Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 4 (Wednesday, January 9, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 9, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H302-H311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 264, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL
GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 265, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 266, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 267, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019; AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE
6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 28 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 28

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House any bill specified in
section 2 of this resolution. All points of order against
consideration of each such bill are waived. Each such bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in each such bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on each such bill and
on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. The bills referred to in the first section of this
resolution are as follows:
(a) The bill (H.R. 264) making appropriations for
financial services and general government for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.
(b) The bill (H.R. 265) making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.
(c) The bill (H.R. 266) making appropriations for the
Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other
purposes.
(d) The bill (H.R. 267) making appropriations for the
Department of Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.
Sec. 3. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of January 15, 2019, relating to a measure
making or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2019
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page H303]]

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my
good friend, the ranking member, pending which I yield myself such time
as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 28, providing for consideration of
H.R. 264, making appropriations for financial services and general
government; H.R. 265, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
programs; H.R. 266, making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and related agencies; and H.R. 267, making
appropriations for the Department of Transportation, and Housing and
Urban Development, and related agencies, each for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2019. The rule provides for consideration of each
bill under a closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, we need to pass these bills, because we need to reopen
government.
Let me just say to my colleagues, quite frankly, this is not the way
I had hoped we would start the new Congress, essentially cleaning up
the mess that my Republican friends left us from the last Congress, but
we are where we are, and this is an emergency. It is time to reopen the
government.
Mr. Speaker, what we saw last night from the President, in my
opinion, was a disgrace. He used the Oval Office to fearmonger and
smear immigrants. There was nothing new, no plan to get us out of this
shutdown, no solutions, just more of the same offensive rhetoric we
have heard time and time again from this President.
But this Democratic majority is moving quickly to end the Trump
shutdown. On day one of this new Congress, we passed a complete funding
package using bipartisan language to reopen government, and now, today,
we are taking further action to help the American people while
responsibly protecting our borders.
This rule will allow us to pass individual appropriations bills to
reopen key government agencies. That includes the Department of the
Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, to prevent Americans' tax
refunds from being withheld during the shutdown; the Department of
Agriculture, to prevent hungry families from losing the lifeline of
SNAP benefits and assure that our farmers get the services that they
need; the Department of the Interior, to prevent our national parks and
monuments from being further degraded and allow EPA to resume its work
protecting public health and our environment; and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, to help hardworking families in the
process of realizing the dream of homeownership. These bills offer us a
way out of the President's shutdown, an embarrassing spectacle that
never should have happened in the first place.
Nineteen days ago, the President of the United States threw a temper
tantrum. He went back on his word, breaking his promise to sign
bipartisan appropriations bills that would have prevented a quarter of
our government from shutting down.
He turned on FOX News or some rightwing radio show somewhere and
changed his mind. Suddenly, the President demanded $5 billion in
funding for his offensive border wall just to keep the lights on--
billions of dollars, by the way, that would just have been a
downpayment on an unnecessary project that would cost tens of billions
of dollars, and not at Mexico's expense like President Trump promised
over and over and over and over again.
Now the costs have been shifted to the American taxpayer, when,
according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, only 25 percent of the public says
they support Trump shutting down the government over the wall--25
percent. This is crazy, but this doesn't have to continue.
At his press conference the other day, the President boasted he could
keep our government closed for years. Now, he may not know how to get
us out of this mess, but this Democratic majority does, and there are
many responsible Republicans on the other side of the aisle who are
with us on reopening the government.
Last week, our funding package passed with bipartisan support. Seven
Republicans voted with us, including Republican Congressman Will Hurd,
whose district includes much of the U.S.-Mexico border.
In addition, a growing number of Senate Republicans have encouraged
the majority leader to bring those bills to the floor, including
Senator Collins of Maine and Senator Gardner of Colorado. Senator
Gardner said, recently: ``The Senate has done it last Congress; we
should do it again today,'' and I agree.
So let's send these bills to the Senate so they can once again pass
Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support.
The Senate Majority Leader already supported these bills once. Why
not support them again to finally reopen this government?
Because we can't wait for the President to publicly promise to sign
these bills before we act--we already know his word isn't worth much;
his broken promise is what got us here--it has fallen to Congress to
get us out of this shutdown.
Congressman Hurd said after voting for the Democratic appropriations
package last week: ``Ultimately, Congress is a coequal branch of
government, and it should operate that way.'' He is absolutely right.
And these bills are this majority's latest attempt to fulfill our
responsibility.
There are 40 million Americans who rely on SNAP to put food on the
table. Their benefits will lapse shortly if this shutdown is allowed to
continue.
Mr. Speaker, why should Americans go hungry just because the
President wants to appease someone like Rush Limbaugh? Why in the world
would Congress sit idly by as thousands of people trying to buy a new
home or refinance FHA-insured mortgages are left in limbo?
We are now in tax season. If we don't end this shutdown, more than 2
million Americans who every month turn to tax assistance centers will
find them closed as they try to complete their annual returns.
This is madness, and it is completely unnecessary. Tax returns
delayed, home purchases in limbo, food assistance in jeopardy for the
hungry, trash piling up in our national parks, it is an embarrassment--
not to mention the 800,000 Federal workers who aren't getting paid, and
countless more contractors.
It can be over in a heartbeat if we pass these bills and the Senate
takes yes for an answer. These bills honor our responsibility to turn
the lights back on. They don't waste even a dollar of taxpayer money on
the President's immoral border wall, nor should they. People
overwhelmingly object to building it.
I hope this President comes to his senses, that he stops holding our
Nation hostage as he plays to the fringes of his base. But none of us
can control that. We do have the ability, though, to do our jobs and to
end the shutdown. That is what this Congress will do again today, and I
urge all of my colleagues to join with us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is constrained to again remind
Members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President
of the United States.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Chairman
McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are back again on appropriations, and we are back
again on the exact same set of bills as before.
Last week, the House agreed, over Republican objections, to pass a
set of appropriations bills, six of which would fund the relevant
departments for a full year, the seventh of which would fund the
Department of Homeland Security until February 8.
Today, not content with already having passed these bills once, my
friends in the majority are again bringing up four individual bills
that were part of the same package covering the Transportation and
Housing and Urban Development bill, Financial Services and

