[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 23, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H1012-H1022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 648, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 31, FURTHER
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 2019;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES; 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 61 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 61
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 648) making
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019,
and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply
during consideration of the bill. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the 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. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 31) making further continuing appropriations for the
Department of Homeland Security 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. 3. It shall be in order at any time through the
legislative day of February 1, 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
[[Page H1013]]
any matter for consideration pursuant to this section.
Sec. 4. 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 30, 2019, relating to a measure
making or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2019.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Huffman). The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall),
pending which time 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
have 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 61, providing for consideration of
H.R. 648, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, 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. It
also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 31, which makes further
continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for
fiscal year 2019 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member
of the Appropriations Committee.
Additionally, it extends same-day authority for appropriations
measures through January 30 and suspension authority through February
1.
Mr. Speaker, we are on day 33 of the Trump shutdown, the longest
government shutdown in American history. Hundreds of thousands of
Federal workers will miss a paycheck for the second time since the
President plunged us into this mess.
The very people who keep our Nation safe are struggling to put food
on the table, people like men and women in the Coast Guard, FBI agents,
Border Patrol officers, and TSA agents.
Makeshift food banks are being opened across the country to help
these workers and their families get by. Right outside our Nation's
Capital, in Northern Virginia, some Federal workers waited more than an
hour recently at a local food bank. Demand was so high that a tenth of
the food was gone in the first 5 minutes.
Because of the President's shutdown, 15 million households could see
a gap in their monthly SNAP benefits that lasts more than 40 days. Four
million low-income households could see a gap that lasts more than 50
days.
This program is their lifeline, Mr. Speaker. These families don't
have a plan B.
I have given weekly end-hunger-now speeches on this floor since
February of 2013, and I have made it clear time and time again that
hunger is not only unacceptable in this country, the richest country in
the history of the world, but it is a political condition.
We have the resources. We have what it takes. What we need to muster
is the political will to do something about it. But here we are, and as
I said, it is embarrassing enough that the wealthiest nation on the
planet has an ongoing hunger crisis, but I never, ever imagined that a
President of the United States would exacerbate it like this.
This is disgusting. This is unacceptable. This is unconscionable.
Let us be clear: It is the President's bruised ego that keeps a
quarter of our government closed today.
Now, his latest so-called compromise proposal isn't really a
compromise at all. In fact, it brings new meaning to the word
``cruel.''
{time} 1230
Not only does it fail to provide a permanent solution for the
Dreamers or TPS recipients, it only covers a fraction of eligible
Dreamers, it excludes TPS holders from Asia and Africa, and it rewrites
the law for future DACA recipients, TPS holders, and asylum seekers
that will make it all but impossible for anyone to qualify.
These are the same old, tired, and extremist ideas the President and
his advisers floated last year. They were rejected by both the
Republican-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate. This
is not a compromise. This is called backwards.
Now, if this administration wants to target refugees, people fleeing
persecution, people fleeing for their life, if that is what he wants to
do, then at least he should have the guts to do it in an open hearing
for the world to see.
Now, President Trump is treating this like some reality show. He
doesn't want to look bad in the right-wing press despite the fact that
Members of both parties are refusing to fund his ineffective wall. If
the President really wants to reach a real compromise, then he should
log off Twitter and actually sit down with us and be willing to
actually negotiate; no more storming out of the Situation Room and no
more of his my-way-or-the-highway approach. Work with us for a change.
For whatever reason, Mr. Speaker, he has been unwilling to do that.
President Trump may not have the fortitude to get us out of this mess
that he created, but this majority does. So instead of following the
President who got us into this mess, we have an opportunity to lead.
Passing these bipartisan, bicameral bills is what leadership looks
like.
