[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 10 (Thursday, January 17, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H683-H687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 28, FURTHER ADDITIONAL 
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
                      MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 52 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 52

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 28) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2019, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution 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.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of January 25, 2019, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), 
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

  Ms. SCANLON. Madam 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 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 52, providing for consideration of 
H.J. Res. 28, the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act of 
2019 to fund the government until February 28.
  The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a closed 
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
Additionally, the rule provides suspension authority through the 
legislative day of January 25, 2019.
  Madam Speaker, we are in day 27 of this government shutdown, the 
longest government shutdown in our Nation's history.
  Nearly 800,000 Federal employees have now missed a paycheck since the 
shutdown began. Some estimates say those employees have lost an average 
of $5,000 each so far.
  These hardworking Americans are law enforcement officers and National 
Park Service, EPA, FDA, and IRS employees, and so many others in 
dedicated Federal service whose families are needlessly suffering. 
These employees are either furloughed or being forced to work without 
pay. This is not an acceptable way to govern.
  I may not have been a Member of this body as long as some people 
here, but I don't think there is a single Member, Democrat or 
Republican, who doesn't care about securing our border, but it is 
foolish to think that keeping our government shut down will in any way 
help secure the border.
  You know what Border Patrol and Coast Guard members want more than a 
wall? They want their paychecks to come on time.
  Democrats have made it clear, we are more than willing to come to the 
table to talk about sensible border security, but the first step has to 
be to reopen the government and get our government back to functioning.
  This majority has already voted to open the government seven times, 
with support from across the aisle. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch 
McConnell has yet to act on any of these bipartisan pieces of 
legislation, the same legislation, I might add, that has already passed 
the Senate.
  There are more than 100 freshmen Members of this body, comprising 
over 20 percent of the House, who have never worked in a functioning 
Federal Government due to the Senate's inaction. All of our 
constituents, both Republican and Democrat, are suffering because of 
that failure to act.
  Let me share with you the traumatic impact of the shutdown on my 
constituents and Americans across the country.
  Jennifer, the wife of a Coast Guard gunner's mate, wrote to my office 
to detail the hardships her family is facing. Her husband has served in 
the Coast Guard for 19 years. They are used to stressful deployments, 
and her children are proud of their father's service. But now Jennifer 
has new hardships to face: how to feed her family on only her income, 
how she could make the holidays special while not knowing when her 
husband's next paycheck would come, and how to shield her kids from her 
constant worry over the absence of that income.
  This is an embarrassment. Too many Federal workers were already 
living paycheck to paycheck before those paychecks stopped. Having to 
put a mortgage payment on a credit card, deal with an eviction notice, 
or plead with a bank to delay a student loan payment should not be the 
reality forced upon hardworking Federal employees.
  The debts these workers incur during the shutdown will follow them 
long after the government is reopened. The hits to their savings 
accounts and marks on their credit scores will serve as painful 
reminders that they are represented by a government that will put them 
in harm's way over a policy dispute.
  Fran, a newlywed with a premature baby who spent more than 3 weeks in 
the NICU, has been without an income since her husband's paychecks 
stopped coming. Their child requires an expensive special formula due 
to his premature birth, and her husband is now being asked to work 
overtime without pay.
  The fear and anguish in these messages from our neighbors is 
palpable. It should resonate with every Member of this body. These 
stories should keep all of us up at night. If we didn't come to 
Washington to serve these dedicated and hardworking Americans, then 
just who are we here to serve?

[[Page H684]]

  When the government does eventually reopen, fortunately, many of 
these Federal employees will receive backpay, but the plight of Federal 
contractors is worse. The term ``Federal contractors'' can conjure up 
an image of highly paid executives or CEOs of private detention 
facilities, but they are not the real ones harmed by the shutdown.
  Federal contractors are generally small businesses, cleaners, 
builders, food service workers, and tech support workers. They are our 
neighbors who rely on these contracts to make their rent or pay their 
employees or contribute to our local economies.
  The callousness with which these Federal contractors are being 
treated is repulsive. They and their families deserve so much better. 
The American people deserve so much better.
  The longer the Senate Republicans keep our government shut down, the 
worse things will get.