[[Page H304]]

general government bill, the Agriculture bill, and the Interior and
Environment bill. Nothing substantive in these bills has changed.
Indeed, nothing substantive has yet changed anywhere in this process:
The government remains partially shut down;
The Senate is refusing to pass the bills my Democratic Party
colleagues are proposing;
The President is refusing to sign them; and
The majority is proposing to fix the problem by passing the exact
same bills.
To quote the great Yogi Bera: ``It is deja vu all over again.''
While I commend my friends in the majority for trying to reopen the
government, let's be clear about what they are proposing. The four
bills under consideration here represent only the Senate-passed
versions of the bills covering the fiscal year 2019 appropriations
process. They represent no input at all from the House, no input at all
from the Appropriations Committee, and no input at all from the joint
House and Senate conference committees that were appointed to iron out
the differences between these bills and their House counterparts.
In essence, the Democrats' only plan is for the House to swallow the
Senate's original bills, abrogate our authority and responsibility as a
coequal House of Congress, and declare victory. What is more surprising
is that my friends now expect that having tried this same thing before,
they will now get a different result.
To be clear, last week, when the House passed these exact same bills,
the Senate made it known these bills would not come to the floor; and
even if they did, the President has made it known that he would not
sign them. I don't know what they think is so different about this week
over last to make my friends think that all they need to do is to pass
them again and, magically, the Senate will pass these bills and the
President will sign them.

{time} 1245

Perhaps even more surprising, the majority now wishes to bring these
four bills forward under a closed rule, with no opportunity for the
House to amend them and no opportunity for Members to weigh in. As a
member of the Appropriations Committee, I understand how hard it is to
have a full process on appropriations bills. But it is, indeed,
possible, even when funding bills carry over into a new year or even a
new majority.
In 2011, right after Republicans took majority control of the House,
we considered a bill on the floor to fund the entire Federal
Government. We did it under an open rule, with only a preprinting
requirement. When we considered that bill on the floor, 162 amendments
were offered from both sides of the aisle, and we had a grand total of
66 hours of floor debate on the bill, stretching out over 5 days.
Given the amount of time we used in 2011, I fully understand what an
undertaking that would be. But unless the majority believes that these
bills will quickly pass the Senate and quickly be signed by the
President into law, then there is plenty of time for thoughtful debate
and plenty of time to hear ideas from all Members of this House.
Instead, the majority has chosen to push forward with an appropriations
strategy that they know cannot succeed.
Mr. Speaker, the House should be taking steps this week to negotiate
with the Senate and the President to end this shutdown. That means
that, whether the majority likes it or not, they need to engage on
border security.
The American people have told us time and time again that they want
action on border security. The solution they are proposing today does
nothing on that front.
Even if we pass these bills today, and even if they, ultimately,
became law, the border would remain unsecured and the Department of
Homeland Security would remain shut down. Nothing the House will do in
this package will change that essential fact, and nothing in this
package is a step on the road to changing that essential fact.
Mr. Speaker, it wasn't always this way. In 2006, 64 Democrats joined
Republicans in passing the Secure Fence Act, which President Bush
signed into law. Those 64 Democrats then included 13 current Members
now and one additional Member who has since gone on to the Senate. Even
liberal lions of the House, like our good friend and former colleague
Congressman Barney Frank, joined the Republicans in voting for border
security. I am unclear what has changed, from then until now, that
would cause the entire majority Caucus to refuse to work with
Republicans on border security when so many did so back in 2006.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the good intentions of
the majority in seeking to fund the government, their method of doing
so is in no way sufficient. Instead of abrogating our own authority,
embracing a Senate-only product that the President will not sign, and
kicking the can down the road, we should be taking concrete steps to
reopen the government, secure the border, and move on to the many
important needs of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma's comments. I
just want to make a couple of quick points before yielding to my next
speaker.
We, as Democrats, are struggling in support of border security, and
we have supported initiative after initiative to basically make our
borders more secure. We believe in investing in infrastructure and more
personnel. We believe in providing more judges to be able to adjudicate
asylum claims so we can process people more expeditiously. We believe
in technology. It is 2019, yet the President insists on this medieval
approach to border security, which most experts say is just
ineffective.
On top of all of that, our objection is that it is going to cost tens
of billions of dollars. The President said that Mexico is going to pay
for it, but now he is saying that the American taxpayers are going to
pay for it. I mean, give me a break.
As far as why we are doing the strategy of taking up these Senate-
passed bills, let me remind my colleagues: They passed the Senate 92-6
back in August.
I would have liked a different process. My friends were in charge of
everything up to a week ago. They controlled the House; they controlled
the Senate; and they controlled the White House. Yet they sent people
home during the holidays and just kicked the can down the road, and we
have inherited this mess from the last Congress. So we are doing the
best we can.
If the Senate would vote, like they did in August, again for these
bills--92-6--we won't need the President. We could override his veto;
we could reopen the government; and we could stop all of this nonsense
right now. That is my hope.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this administration to
choose people over politics.
As we are talking about the shutdown, the stories of real people are
getting lost in the mess created by this administration. I want to
share the serious impact of the shutdown on my constituents and
Americans around the country.
These stories come from hardworking families, like newlyweds in my
district who just had a premature baby. They spent 3 weeks in the NICU
and are just now getting back home. They told me: ``We have so many
bills and a mortgage, and the shutdown happened just as we are sending
in our first mortgage payment. Our baby requires special formula
because he was not able to breastfeed. My husband has been asked to
work overtime and is not getting paid. We are scared about how we are
going to get by.''
This is a national crisis, one our President has created, and we have
a responsibility to fix it.
I call on the White House, my colleagues across the aisle, and their
colleagues in the Senate to stop holding our government hostage and
allow the government to reopen as we debate effective and humane border
security.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
make a couple of quick points, and then yield to another speaker, if I
may.
Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree a little bit with my friend's memory
on