Now, many of my Republican friends have asked to consider a plan that
doesn't cede the House's will by considering a Senate bill. Well, today
is their day because we are considering a bipartisan, bicameral
compromise. This six-bill package is the result of real negotiations
between the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate. It is a
true compromise that would reopen the entire government apart from the
Department of Homeland Security. In fact, these negotiated bills are
exactly what my good friends on the other side of the aisle have been
asking us over the past week to take up. Again, this is all last year's
work in the last session.
I recognize that we don't have a similar agreement on the Homeland
Security measure included here, but this short-term CR will get our TSA
agents paid while all other parties get back to the negotiating table.
The minibus includes $328 million in new dollars for border security
that we know will actually work. The funding will increase
infrastructure investments at our ports of entry; install new
technology that will scan for drugs, weapons, and contraband; put in
place technology to detect unauthorized crossings; and fund more
immigration judges. This is what smart security looks like in the 21st
century, Mr. Speaker, not some medieval wall.
Now, these details have already been agreed to by Democrats and
Republicans on both sides of the Capitol. The majority is standing by
our word. I urge my Republican friends: Take yes for an answer.
The President may be proud to have shut down this government, but
this is nothing to be proud of.
How can anybody be proud that 800,000 Federal workers are about to
miss a second paycheck, that our TSA workers are calling in sick so
they can work another job that actually helps them pay the bills, or
the economy is losing growth at twice the speed originally estimated?
I could go on and on and on and on, Mr. Speaker, but I know each of
us has heard from people in our districts. Our offices are getting
these calls every day, in fact, every hour and every minute now. We are
all hearing from struggling constituents. Their message is the same:
End this shutdown. End this shutdown.
This doesn't seem, unfortunately, to be a priority for President
Trump. He is out there tweeting about which player should be in the
Baseball Hall of Fame. Give me a break. Maybe he doesn't know what it
is like in the real world. After all, the President got his start
through what he has called a small loan from his dad that reports now
estimate could have totaled more than $60 million. That is the world he
lives in.
But families are struggling and left to wonder how they are going to
afford to put food on the table or how they are going to pay for
medicine without a paycheck.
Enough of the games. Congress has the power to end this shutdown.
[[Page H1014]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule
and give the underlying legislation the strong veto-proof vote it
deserves. Let's finally turn the lights back on. Listen to your
constituents, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle.
Listen to what they are saying. Turn the lights back on.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I appreciated the first 60
seconds of his comments where he went through that kind of policy work
and that kind of procedural work, the work that we do.
We are on opposite sides of this issue. The Rules Committee is the
single most partisan committee on Capitol Hill, and, yet, we always
find a way to come together and share the debate to move forward. But
after that first 60 seconds of process, we went into 4 minutes of the
President and accusations, one after another after another.
Now, I have only been in this institution for five terms, Mr.
Speaker, but that is long enough to understand that there is only one
way to turn a bill into a law, and that is if Congress proposes it,
Congress passes it, and the President signs it. Now, my good friend
from Massachusetts knows as well as I do the President has not vetoed
one single spending bill that the Congress has sent to him. The
government is not shut down because the President is rejecting bills
that Congress has passed. The government is shut down because Congress
hasn't passed a bill.
Mr. Speaker, if you would just listen to that opening statement, your
blood pressure probably gets as high as mine does: failure after
failure after failure, disappointment after disappointment after
disappointment, embarrassing event after embarrassing event. I will
remind my colleagues that we are where we are because we came together
and passed more spending bills on time before the end of the fiscal
year than any other Congress in 22 years.
Now, we could have gotten them all done. My Democratic friends in the
Senate didn't want to move those along. They had perfectly legitimate
policy reasons for doing that. I am not going to question their
motives; I will question their wisdom.
We have got more done together than we ever have before, and we could
build on that, I tell my friend. We could build on that or we could go
into our corners, we could put on our jerseys, and we can throw
accusations out as fast as we can invent them in our head. That is
where we are.