  The Small Business Administration has already stopped approving loan 
assistance and guarantee applications from commercial banks and small 
businesses, programs that are critical to the health of local 
economies.
  Security lines at the airports are long, and they will get longer. 
TSA has already been forced to close security lanes at major airports 
across the country. This is not because the hardworking men and women 
of the TSA do not want to keep our skies and our passengers safe, but 
because they have been forced to take second jobs to pay the rent or 
look after their children at home because they cannot afford childcare. 
Without a paycheck, some cannot afford gas or carfare to get to work at 
all.
  Just a few days ago, I met with the air traffic controllers from my 
district. They shared that not only is the shutdown impacting their 
current workforce, but it is drastically impacting their recruiting 
efforts to hire and train new employees for this workforce. Can we 
blame people for being fearful of taking a job that hinges on the 
Federal Government's functionality, given what we have seen during this 
shutdown?
  A National Air Traffic Controllers Association official warned 
recently that if the shutdown continues to drag on, there may not be 
any air traffic controllers left working.
  Let me pause to make those statements abundantly clear. This shutdown 
is making us less safe. If it continues much longer, there will not be 
enough employees on duty to make sure passengers are safe to board a 
plane, not enough employees left to make sure planes are safe to land, 
and not enough employees to direct air traffic in our skies.
  If you think you are insulated from the effects of a government 
shutdown because you are not a Federal employee, you are wrong.
  What I fear this administration and Republican leadership in the 
Senate have forgotten is that this is the people's House. We have an 
obligation to work for them. Refusing to uphold that commitment, that 
promise, is a slap in the face to the American people.
  Before I conclude, let me share with you one final story of how the 
shutdown is harming American families.
  Jessica from my district is a mother of six with a special needs 
child. Her husband is Active Duty Coast Guard. She has been forced to 
tell her children they can't have seconds at dinner, because she 
doesn't know if she will have enough food to last the week. Her 
daughter has an ultrasound coming up, and she is unsure if she can 
afford the specialist copay.
  She writes that she and her husband supported President Trump, but 
that after this, she does not see ``how we could support someone so out 
of touch and willing to damage so many people in order to save his own 
face.''
  Jessica ended her message by saying that they are prepared to stand 
strong, but she is also prepared to stand at the corner of an 
intersection with a cardboard sign if that is what she has to do to 
feed her children.
  This is not the America I was raised in.
  Let's end the shutdown today and get our country back on track.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon from 
Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself as much time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I agree with Representative Scanlon. I want to open 
the government. Republicans want to open the government. Democrats want 
to open the government. So I respectfully ask House and Senate 
Democrats to stop holding our Federal workers hostage.
  You know, on December 20, I voted for and Republicans voted for in 
the House a bill right here, standing right here on December 20, that 
would have kept the government open, and then we would not have had any 
of these discussions or need for these bills, because the government 
would still be open. Unfortunately, not one Democrat Member of the 
House voted for it.
  I, too, have Federal workers in my district who are hurting, these 
great men and women who work hard each and every day of their life, 
single mothers who are waiting for their paycheck. So I call on my 
colleagues across the aisle to please come to the negotiating table.
  I believe the number one rule in Negotiations 101 is you have to show 
up. Repeatedly, we have seen the Republicans and the President request 
the Democrat leadership to come and negotiate, give a counteroffer. 
They refuse to show up.
  I say, if the House Republicans already passed a bill that would have 
kept the government open and now we are at this impasse, but the 
Democrat leadership refuses to come to even a negotiating table or a 
counteroffer, I just don't know what to say.
  Well, Madam Speaker, once again, we have returned to the House floor 
to consider yet another short-term spending bill that once again is 
most likely going nowhere. For what is now the fourth time in 3 weeks, 
we have returned to the House floor on a rule to consider an 
appropriations bill as part of the majority's efforts to fund the 
government without working with President Trump.
  Unfortunately, we think this effort is just as shortsighted as the 
previous bills over the last couple of weeks, and today's rule is again 
destined to ignore the fundamental realities at issue.
  But first, as I said before, let's take a quick look at how we got to 
this point.
  On December 20, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would 
have funded the government and prevented the shutdown. It included a 
continuing resolution through February 8. It included disaster relief 
and funding for border security that the Democrats say they want, but 
are not listening to our own law enforcement on the border on their 
recommendations. That was a bill the majority of the Senate supported 
and the President said he would sign.