[[Page H305]]

what the last Congress did and did not do. Quite frankly, it was the
most successful Congress in enacting appropriations bills in 22 years,
75 percent of them across the floor on time. We will see how good the
record is as my friends are in the majority. And I am going to work
with my friends on that, because I know it is the intention to do that,
but it is no easy task.
To say that the last Congress didn't act when, in fact, it put a bill
over in the United States Senate that the President would have signed
is simply untrue. To suggest that Republicans controlled the Senate in
this process, when a Democratic minority in the Senate kept us from
getting to 60 votes, there is where your real obstruction was. Quite
frankly, this problem would have never happened if the Senate chose to
operate the way we do, by simple majority vote, and the President would
have had a bill.
One last point, if I may. The President did offer to negotiate. The
reports in the media are that he actually offered to reduce his request
by half. That is normally, around here, considered a real negotiation:
Let's split the difference and find the common ground.
My friends didn't choose to take up that offer. So the idea that they
have somehow been innocent bystanders when they were in the minority,
in a process out of control, simply misstates reality.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State
of Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend, a member of the
Appropriations Committee, and a former member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for
yielding me some time.
Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are again. Last night, the Rules
Committee, under its new chairman, Mr. McGovern, voted to bring four
spending bills to the House floor, four bills that have never had a
hearing in this body, have never had a markup in this body, and now,
under Democratic control of the House, will have no amendments made in
order.
These bills may sound familiar to my constituents because these are
the exact same bills that House Democrats forced votes on last week,
only now we will be considering them one by one, rather than in a large
package.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee over the last 4
years, I can tell you I had the distinct honor of listening to the now-
chairman of the Rules Committee spend hours, literally hours, berating
those of us in the majority for not allowing amendments on bills.
So, Mr. Speaker, you can understand my full expectation as Democrats
took control of this body that we would be seeing open rules allowing
for vigorous debate on amendments and healthy, open dialogue and
transparency on these important pieces of legislation. Unfortunately,
that is not the case.
If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the now-chairman who
spoke of his frustrations with the Rules Committee in recent months.
First of all:

The Rules Committee ought to be a place where people who
have good ideas, whether you agree with them or not, have
legitimate ideas, ought to be able to have the opportunity to
be able to offer them. Increasingly, we're moving away from
that.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker:

I'm always intrigued by the excuses why we can't be open .
. . and decry this very closed process.

And lastly, Mr. Speaker:

I hope if we're lucky enough to take over this place, I
hope that we're more accommodating.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they were, in fact, lucky enough. The Democrats
took control of this body and very well could be allowing amendments
today. But, unfortunately, that is not the case.
For instance, last night, I offered three amendments to two of the
bills before us, all three of which were accepted unanimously in the
115th Congress in the House Appropriations Committee, again, on a
bipartisan basis.
Unfortunately, the chairman isn't allowing a single amendment on the
Republican or Democratic side to be offered on any of these four bills,
including bipartisan amendments like those that I had offered.
I thank my good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for his effort to
push these amendments to be made in order. It is sincerely
disappointing to see the chairman and House Democrats manage
legislation in the very manner they so vehemently decried.
Mr. Speaker, I will be voting ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on these
spending bills.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Washington.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. My constituents' priorities deserve to be represented
in the people's House. Unfortunately, in this bill, they are not.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Washington
State, a former member of the Rules Committee. I should just tell him--
and I am a little bit surprised, since he was on the Rules Committee--
two of his amendments that he offered didn't even comply with the House
rules, so that is why they wouldn't be made in order.
But let me just say to him, as I began my remarks, it is unfortunate
that we had to start this Congress cleaning up after the last Congress,
but that is where we are. That is what you have given us. And I am
eager to return to regular order as soon as we reopen this government.
What we are witnessing is extraordinary. In fact, it is
unprecedented. For the first time in history, we have begun a new
Congress in the middle of a government shutdown.