It is the month of January, Mr. Speaker, the very first month of this
new Congress. We have new leadership. It has been more than a decade
since I have seen a face like yours in the Speaker's chair. We have
spent 338 hours in this Chamber--338 hours in this Chamber--this month
working on appropriations bills. Not one has gone to the President's
desk for his consideration.
My friend from Massachusetts is right when he talks about pain in
American families. My friend from Massachusetts is right when he talks
about the expectations folks have of Congress and how we should do
better. My friend from Massachusetts is right when he says that this is
not what any one of us was sent here to do. We were sent here to solve
problems.
I promise you, unless your family is different from mine, Mr.
Speaker, unless your relationships are different from mine, I have
never solved a problem in my family by telling my loved ones how much
it is their fault, how much they need to change, how much they are on
the wrong side of an issue and we are not going to do anything until
they come around to my way of thinking. It hasn't been a particularly
successful method for me.
Now, I look back over these last 33 days. The President sent the Vice
President to Capitol Hill. He came with the OMB director, Mick
Mulvaney.
He said: I told you what I needed to pass the bill. I told you what I
needed and what I thought was important for America and for national
security. But I will tell you what; I don't have to have exactly that.
I can come off that. I can negotiate down from that. I can move away
from that. Let's talk about what the other options may be.
No response.
The President this past weekend: I want to break this impasse; I want
to find a way we can move forward; it is not about who wins. We all
need to win as Americans. We all want to do better as Americans. I am
going to offer to do something that no President has been able to do. I
am going to offer to put into statute protection for the young men and
women in the DACA program. I am going to offer to put into statute
protections for those men and women in temporary protected status that
has since expired. I am going to put that into statute for the first
time.
As the press release is dated, Mr. Speaker, Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi rejected that offer 7 minutes before it was made.
I am not saying that that is the right answer. I am not saying that
that is the best we can do. I am not saying that is where the
conversation ends. I am asking my friends: When does the conversation
begin?
More than 300 hours we have spent talking amongst ourselves and
produced nothing to go to the President's desk. Sadly, I know that this
issue has elevated beyond where my friend from Massachusetts, even as
chairman of the powerful Rules Committee--and it is the powerful Rules
Committee, it can move absolutely any measure through this House, and
the Rules Committee has been incredibly successful. The House is moving
appropriations bills like nobody's business, Mr. Speaker, because when
you are in the majority you can do that. You can do my way or the
highway.
That is the way my friend described President Trump's attitude. I
will just remind my friend that is actually what we have today in this
bill. My ranking member asked if we could consider some amendments to
this bill, and he was told no. My friend didn't say: Let's just come
down here and have amendments willy-nilly. We will have a preprinting
requirement, we will do what we call a modified open rule, just so some
of our new Members can have their voices heard, their constituents'
voices heard in some way.
The answer was no; straight party-line vote. All the Democrats said:
no, we are not going to allow any other voices to be heard; and all the
Republicans said: yes.
I don't fault my friend for that. That is not a personal slight of
any kind, Mr. Speaker. The Rules Committee is the Speaker's committee.
It does the work of the Speaker. As powerful and talented as my friend
from Massachusetts is, it is his job to implement the Speaker's will.
Now, to his credit, he has been very bold in terms of trying to open
that committee up. He has been very bold in trying to make sure more
voices have been heard. But we find ourselves trapped in this
appropriations cycle. We haven't actually gotten to where my friend is
going to be able to do his very best work. We are still trapped in
trying to do the business of last year.
But my friend's pointing out that the President's my way or the
highway--which is inaccurate--is not helpful. My pointing out that this
bill is Speaker Pelosi's way or the highway may be accurate, but it
still isn't helpful. We have got to have a conversation with one
another. I can go down the list of the ways that the President has said
he is willing to come to the table, but he is sitting at the table
alone.