                              {time}  0930

  Unfortunately, as we all know, the Senate refused to take up the 
House measure, mostly because of their 60-vote rule, where they need 
Democrats to get on board, and parts of the government shut down when 
appropriations lapsed. Again, not one single Democrat in the House 
voted for this bill, which would have avoided this whole, entire 
partial government shutdown.
  On January 3, when the new Congress was sworn in, the House took up a 
continuing resolution through February 8, only this time swept clean of 
essential disaster relief funding or funding for border security. To 
date, the Senate, as we know, has refused to take up this measure, and 
the President has said he would not sign it because it doesn't have 
additional money for border security.
  Last week, then again, the House took up four more spending bills, 
that covered four of the outstanding seven appropriations titles. 
Unfortunately, like the week prior, these bills also did not include 
funding for border security. Even more unfortunately, these bills were 
ones that were produced by the Senate alone during the last Congress, 
and that did not even reflect any work by, or input from, the House of 
Representatives. Just as publicly stated the Senate has not taken up 
any of these bills during this Congress and has no plans to take this 
one up either.
  On Tuesday, the majority put up yet another continuing resolution. 
This one a suspension bill, to fund the government through February 1, 
but, yet

[[Page H685]]

again, omitting any funding for border security, which is the key 
ingredient to get negotiations done. That bill failed to reach the two-
thirds threshold to pass under suspension of the rules.
  And then, yes, yesterday, the House took up a supplemental disaster 
appropriations bill that was intended only to provide just over $12 
billion in necessary disaster relief for affected communities. This was 
a bipartisan bill. We could have passed it out of here.
  But instead of bringing up this bipartisan disaster relief bill to 
the floor, the majority chose to play politics once again and decided 
at the last minute to attach yet another continuing resolution to this 
bill, again, without any border security funding, and, again, to fund 
the government through February 8. That bill passed the House 
yesterday, yet there is no sign that the Senate ever has any intention 
of taking that bill up. In any event, the President has made it clear, 
and I believe the American public has made it clear, that we want 
border security.
  And that brings us to today. I have to tell you, I am running out of 
ways to describe what the majority is doing, but I imagine the Speaker 
knows where I am going with this. Once again, the majority is bringing 
up yet another continuing resolution--this one goes to February 28--
and, again, with no funding for border security. And yet again, it is 
clear that if we pass this bill, the Senate will not consider it and 
the President will not sign it because it does not include funding for 
border security.
  We now see the common thread in all the majority is doing: bringing 
up bills again and again and again, to fund the government, without 
dealing with the fundamental problem. All of these repeated continuing 
resolutions are the same. Only the date has changed. All of them fail 
to fund border security, which Americans have told us again and again 
they want and need. And all of them are continued avoidance of what 
needs to happen in order to end this shutdown: real, sincere 
negotiations with the Senate and the President over border security.
  I feel that this is an exercise in futility. The majority is failing 
to acknowledge the crisis happening at our southern border. As you 
know, I am a Member from Arizona, a border State. When will the 
Democrats get serious about ending this government shutdown and come to 
the negotiating table to work out a deal that has a real chance of 
being signed into law?
  Listen, I know that border security is a crisis. The other night on 
TV, when Speaker Pelosi and Chuck Schumer said it is a manufactured 
crisis, I can tell you firsthand, that is not accurate. We do have a 
crisis on the border, and we need to fix it. I have been to the border. 
I have been to the border several times. I recently visited the United 
States-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona, where I met with Customs and 
Border Protection agents. The crisis we are dealing with at the border 
is not just illegal immigration, they said. There is illicit drugs 
flowing through our borders, which are killing our children and adults, 
human trafficking, and they told us that dangerous cartels are using 
our loose immigration laws to exploit the women and children, having 
them travel thousands of miles.
  Do you know that Doctors Without Borders say that, I believe one in 
three of these women have been sexually abused? This is unconscionable. 
We need border security. And it is the law enforcement, the Customs and 
Border Protection, that have said repeatedly, have told me personally, 
yes; part of the solution is a border fence.
  In 2006, Democrats supported a border fence. Chuck Schumer and then-
Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton funded $52 billion for 700 
miles of fencing. Now the President is asking for $5.7 billion. That is 
only 1/10th of 1 percent of the Federal budget. And, unfortunately, 
because of their refusal to add this to any bills, it has shut down the 
government.
  This rule before us today is just another ploy. Democrats are 
refusing to negotiate and refusing to deal with this national security 
issue. Please, let's stop these games and pass a real bill that funds 
border security, that opens the government, that funds disaster relief, 
send it to the Senate, and have it signed into law.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I understand the frustration of the gentlewoman from 
Arizona with the lack of progress in ending this shutdown, but I would 
suggest that her frustration is misdirected.