I tried last month to bring up appropriations bills, bills that Mr.
Hoyer offered on the floor to reopen this government, but you shut me
down every single time, so here we are.
We meant it when we said that we would do everything we can to reopen
this government, because this is a real emergency. 800,000 hardworking
civil servants are either furloughed or working without pay. That is
what an emergency looks like. This is an emergency.
I appreciate the kind of laid-back attitude of some of my friends on
the other side of the aisle who are like: Well, let's start all over
again. Let's reopen the process. Let's have endless debate from now
until whenever.
But do you know what? It is not us who are not being paid; it is our
constituents. So this is an emergency. It is time that all of us come
together and end this ridiculous shutdown and then get on to the
business of the future. That is what I am committed to.
I hope that the Rules Committee will be much more accommodating to my
friends on the other side of the aisle than my friends were to us, by
the way, overseeing the most closed Congress in the history of the
United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Perlmutter), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule and the four underlying
bills to help fully reopen the United States of America. Here we are,
19 days into the Trump shutdown, and all we see is political posturing
from the White House and the Republican-controlled Senate, which has
failed to take any steps to reopen the government.
The President has made Federal employees political pawns to try and
get his way. He has put America and the hardworking men and women who
work for her in jeopardy.

{time} 1300

Last week, I joined a bipartisan majority of the House in supporting
two bills to fully reopen the government. Unfortunately, the Senate has
failed to take up those bills. They would immediately reopen the
government and put 800,000 people back to work.
I know that the gentleman from Oklahoma said we have plenty of time.
Those were his words just now. We don't have plenty of time. We need to
get people back to work.
I want to share some stories from my district. Denver Federal Center
is in the middle of my district, and it has the highest concentration
of Federal agencies anywhere in the country outside of the D.C. area.

[[Page H306]]

More than 15,000 of these and other Federal workers in Colorado have
either been furloughed or forced to continue working without knowing
whether they will be paid or not.
One of these employees is Sherry who works for the EPA. Sherry is
furloughed and doesn't know when she will get back to work or if she
will be paid when the EPA reopens. Sherry has two sons with
disabilities who rely on counseling and treatment not covered by her
insurance. She is being forced to make decisions about how to continue
their treatment, pay for groceries, and keep up with her family's other
expenses.
Or take Shannon, who is a supervisor for the TSA. Shannon is still on
the job but doesn't know when she and her coworkers are going to get
paid for work. Shannon told my office: If the shutdown lasts through
this month, it will be nearly impossible for her family to make rent.
They barely made January payments and still have outstanding utility
and credit card bills.
I also met with Matt this morning who is an air traffic controller in
Denver. He and his coworkers have stayed on the job keeping our skies
and the traveling public safe, but will not receive paychecks on
Friday.
One more story is from Gabe who lives in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, where
I live. Gabe is a student who called my office concerned he won't be
able to start classes at the University of Colorado because his
registration with the Selective Service System cannot be processed
until the government reopens.
These are just a few examples of why we need to fully reopen the
government. I urge my friend from Oklahoma to work with Mr. Hoyer, Ms.
Pelosi, and Mr. McGovern to come up with solutions to this, to get
these people back to work as soon as possible,
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule,
and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and
then I will yield to my good friend from Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take up the challenge. I would be
happy to meet with anybody to reopen the government. I would be happy
if we had a product in front of us, which we did have in late December
that had actually been agreed to by the United States Senate.
Why my friends chose to just simply take the Senate bills--which I
will assure you, are not nearly as good as the conference bills between
the two bodies--and throw all of the work out that this body did over a
year, the appropriators, and the rest of the authorizing committees
that play a supplemental role in this, I will never know.
It would have been a lot harder to vote ``no'' than just simply sit
here and strip 435 Members of their ability to legislate, which is
effectively what my friends in the majority have chosen to do.
I hope going forward we can do exactly what my friend suggests. I
would also suggest that the people he mentioned go meet with the
President of the United States. He was here all December, happy to
negotiate with anybody. He wasn't in Hawaii. He was here. He offered to
split the difference. That was an unacceptable offer to my friends.
So if you want to negotiate, negotiate with the President. If you
want to do something with the Senate, I would expect that you should
probably sit down and talk to them because you are sending them
something this week that you sent last week, that they didn't take up
then, and they are not going to take up now.
So whenever we want to negotiate, I would be thrilled to be at the
table, but I haven't seen any evidence that my friends do want to
negotiate. Instead, they simply want to dictate. They simply want to
dictate the outcome and achieve what they think is a political victory,
and that is coming at the expense of the American people. Real
negotiations mean sitting down and settling differences. It doesn't
mean shooting paper back and forth across the rotunda.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Mitchell), my good friend and a distinguished Member.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman has to recognize the
irony, how, despite 2 years of claiming that he wants open rules, the
Democrat rule package talking about regular order, and here we have a
closed rule for advancing these bills.
The gentleman talks about the most closed Congress was the 115th
Congress. I will wait and see if the gentleman's side in leading
Congress' score is better than the 115th Congress was. It would be
interesting to keep that scorecard.
In the past, I have supported bills like these, especially
appropriations bills for agriculture, transportation, housing, and
urban development.
On the whole, the agriculture bill has priorities that are critical
to my district, including the farm safety net, rural broadband, food
safety, and more. However, I can't support these bills because they are
offered in bad faith. It is a charade. Let's be honest. It is simply a
charade. It is not a serious attempt to fund agriculture or any other
priorities in my district or in this country.
It is, in fact, distract and delay in order to put pressure on, to
squeeze the American people to get what you want.
It is madness, I will agree with you. It is madnes where we are going
right now because 17,000 people with criminal convictions were stopped
at the United States southern border last year.