I am a vote counter, Mr. Speaker. I know how to count votes in this
Chamber. I have no doubt that the rule that my friend from
Massachusetts is proposing is going to pass this floor today. I have no
doubt that the underlying appropriations bill is going to pass this
floor. This rule includes something called martial law, Mr. Speaker,
which means they can bring up anything they want to any time they want
to, no preprinting, and no opportunity to review it, none of those
activities that we would say bring out the very best in transparency
here. If any of those bills come up, they are going to pass.
There is no confusion in this Chamber about who has the votes to win.
The confusion in this Chamber is how it is we get from where we are to
where our constituents want us to be and doing the same thing over and
over and over again isn't going to get it done.
It is my first time carrying a rule in the minority, Mr. Speaker. I
knew when I walked down here this morning my job was to lose. I don't
mind losing.
[[Page H1015]]
But I do mind when the American people lose, and the American people
are losing right now. There are no winners right now.
I know the men and women of this Chamber. There are some talented
orators here. We can absolutely trade insults and accusations until the
sun goes down. But there are some talented policymakers here, too.
There are some talented negotiators here, too. As long as the President
is sitting at that negotiating table alone, we are not going to get to
a solution. But he doesn't have to be there alone. I appreciate his
making the invitation, and I hope, as my friend from Massachusetts
said, we will learn to take yes for an answer.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just remind my colleague that the bills that we are taking up
here today were the result of a robust amendment process and robust
debate in the last Congress. This is all last year's work.
I also remind the gentleman he is right about one thing, that we
haven't sent the President a bill from both Chambers, but we almost
did. If he remembers correctly, in December, when the Republicans
controlled the House and the Republicans controlled the Senate and
they, obviously, controlled the White House, we actually came together
and the Senate passed a bill that would keep the government running and
open, unanimously.
I even supported the gentleman's martial law rule to be able to bring
up that legislation expeditiously so we could do our work and so that
nobody would have to be anxious over the holidays as to whether or not
they were going to get paid.
We were about to vote on it, and it was agreed on by Democrats and
Republicans. There was no controversy. And then the President turned on
rightwing TV or was listening to rightwing radio, and Ann Coulter and
some of these other rightwing extremists said: No, you can't do that.
And he changed his mind, and everything came to a standstill. So all
this bipartisan work was for naught.
What we are bringing up here today is all the bipartisan work that
many of my Republican colleagues on the Appropriations Committee,
Democrats and Republicans, worked hard on to come up with a compromise
that is good. It is good. Yet my friends say: Well, no. Let's start all
over again.
The bottom line is the other side left us with a mess. When they
controlled everything, they weren't able to get the job done.
Let me just say, here are some facts:
This is the longest shutdown in history, but it is historic for
another reason. This is the first time in history that a Congress has
ended in a government shutdown. Never before has a Congress left it to
the next Congress to reopen the government. With all due respect to my
friends, that is what my friends left us with.
On top of that, Republicans had control of the White House, the
Senate, and the House last year, and they couldn't keep the lights on.
Then Republicans went home for Christmas and New Year's and every day
in between. I know because I was on the floor multiple times begging to
be recognized to offer solutions, and I was denied even the ability to
offer a solution.
Since we took charge, we have nonstop offered options. Now some
Members want to complain about how we are cleaning up the mess that was
left to us.
Imagine this. Imagine if someone dumped a bunch of garbage on your
lawn and then started complaining about how you weren't cleaning it up.
That is what is happening here.
I would suggest that my friends kind of save their criticisms for a
time when we aren't cleaning up after all of them.
I just want to make one other point. The gentleman said that we have
martial law, same-day authority in this rule to bring up anything we
want. No, that is not the case.
When my friends were in charge, they did. They had martial law to
bring up anything they wanted to, and they were trying to bring up a
cheese bill, if I remember correctly, instead of a bill to keep the
government open in the last days of December.
No. We limit it to appropriations matters, and we want to be able to,
if we can come to a deal, if we come to some sort of solution, to be
able to bring something up immediately to be able to get everybody the
paychecks to which they are entitled.