  The House has sent seven bills to end the shutdown to the Senate, and 
the Senate leadership has refused to entertain any of them or bring 
them to a vote: #whereismitch.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Golden).
  Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Madam Speaker, this shutdown has been brutal on working people across 
the country. Many of them are my constituents, and I came down here to 
let their voices be heard.
  Back home, a Border Patrol agent from my district said about all of 
us here in the House, in the White House, in the Senate: ``I blame all 
of you for the financial and emotional damage you are causing to the 
very people tasked with protecting your Nation and your homeland, but 
ultimately, this falls on the White House.''
  Suzette from my district, her husband is an essential Federal 
employee working without pay. She asked me, ``to bring sensibility to 
this senseless power struggle that is currently going on. The 
Democrats,'' she says--and she is a Democrat, by the way--``need to 
back down from their `must punish Trump and deny him everything' stance 
and the Republicans need to get some control over the ill-equipped man 
who is running our country.''
  Another Federal employee from Milford, Maine, tells me: ``I am very 
concerned with the furlough, lack of negotiations, and lack of pay. I 
do not know who is right or wrong. I just want to get back to work, 
complete my job, and receive my pay.''
  We owe these people a solution that gets them back to work and gets 
them paid. I can only imagine that, back home, people are amazed to 
hear the ways in which both sides are right now talking past each 
other. I think it is wonderful that we expressed, on both sides of the 
aisle this morning, a desire to reopen the government and to secure our 
borders.
  I would like to point out that the CR that will be voted on today 
does have border security funding: over $1 billion in new funding for 
new border security. I know that the Republicans say that they want to 
reopen government and secure our borders, I also know that my party has 
said the same, so let's do it.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, support the 
CR today, let's reopen government, let's put people back to work, let 
them work. They are public servants. They want to serve the people. 
Let's start securing our border. And with those extra billion dollars 
we can also move on to a more robust debate about border security that 
I look forward to.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time to speak on this important issue.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule. I think we are talking past each 
other, as the previous gentleman from Maine just indicated. We want the 
government to reopen, but we want something called border security. I 
am told that this bill has $1 billion in it for border security, but we 
are not going to build a wall.
  Now, here is the thing that happens. Down in Arizona, where we live--
we don't live 2,000 miles away from that southern border where the 
immigration problem is that the illegal border crossings are 
monumental--we actually see the humanitarian crisis. That crisis exists 
when people, who are coming to America, they don't go through the ports 
of entry, they are going between the ports of entry, in some of the 
most rugged land and terrain in the world, coming down from the Sierra 
Madres in northern Mexico in the summertime, blazing heat of 120 
degrees or more; in the winter time, the evenings cool down to the 20s.

[[Page H686]]