That doesn't count the ones we didn't catch because they came in in
other ways. Yet, somehow, we want to ignore that rather than worry
about our border security. Without borders, without secure borders, we
are not a country.
The President, the administration offered a package. My colleague on
the other side of the aisle, Mr. McGovern, I want him to see this
letter. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, you have it. It talks about the
priorities of the administration.
It talks about funding, yes, for a wall or barrier for 234 miles.
Only 234 miles, not the 2,000 miles suddenly people are talking about,
which is a top 10 priority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in
order to funnel people crossing the border to entry points.
It talks about additional immigration judges. It provides funding for
additional border patrol. It provides funding for infrastructure at the
borders--many things the other side of the aisle was talking about. So
why is it, that rather than going to the White House, closing the door,
and not coming out until you come up with an answer, there is a press
conference being held in the Rayburn Reception Room where once more we
talk about, well, we are not doing anything.
If you want to reopen the government, go to the White House, close
the door, and don't come back here until we have a deal. A deal
requires all parties. These bills will not be taken up in the Senate.
The President said he will veto them.
Negotiation, I spent 35 years in private business, and negotiation
means you never get everything you want, but you walk away where all
parties say: We could have gotten a little more. But you solve the
problem rather than put people at risk.
We are putting people at risk in this country. People won't get paid
Friday. You are right. We are also putting the American people at risk
by not securing our border. We have kicked that can down the road my
entire time I have been here, 2 years now, and long before that.
One final point: We know that Democrats previously have supported
funding for border walls, border security, and a border fence. Call it
what you want.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, so why is it now we can't simply agree
that we need to do more to secure our border along the lines of this,
including 234 miles of wall, only because the President's name is on
it?
Come on, let's solve the problem. Let's be adults here.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, this morning I met Chrissy,
an air traffic controller from Ventura, California. Her job is to
ensure the safety and efficiency of air travel, but the Trump shutdown
has caused chaos. Air traffic controllers will not receive their
paychecks on Friday. The FAA support staff has been furloughed, and the
students in the air traffic control

[[Page H307]]

academy have been sent home. Because of this, air traffic controllers
like her are being forced to slow down everything in order to ensure
the same level of air safety.
But it is not just Chrissy's work that is being impacted. She and her
husband, who is also an air traffic controller, lost their home in the
Thomas fire, and now, as they try to rebuild their home and their
lives, Trump is forcing them to do it without a paycheck.
How can we do this to our workers? Last night, Trump tried to make
his case to the Nation. What we heard was a lot of xenophobia and
division. What we didn't hear was any urgent threat that would justify
a shutdown right now over a wall that would be built in the future.
That is why we are bringing up today's bills to reopen government. If
Trump wants to negotiate over border security, he should show concern
for workers like Chrissy and sign these bills. Nineteen days into the
shutdown, Trump is making the American people suffer for the sake of
his ego.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and
join us in passing these bills to reopen government functions that have
nothing to do with Trump's demand for a wall.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded not to use
personalities when referring to the President of the United States.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to notify the body, if we defeat the
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to report
modified open rules for each bill before us today: H.R. 264, H.R. 265,
H.R. 266, and H.R. 267. The rule would include a preprinting
requirement.
Mr. Speaker, the bills before us today are simply nothing more than
Senate products. House Democrats would rather try to win political
points against the Senate than allow this House to do its job. Again,
the Senate hasn't indicated they will take up these measures, and the
President has not agreed to sign these measures. There is time to do
this the right way.
In 2011, right after Republicans took the majority control of the
House, the government was operating under a continuing resolution, and
we considered a bill on the floor to fund the entire Federal
Government, and we did it under one open rule with just a preprinting
requirement.
There were a total of 66 hours of floor debate from the afternoon of
February 15, 2011, to the early hours of February 19, including one
stretch of debate that lasted 42 hours.
I do understand what an enormous undertaking it would be, but that
doesn't mean we shouldn't and can't take the time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell)
left the floor, but I know Mr. Newhouse is still here, and I am
complimented by the fact that they quote me so much. But I want to
quote me, too, because I am going through what I have said about open
rules and about the way this House should be run.
On November 14 on the floor I said:

And I am not suggesting that every rule needs to be an open
rule or that there is never a time for a closed rule, but
there is never a time for more than 100 closed rules. There
is no justification for that.

That is me. And on April 24, I said:

I am under no illusion that every bill has to be an open
rule; although it would be nice to have at least one symbolic
open rule before the year is out.

