the votes for the $5.7 billion, and we were able to do that all along, but the Senate wasn't there. And why wasn't the Senate there? The Senate Republicans were willing to support that, but Senate Democrats weren't. It is the same dilemma we are in today. The Senate Democrats and House Democrats have refused to negotiate with the President.

I think the gentleman from Maryland knows the legislative process. He has

been here enough to know you can't just pass a bill out of the House, and you can't just pass a bill out of the Senate. You have to reconcile the two bills. And even then, you need a bill that the President will sign.

So the legislative process has to play out. It played out for 75 percent of the government, and it is funded. We never got that agreement on the remaining amounts.

We proved to the Speaker and to the President we could deliver the votes to pass the bill to fund the $5.7 billion. The problem has been that this majority, the Democratic majority in the House and the Democratic minority in the Senate have refused to negotiate. They have refused to put a dollar amount.

If the gentleman is willing to start at $1.3 billion--by the way, that $1.3 billion had strings attached, important strings that limited our ability to actually secure the border. In those strings, Mr. Speaker, they actually told the President where he can and can't build wall.

So our security experts are saying, for example, we need to build wall around the Rio Grande. That is where a lot of people are bringing drugs and human trafficking across our country. And yet law says you can't build it there. How ridiculous is that?

So, in our legislation that we passed, we removed that limitation. Why should we be micromanaging the experts who risk their lives and telling them they can't do the things it takes to support the border? That was in our bill.

Current law also prohibits what kind of security, what kind of physical barriers--to use the gentleman's term--can or can't be used. And so our experts say there are some physical barriers that don't work.

Why would you want to spend $1.3 billion of taxpayer money to build things that won't actually work when you can spend the money to build things that actually do work? And again, these aren't the President's designs. These are the experts who risk their lives, who said: This is what we need.

So, yes, Mr. Speaker, we weren't able to get an agreement with the Senate over that 25 percent. We proved we could put the votes together in the House to do it. The Senate couldn't pass the bill. So, ultimately, there was nothing that got to the President's desk on those remaining items, so the President convened us.

The President got all the principals together, Mr. Speaker, and in three different meetings in the White House, not one time--not one time--was a single dollar amount put on the table by the Democrats in the room--not once. So then you can look at other votes, you can look at other plans.

So the President said: Well, if the Speaker of the House won't negotiate, maybe I will bring in other Democrats.

And, by the way, it is a growing list of Democrats who are starting to say we need to address this problem.

I will read from the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Mr. Collin Peterson, Democrat from Minnesota: ``Give Trump the money. . . . I'd give him the whole thing . . . and put strings on it so you make sure he puts the wall where it needs to be. Why are we fighting over this? We're going to build that wall anyway, at some time.''

Representative Adam Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee: ``The wall is not in itself a bad idea, it's just--it's been done.''

Representative Cheri Bustos from Illinois: ``If we have a partial wall, if we have fencing, if we have technology used to keep our borders safe, all of that is fine . . . .''

So we see a growing list of rank-and-file Democrats, and even committee chairmen, who are saying let's just do this, and yet the Speaker refuses to do it.

So the President invited some members of the Democratic majority in the House to the White House. The first meeting, Mr. Speaker, some of them didn't even show up. And we want to talk about civility?

We are in a shutdown, and the President of the United States says: I want to bring some Democrats in to see if we can resolve this. Then they don't even show up. And maybe they were told not to go.

So a few days later, the President invites a different group, and in that group we actually did have some Members that went.

The gentleman from Maryland, that day, was on a TV show, and he said--when they were asked do those Democrats who are going to the White House have the authority to negotiate, the majority leader of the House said they do not have the authority to strike a deal.

So now the Democratic majority is telling other Democrats who want to solve the problem and are going to the White House to try to solve the problem, he is telling them they don't have the authority to solve the problem.

So if the gentleman from Maryland is telling other Democrats they don't have the authority to strike a deal, I would ask the gentleman: Who does have the authority to strike a deal?