  I saw people, just yesterday, being shown on the news, who are 
getting ready to try to make this trek. They are carrying plastic 
grocery bags with their supplies. They are dressed casually. They have 
no comprehension of the danger that they are bringing to themselves 
when they are coming across. It is a humanitarian crisis. Do you know 
what a border wall would do? It would provide a deterrent.
  In the San Diego-San Ysidro port of entry, when that border wall was 
created, crossings declined almost 90 percent. It forced people to a 
different place. They began crossing away from the ports of entry at 
San Diego over to Arizona and Texas. So we built a wall around the Yuma 
port of entry. Do you know what happened? Those crossings decreased 75 
to 80 percent. They moved on to more dangerous places in the desert, 
down towards Nogales, between Nogales and South Bisbee, between Naco 
and the Douglas port of entry. More than 100 individual's bodies were 
found last year trying to enter. It is a humanitarian crisis.
  The opioids that come across the southern border: 141 tons of heroin 
seized coming across the southern border last year; 140 tons of cocaine 
seized coming across the southern border.
  When I hear people say border security, they start talking about 
drones and unmanned aerial vehicles and sensors and cameras. Guess 
what? That does not deter anyone. We get to watch the videos of people 
coming across. But do you know what a wall does? It channelizes people. 
It forces them to go to places where we can interdict them. We provide 
hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian aid to people who are 
risking their lives trying to enter this country.
  If it wasn't so serious, I would find it laughable to hear folks say, 
``We are putting $1 billion into this as border security,'' because 
they don't want a political victory for President Trump. It is not 
about political victories. It is about national security, it is about 
humanitarian concern, and you are not going to get a better bang for 
your buck than to build a border wall.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0945

  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my good friend.
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, folks in the audience, and folks that are 
watching this on TV, this is all theater. This is all just political 
theater.
  Everybody knows. I know. My good friends on the other side of the 
aisle know that this isn't going to solve anything. This is not a 
solution.
  If we were serious about solving this, we wouldn't be voting on 
another bill here that doesn't fix anything, that is never going to be 
moved through the Senate, that is never going to be signed by the 
President.
  If we were interested in opening the Federal Government, we would be 
negotiating. We would be talking about what our differences are about 
border security.
  Remember, this is a bill that includes the funding for border 
security. That is why we have this partial shutdown, because we have a 
disagreement about border security. And we are trying to work it out, 
but we can't work it out just by running the same bills that don't do 
anything and that are never going to move through the Senate and aren't 
going to be signed by the President.
  It is time to get serious.
  Last year, this government was shut down for a few days over amnesty. 
Now it is shut down because the other side doesn't want to talk about 
border security. You put amnesty and the lack of border security 
together, and that is open borders. That is completely open borders.
  Just on the news, if you were watching the last couple days, more 
caravans heading north out of Central America through Mexico to the 
United States border. That is what is happening right now while our 
Border Patrol agents are out there working but not being paid.
  Here come these folks. We don't know what their circumstances are. I 
am sure there are a lot of fine people in there. I am sure there are 
children in there, and the horrors that they are going to suffer on 
this trek north up through the desert in these points between the 
points of entry.
  Madam Speaker, the most recent numbers out of Homeland Security in 
November, 51,000 people--that is the ones we caught--51,000 people came 
across the border between the ports of entry.
  If they were coming to the ports of entry, this wouldn't be half of a 
problem, but the problem is they are coming between the ports of entry. 
That is one month, 51,000. And those are the ones we caught. We don't 
have any idea how many other ones made it through.
  And yet some folks are saying: Well, we are going to give you an 
extra billion dollars to fix this problem.
  It is not an extra billion. It is the same billion, and it is to fix 
problems at the ports of entry.
  Madam Speaker, the problem is between the ports of entry and the 
ports of entry. But we are not going to do anything about the ports of 
entry. The billion dollars we are talking about is to muddle around and 
maintain things at the ports of entry but do nothing between the ports 
of entry, nothing at all. That is the status quo.
  That is why we are in this argument, because we are saying we cannot 
withstand, we cannot maintain the status quo of 51,000 people a month 
coming illegally across our border and do nothing.
  We are pleading with the other side: Please, let's do something. 
Let's do something different than the status quo, because the status 
quo gives us 51,000 people coming illegally across the border.
  And they are saying: Well, we are just going to run the same bill to 
open the government and do nothing.
  We cannot abide that. The American people cannot abide that.
  People are working, Madam Speaker, without being paid while people 
pour across our border, and we are expecting them to stop them. They 
don't have the resources because we are not providing them.
  It is time to end this needless show of work. We are here working, 
right? We are all here working. We are not doing anything to solve the 
problem.
  What it is going to take is somebody to sit down at the table and 
say, ``Look. See here. This is what I think the issue is,'' and find 
some solution somewhere in the middle. But you can't do that if you are 
not willing to have a discussion.
  We are asking to have a discussion so we can get past this, so people 
can get paid and the American people can be assured that their 
government is securing their border, their property, their country, and 
stopping all these illegal immigrants from coming in; and making sure 
that, if they are going to come in--and we are a country of immigrants.
  My grandmother, my great-grandmother came here from Colombia, South 
America, with the shirts on their backs. They came through Ellis Island 
because we had a process. We are all immigrants, and we welcome 
immigrants more than any other country on the planet, but we want you 
to come legally.
  We have a process. We don't want you to just pour across the border 
into our country with gang-related violence, with fentanyl, with 
opioids that are killing people in our own communities, all these drugs 
and crimes and violence. We are asking you to come to the ports of 
entry and quit pouring in between the ports of entry. But our laws now 
invite them to do that, which is why they are coming.
  So I just beseech you, Madam Speaker--and I thank you for your 
indulgence and for your time--let's quit this show. Let's quit this 
charade. Let's quit this theater. Let's get serious for the people who 
are working, for the American people who expect more, and get down to 
negotiation, come to a solution, and move on with things, the important 
things that plague our Nation.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague talk 
about political theater. We have a reality-show President in the White 
House who is ignoring the real lives impacted by the shutdown, all to 
try to make another made-for-TV moment to please his rightwing base and 
radio pundits. Government isn't a game. Real lives are at stake, and we 
need to reopen the government.
  Madam Speaker, may I inquire if the gentlewoman has any remaining 
speakers. If not, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.