On April 13, I said:

I can't promise that every rule is going to be an open
rule, but I can say that there would be a greater attempt to
try to accommodate Members.

On September 2, I said:

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that everything that
the House considers should be under an open rule. There are
times when a closed rule might be necessary. But more than
100 closed rules? There is no justification for that.

So I think I am being pretty consistent here, because I have actually
voted for closed rules on this floor that have been suggested in times
of emergency. I voted for one to actually bring a continuing resolution
to the floor so that we wouldn't have to deal with the mess that we are
in right now.
So in times of emergency, in times of life or death, yes, there are
justifications for a closed rule, and this is one of them because this
is last year's work. This is what my friends on the other side left us
with, unfinished business from last year. Not only unfinished business,
but they allowed the President to shut the government down.
So hundreds of thousands of American workers are in a panic right now
because last year's majority, my Republican friends, did not do their
job.
This is ridiculous. We ought to figure out a way to have our
discussions without shutting the government down. This is not the way
you are supposed to run government. And so we are offering a solution
here so that we can reopen the government and continue our
conversations about whatever you want.
The gentleman from Oklahoma said we should split the difference on
the border wall.

{time} 1315

Mexico was supposed to pay for it.
Why are we splitting the difference? Why are we assuming the cost of
a border wall when the President said that Mexico was going to pay for
it, a border wall that most experts say is useless and ridiculous and
that that money could be better spent on other ways of enforcing border
security?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, breaking news to the American people:
all the other body has to do, the Senate, is to take the bills passed
by the Democratic majority in the House and the government will open in
minutes, simply with the signature of the President of the United
States and the opportunity to work on the kind of barrier that is
appropriate for the border, a State of which I come from, Texas, a
border State, and have deep knowledge about which borders work and
which don't. Then the government could open--breaking news.
It is shameful for my Republican colleagues to come to the floor of
the House and not acknowledge that the simple problem is with the White
House.
We are not interested in not talking about border security. Democrats
have been working on border security for decades and have been
successful in the funding to provide barriers that are there now, that
I just saw in the last week, myself, at the border, as I have done on
many occasions, and simply acknowledging that we helped build up the
Border Patrol agency. We as Democrats have built up Customs and Border
Protection.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that, when you take $5.7
billion out of the budget, you are not writing a paper check. What it
means is that you will cut into Border Patrol agents; you will cut into
Customs and Border Protection; you will cut into dollars for education;
and you will cut into dollars for healthcare.
How shameful, again, it is for the President to use the opioid crisis
that we have been working on well for many, many years. Does he
understand that most drugs come through a tunnel and, as well, through
legal points of entry? They are not coming across with families--women
and children.
Does he understand, when he asks for $5.7 billion, that we need $78
billion to deal with the opioid crisis throughout America, where 115
people die every day? That is money that could be used for providing
treatment, providing reverse drugs, and providing access to hospitals
and medical care.
We should not be distorting facts to alter the thinking of the
American people on untruths. We simply need to say, yes, barriers are
appropriate where they can be placed. But this administration is wrong.
It pains my heart as a senior member on the Homeland Security Committee
to acknowledge that he is holding the American people hostage.

[[Page H308]]

Let me say to all the Federal workers: We thank you.
On my way back to Washington, I stopped to talk to TSA,
transportation security agents. They are on the front lines of securing
this Nation.
Thank you.
They are on the front lines, along with air traffic controllers.
Aviation is still one of the greatest targets for terrorism.
What does this President do? He blocks them from getting paid this
very Friday.
Open the government now.
To the other body: Put our bills on the floor of the Senate. Vote and
send it to the White House.
I dare the White House to reject the pain of the American people and
refuse to open this government so that mothers can have childcare, so
that TSA agents can be able to pay their mortgage, so that agricultural
workers can continue doing rural development and food stamps, which are
going to end in a couple of weeks.
We can't fool around like this anymore. All this chitter-chatter on
the other side is nothing but chitter-chatter saying nothing,
absolutely nothing.
Open the government, to the White House, and open it now.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I was amused--and I actually mean this in very good
spirit--when my friend mentioned how frequently he had been quoted in
today's debate, and I have to say I consider my friend one of the great
debaters in this Chamber, and I enjoy hearing him quoted on the floor
of the House. So I accept that, and I hope the gentleman knows it was a
compliment to him in many ways.
I also want to tell him--and I mean this very seriously--I take him
at his word. I don't have any doubt my friend wants to operate
differently than we have operated in the past and that he wants this
institution to be more open to inclusion of various points of view and
very sincere debate, and I pledge to my friend I will work with him in
that endeavor.
Now, it is hard to resist pointing out the gentleman's first six
bills have all been under closed rules. I suspect we will continue to
point that out until we have an opportunity to say to my good friend--
and I think we will in the very near future--``Congratulations, you are
following through on the things that you said.'' Again, I know my
friend will do that at what he considers and the majority considers the
appropriate time.
We have a lot of discussion, Mr. Speaker, about who did and didn't do
their jobs in the last Congress. I would tell you, in my view, that the
House did its job. It passed its bills. It sent to the Senate a product
that the President would sign.
Mr. Speaker, I would tell you, you are doing your job here, as well,
right now in the majority. You passed bills last week. You sent them
over to the United States Senate.
In our case, the minority in the Senate blocked consideration of our
bills. Had those bills been placed on the floor, we wouldn't be here
today. They would have all passed. They had majority support in the
Senate; they had a President willing to sign them; and they had already
passed the House.