I know the gentleman was home over the holiday weekend, and I was,
too. My constituents asked me the question over and over: I get it that
there is a disagreement over the President's border wall, but why do
you have to shut the entire government down over that issue? Why can't
you just continue in negotiation? Why do you have to deny TSA workers a
paycheck? Why is that okay? Why is that acceptable? Why are they pawns
in this? Or men and women who serve in our Coast Guard, why is that
okay to say: You don't get paid because the President is having a
temper tantrum and he is not getting his way? All of a sudden, we have
to deny them a paycheck?
People don't understand why my Republican friends think this is
acceptable. The gentleman from Georgia knows that the reason why a bill
is not on the President's desk is because the Senate majority leader,
Mr. McConnell, is basically doing the President's bidding. He said: I
am not going to bring anything to the floor that the President doesn't
want to sign.
We have another option here, too: We can actually pass bipartisan
bills that should win overwhelming support. We should pass them with
veto-proof margins and basically say to the President: We don't believe
in government by blackmail. That is not the way we do things around
here. That is not the way this government is supposed to work.
We ought to reopen the government, and we ought to engage in serious
discussions about how we improve our border security. We have some
great ideas on how to do that. We have some ideas that I mentioned in
my opening speech on ways we can improve our border security.
We think a border wall is a ridiculous idea. But if you want to talk
about a wall, fine, but don't--don't--hold hundreds of thousands of
workers hostage.
We have an opportunity now to set these hostages that the President
has taken free. Let's do it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I appreciate that admonition from the Chair.
I was looking aggressively at all the words my friend had to say for
what that thing was that was going to break this logjam, what that
thing was that was going to bring people together, what that olive
branch was that he was extending to succeed where others had failed.
I heard that if we only come together and do it his way, that we
could all just get along, and I have no doubt that that is true. That
is not what a negotiation is. That is not the way this Chamber works.
We have got to send a bill to the President's desk. When the
President starts vetoing bills, then start accusing the President of
being the grit in the cog in this legislative wheel. We don't have
agreement amongst ourselves.
We were up in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker, and one of
my appropriator friends was celebrating the bills that were coming to
the floor today and celebrating how pleased she was that so many of the
pro-life provisions had been stripped out, celebrating that so many of
the dollars that we would be sending overseas would no longer be
encumbered by pro-life provisions, that folks would be able to use them
in any way that they wanted.
Well, I have no doubt that she was pleased by those things, but we
are not all pleased by those things, Mr. Speaker. This doesn't
represent the compromise solution that everybody is on board with, as
my friend would have you believe.
The financial services language in this bill, that never made it
through conference. We couldn't agree, not amongst ourselves in the
House and the Senate, not in a bicameral way.
My friend who is the ranking member of the Financial Services and
General
[[Page H1016]]
Government Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Speaker, shared last night
that there were 20 different pieces of bipartisan legislation that were
in the original bill, 6 pieces of bipartisan legislation that had been
signed off on by the then-ranking member and, now, chairwoman of the
Financial Services Committee that we could have moved forward, that we
could have made a difference--again, stripped out for reasons beyond my
understanding.
This isn't complicated if folks are sincere about coming together
around the table. It is impossible if folks would rather trade insults
than solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Mitchell), a friend who has been dedicated entirely to solutions in his
short time in the House.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, we have three crises in our country right
now: We have a humanitarian crisis at the southern border. We could
talk about the dynamics of that, but let's be honest about it--we truly
do. We need to secure our Nation's borders, and we need to reopen our
government and pay our Federal workers, something I have been committed
to since I joined Congress.
So far, we have wasted more than 338 hours working on dead-end bills
that will not pass the Senate, the President won't sign, because my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, or their leadership, won't
get in a room and negotiate with the President, with Mitch McConnell,
with the majority leader, with the minority leader--all in the same
room--and negotiate on the package that the President has put forward.