[[Page H687]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close as well, and I 
yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, this is the fourth time we have 
deliberated on this floor, in the last 3 weeks, on the exact same type 
of package.
  The date keeps changing--sometimes it is February 1; sometimes it is 
February 8; sometimes it is February 28--but it is all the same. None 
of them include funding for border security. It is the fourth time that 
the same result will ensue. The House of Representatives is in a 
perpetual cycle of Groundhog Day that we cannot seem to escape.
  Representative Scanlon and I serve, of course, on the Rules Committee 
together, and it is Groundhog Day. We just say the same things each and 
every day. Really, let's get to the negotiating table, and, really, 
let's get something done.
  The majority seems to be insistent on reviewing these same 
appropriations packages again and again, fully knowing that the Senate 
has made clear they will not take up these bills because there is no 
border security in them.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention that 
this bill is again coming to the floor under a closed rule. Of the 
eight bills the House has considered under a rule this Congress, seven 
have been closed, with no opportunity for Members to present new ideas 
and new amendments.
  Now, I know that Chairman McGovern has assured us he wants a more 
open process, and I believe he is sincere in his assurance. We saw a 
more open process on the disaster supplemental bill we considered 
earlier this week, which has so far been the outlier of this Congress, 
with 15 amendments made in order on a structured rule. I look forward 
to considering more rules that have a more open process than the one we 
are considering today.
  Madam Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the 
underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I don't know when this shutdown will end, but I know 
that Democrats and all the Republicans who are serious about getting 
Federal employees back to work will vote in favor of this rule and the 
underlying resolution.
  I am heartened by my colleagues from across the aisle who have 
already voted to reopen the government, and I am hopeful that even more 
will join us this time around.
  No serious person can claim that any Member of this House is against 
border security. Not only have we sworn an oath to protect and defend 
this country, but we have voted repeatedly to fund billions of dollars 
in border security appropriations.
  The discussion about the best methods for protecting our border is a 
valid policy question that should be debated thoughtfully and 
deliberately by both sides of the aisle, not used as a vehicle for the 
President to fulfill a campaign promise at the expense of American 
families.
  It cannot be overstated: this is the longest government shutdown in 
history. The House has done its job. We have passed bills to reopen the 
government on bipartisan votes and will continue to do so for as long 
as it takes.
  We have committed to working on solutions to border security once the 
government is opened back up. The votes are there in the Senate. They 
have already shown that. And given the chance, I am sure they would 
show it again.
  Why won't Senator McConnell bring to the floor any one of the House-
passed bills to open the government?
  I will end by saying this: Senator McConnell, do the right thing for 
working families in your State, in my State, and across the country. 
Hold a vote to open the government.
  Let's end the pain American families and businesses are feeling from 
the shutdown and get to work on making this country a better place for 
all.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________