The only reason why we are here today is because the Democratic
minority in the Senate manipulated the rules of the Senate in such a
way that they could stop action. I suspect we all have had frustration
with that as House Members in the past. I think we will again in the
future.
I also want to reflect with my friends, and I draw this conclusion
not so much out of their actions, but actions that my own party, from
time to time, has committed, and I suspect I will say this to this
Chamber many times: Pursuit of absolute victory in domestic political
disputes is always a mistake. It always leaves a divided country and an
embittered opponent, and you will rue the day when you pursue it. We
have certainly done that, Mr. Speaker, on my side of the aisle.
I think that, to some degree, though, is what is going on today.
Sooner or later--and we are going to live with a Republican Senate for
the next 2 years and a Republican President for the next 2 years--my
friends in the majority will have to decide whether they want to govern
or debate, because that is all we are doing now.
Mr. Speaker, you are not the opposition party anymore. You are the
majority party, and you have every right to pursue your agenda. But if
you really want to govern, if you really want to get something done, in
the end, you are going to have to work with the Republican Senate, and
you are going to have to work with the Republican President.
We learned that hard reality when we were in the majority but dealing
with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President in 2011 through
2014. I hope my friends learn the lesson more quickly and become wiser
than we were. I hope they benefit from our experience.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to this rule and the
underlying measure. The majority today is putting forward a closed rule
to bring up four appropriations bills, each of which the House has
already passed last week.
But, unfortunately, each of these bills is not a product of the House
of Representatives. These bills are Senate products that do not reflect
any House input. What is worse, they do not solve the fundamental
problem of border security, and they do not represent a serious effort
to reopen the government.
Since the Senate will not pass these bills and the President will not
sign them, all we are accomplishing here today is spinning our wheels.
The majority would be better served to undertake serious negotiations
with the President and the Senate over the need for border security and
to find a way out of the crisis of their own making rather than hoping
that something will be different this time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the
underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) that I
think he is one of the best Members of this Chamber. I admire him, and
I think that he is absolutely right when he says that the
Appropriations Committee did its work, and that goes for Republicans
and Democrats. People worked together, and they moved appropriations
bills forward. So I find no fault with and I have no blame for the
appropriators.
What I do blame is his leadership that, at the last minute, when the
President decided to have a temper tantrum and threatened to shut the
government down, the Republican leadership was complicit, basically,
and said: We will go along with this. And here we are.
By the way, I can't wait to get this over with so we can get on to
other business. By the way, we are going to bring up the disaster
appropriations bill next week. We have a notice out asking for
amendments. I think the deadline is on Friday at noon. I can't recall
the last time a disaster appropriations bill ever solicited amendments.
We are going to do that. But I appreciate his words.
Mr. Speaker, this is an emergency. We are now dealing with a major
crisis in this country, and it is not just Federal workers. USA Today
reported last week: ``Government shutdown 2019: Homebuyers with USDA
mortgages can't close on house sales.''
Mr. Speaker, I include this article in the Record.

Government Shutdown 2019: Homebuyers With USDA Mortgages Can't Close on
House Sales

[From USA Today, Jan. 3, 2019]

(By Janna Herron)

Jordan and Tracey Smith of Madison, Maine, were scheduled
to close on their first home on Friday. But the government
shutdown has gotten in the way.
The couple needs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help
finalize their mortgage that is guaranteed by the agency. But
the USDA's operations have been closed for 13 days, so the
couple and their five children remain in limbo.
``We're living out of boxes. We're paying our landlord on a
week-to-week basis, but he has people waiting to move in,''
says Jordan Smith, 32. ``We just want to move and get this
process over with.''
It's the same for other borrowers who depend on the USDA.
The department provides--through private lenders--mortgages
with no down payment requirements and low interest rates and
fees to rural and suburban homebuyers. It's a small program,
helping just over 140,000 people to buy a home in 2017, but
is considered one of the best options around if you're
eligible.
``We just can't close a USDA loan without a commitment
letter from them. ``Your loan

[[Page H309]]

is at a standstill,'' says Pava Leyrer, the chief operating
office of Northern Mortgage Services in Grandville, Michigan.
Leyrer's company is an approved USDA lender.
Leyrer is telling her affected clients to call their
representatives. Otherwise, they may ultimately need to
switch into a different loan. ``How long will the seller
wait, especially if the sales contract expires?'' she says.

Waiting for repair money

In other cases, those who already have a USDA mortgage are
running into trouble. Jenneffer Azcuy, a homeowner in Lynn
Haven, Florida, with a USDA mortgage, is waiting to get the
insurance money she needs to repair her house after it was
damaged by Hurricane Michael in October.
``Since my insurance repair check is over $7,500, the USDA
controls the disbursement of funds,'' Azcuy says ``But the
money is tied up.''
On mortgages it guarantees, the USDA requires that it
oversees how insurance claims funds are used to make sure
they are spent properly. When insured losses exceed $7,500,
the agency requires the funds to be deposited into an escrow
account it controls.
Azcuy has a contractor lined up to repair her leaky roof,
replace a fence, and fix the gutters and outside doors. She
has called the USDA for help but can't leave messages because
the voicemail is full.
``It's ridiculous. This town is devastated as it is from
the hurricane,'' she says.