He is saying that physical borders are part of the solution. The Speaker of the House doesn't necessarily share that view, from the comments I have heard from her.

But if the gentleman from Maryland thinks physical borders are part of the solution, other Democrats want to negotiate a solution, who is authorized? Who does have the authority to strike a deal?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are in a government shutdown. I could clearly argue that the gentleman from Maryland voted to shut the government down in December before we had hit an expiration of funding. Before there was a shutdown, we had a bill to fund government and secure the border. My friend can say it was dead on arrival in the Senate. The reason it was dead on arrival in the Senate is because Senate Democrats refused to negotiate over securing the border.

So here we are. We could talk about 2013. We are in 2019, and we are in the middle of a government shutdown that could end tomorrow. The majority just voted to adjourn again. Literally--and here is the quote my friend just said--the gentleman from Maryland said: ``We are not going to talk until the government is open.''

So during the shutdown, the gentleman is not going to negotiate how to get out of a shutdown.

The gentleman wonders why people look and say: why can't you figure it out?

The President has offered idea after idea, and eventually you are negotiating against yourself when the other side says: we are not going to talk until we get everything we want.

Well, do you know what, Mr. Speaker? In divided government, Mr. Speaker, nobody gets everything they want, but you have to start talking today. The 800,000 people who are working or not working and not getting paychecks--which, by the way, we voted again today to pay all of them, we had a vote on the House floor to pay all of them, and we got 13 Democrats to vote for that. Last week it was only six. A growing number of Democrats are recognizing stop all this foolishness of saying: we are not going to talk to you when the President is trying to talk. We are going to reject your offer before you put it on the table. At 4 o'clock Saturday the Speaker rejected an offer that wasn't even proposed until 4:07.

So to say: we are not going to talk while we are in the shutdown, how do we get out of the shutdown unless people are talking?

I think the gentleman from Maryland and I could solve this problem. He quoted: Physical barriers are part of the solution.

I agree with the gentleman from Maryland on that. Unfortunately, the Speaker of the House doesn't agree with that. So rank-and-file Democrats who want to solve this problem are invited to the White House, but told by the Democrat leadership: you are not authorized to negotiate.

So I ask the gentleman from Maryland: Who is authorized to negotiate? And the gentleman from Maryland says: we are not going to talk until the government is back open.

But the government is not open because we are at an impasse, and the way you solve an impasse is to talk. You can't say: ``We are not going to talk'' and expect it just to solve itself and expect the President just to keep offering and offering and offering and the Speaker of the House say: we are not even going to let you come talk to the country; we are not going to let you have a State of the Union; my way or the highway.

That is not how you solve this problem. You have to talk to solve this problem. The country expects you to talk to solve this problem.

It is divided government. Sure, we are not going to agree on everything. Our experts--it is not the Republican Party saying $5.7 billion is what it would cost to secure our border--it is the experts who secure our border who say it is going to cost $5.7 billion.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman disagrees with that number, if he doesn't like the color of the wall or the style of the slats and the steel, if he wants to make it out of bamboo, I don't know what the gentleman's offer is because he has never put an offer on the table. But at some point the gentleman has to. He has to put a counteroffer on the table if we are going to get out of this.

I want to get out of this. I voted multiple times to get out of it and to pay people. The gentleman from Maryland can show votes, and I can show votes. Ultimately we need to talk to get an agreement.

So I continue to stand ready, the President stands ready; our minority here in the House and our majority in the Senate stands ready. But if only one side is saying: ``We are going to talk,'' and the other side says: ``We are not going to talk'', that is not going to resolve itself.

We have to talk if it is going to resolve itself, and, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we do.

I stand ready, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from Kentucky make a request for a recorded vote, because it is our understanding that he did make that request?

But if the Speaker didn't hear the gentleman make the request, but the gentleman did, in fact, make the request, then can we reconsider the vote?

Then a parliamentary inquiry would be: Can we make a motion to reconsider?

So is the Speaker saying that that motion would not be in order?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reconsider the motion that was laid on the table on H.J. Res. 28.