What about other mortgages?

The other mortgages backed by the government are unaffected
so far by the shutdown. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the
Veterans Administration--which all back home loans--are
running as normal.
The Federal Housing Administration, which guarantees
mortgages popular among first-time homebuyers, is operating
with a smaller staff because of the shutdown but is still
approving loans.
``You can get some answers,'' Leyrer says, but adds: ``They
are slower to respond, and it takes longer to get through on
the phone because of limited staff.''
Lenders are also working around other shutdown-induced
hiccups.
For instance, they can't verify a person's tax information
with the Internal Revenue Service, which has limited
services. As a result, many lenders are still approving those
loans conditionally and will confirm the information later
when the IRS reopens, says John Stearns, a loan originator
with American Fidelity Mortgage Services in Mequon,
Wisconsin.
``If there is a problem, then I have to figure it out
then,'' Stearns says.

On Capitol Hill

Azcuy and the Smiths hope the new House of Representatives
convening on Thursday can end the shutdown. Democratic House
leaders have scheduled votes on a package of bills to reopen
the federal government and provide more time for Congress to
negotiate a border funding deal with the White House.
Until then, they wait.
``My wife and I support Donald Trump. We agree with border
security,'' Jordan Smith says. ``But he has to look and see
that this is affecting other people's lives.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the article reports on the situation of
Jordan and Tracey Smith of Madison, Maine, and their five children.
They were scheduled to close on their very first home last Friday, but
this ridiculous Trump shutdown ruined that. They need the Department of
Agriculture to finalize their mortgage, but USDA has been closed for
weeks.
Here is what Mr. Smith said: ``We're living out of boxes. ``We're
paying our landlord on a week-to-week basis, but he has people waiting
to move in.''
So lives are being thrown into turmoil, and we don't have a lot of
time to just carry on these conversations and endless debates. This is
a time for action.
This is the first time a prior Congress ended in a government
shutdown. It is fitting. It is almost like an exclamation point to the
President's first 2 years in office.
But it is a new Congress, and we are ready to responsibly clean up
this mess and do what the last Congress could not do. We are offering
an extremely reasonable solution to this unnecessary government
shutdown. The underlying legislation is virtually identical to the four
appropriations bills that already passed the Senate, 92-6.
Compare that to what the prior Republican majority put forward in the
waning days of last Congress. They passed a partisan funding bill with
billions of dollars for the President's wall, legislation they knew
Democrats would never support and that the Senate would never pass.
Then they left town. They refused to even recognize me when I tried
again and again to bring up a bipartisan bill to end the shutdown.
800,000 workers stopped receiving paychecks. That includes, by the
way, thousands of border and law enforcement officers, more than 41,000
Federal law enforcement officers, people like FBI agents and DEA
agents, nearly 54,000 Customs and Border Patrol agents and Customs
officers, and almost 90 percent of the Department of Homeland Security
employees.
This Trump shutdown is an embarrassment. We owe our Federal employees
and all Americans better than this. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my
colleagues to vote for this rule and the previous question and join
with us in supporting these underlying bipartisan funding bills. This
is another chance for us to do the right thing. Let's take it and bring
an end to this unnecessary and painful Trump shutdown.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

Strike sections 1 and 2 and insert the following (and
redesignate the subsequent section accordingly):
That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
264) making appropriations for financial services and general
government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate on the bill shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective
designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order
against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with
clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the
bill for amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole
may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether
the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for
that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 2. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 264, the House
shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 265)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate on the bill shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 265, the House
shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 266)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior,
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2019, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
on the bill shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived. During consideration of

[[Page H310]]

the bill for amendment, the chair of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises
and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation
that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 266, the House
shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 267)
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation,
and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate on the bill shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of any bill referred to in sections 1 through 4
of this resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
The motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 226, by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 195, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 16]

YEAS--231

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan

=========================== NOTE ===========================

January 9, 2019, in the Roll Call Vote on page H310, the surname
of Mr. Luján was typeset incorrectly as Luján, Ben
Ray.

The online version has been corrected to show the surname
typeset correctly.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--195

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--7

Buck
DeFazio
Frankel
Hastings
Jones
Kelly (PA)
Mast

{time} 1352

Mrs. HARTZLER and Mr. FORTENBERRY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mses. SANCHEZ, JACKSON LEE, WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, and Mr. BEYER changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Welch). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 195, not voting 7, as follows:

[[Page H311]]

[Roll No. 17]

YEAS--231

=========================== NOTE ===========================

January 9, 2019, in the Roll Call Votes on page H311, the
surname of Mr. Luján was typeset incorrectly as
Luján, Ben Ray.

The online version has been corrected to show the surname
typeset correctly.

========================= END NOTE =========================

NAYS--195

NOT VOTING--7

Buck
DeFazio
Frankel
Hastings
Jones
Kelly (PA)
Mast

{time} 1403

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________