I spoke on that package last week. I held up this letter, which was a
January 6 letter from the President, from the administration, to the
chair of the Appropriations Committee and all the members. The other
side of the aisle was astonished. They didn't know what this letter
was.
That is a little bit demoralizing, if you think about it, why the
letter wasn't shared with all Members on the other side of the aisle.
You see, compromise means you don't get 100 percent of what you want,
but you move the ball forward. You move the ball down the road, and you
keep making progress.
Those same people who are calling it a border wall or a barrier or
whatever you want to call it--I do stress to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, call it about anything you want, short of a moat. If
you make progress, we move forward.
These same people who are now calling it immoral voted for border
security, border barriers, when there was a different President. Now
that it has President Trump's name on it, suddenly it has become evil.
Since January 3, President Trump has made two detailed proposals to
Congress on how to solve this problem--it shows that the President is
prepared to negotiate on it--a package of things that include border
security, technology at the border, strengthening our points of entry,
humanitarian aid, additional immigration judges, and, let me stress
this, providing assistance for people to apply for asylum from their
home countries rather than take that dangerous and treacherous journey
to the Mexican border.
Doctors Without Borders says that 31 percent of the women who make
that journey are sexually assaulted. The President wants to address
that. Neither of those proposals have even gotten a moment of
discussion from the other side of the aisle.
Anyone who spent 35 years in business, or even a few years in
business, as I have, would know that compromise means you deal with the
entirety of the problem. You negotiate the problem, and you get an
answer that moves it forward rather than say: Some things are out of
bounds; we are not going to talk about that.
The part I like now, lately, is: We will talk about it later; we
promise we will.
There is a song about that. It is called, ``Tomorrow, Tomorrow.''
Sorry. Now is the time to deal with it. Now is the time. And I agree:
Having people not paid--my dad was an autoworker. He was laid off
multiple times. Missing two paychecks is brutal. There is an answer to
that. It is called negotiate.
It is important that Members of the House and Senate and the
leadership take seriously the President's proposals, go to a room,
close the door, and negotiate rather than say, as has been said by the
current Speaker: zero dollars for the wall, maybe a dollar.
I don't care if you call it a wall. I don't care if you call it a
steel slat. I don't care if you call it a barrier. But we need security
at the southern border. Why is it we can't have that now?
Further, we have to end this and pay our Federal workers. We must end
this crisis and pay the workers. There is a route there.
Rather than spend 338 hours on the floor--in this whole posturing,
this whole profiling--sit in a room and spend 10 percent of that time,
33 hours, in one room. My guess is you would come to an answer on the
problem.
Why are we not doing that? Why are we not doing that? Our Democrats
on the other side of the aisle obstruct people being paid.
Last week, we proposed an amendment that would have, in fact,
retroactively opened the government to pay Federal employees. Six
Democrats joined us in that--only six--and it was defeated.
Again, if you want to pay the employees, pay them; don't use them as
hostages, as you have.
A couple summaries I wish to make: First, these are not the same
bills that you claim were bipartisan bills that passed appropriations.
As my colleague has noted, significant items have been pulled out of
that--life protections. I will go through a list. So they are not the
same bills.
Let's be honest on the floor and at least call them what they are.
They are Democratic versions of the previous bills that they put
through.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Michigan an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. MITCHELL. One of the questions I posed for my colleagues: Why is
it okay to begin running reelection campaigns now for an election to go
2 years from now? Why is it okay for the Presidential campaigns to
start on the backs of these workers and the southern border?
Someone answer that question for me, because that is what is
happening. That is what is happening all over the country. That is what
is happening on TV.
{time} 1300
This is now the cause for which people are going to run campaigns.
And, frankly, as a result, yeah, we have government by blackmail, but
the blackmail is going on by the other side of the aisle that insists
they will only talk about certain components of this, but not all of
it, because they have now decided it is not politically expedient as
they are getting ready to run for office--some getting ready,
apparently, to run for President--and they want to use this as
leverage.
We can solve this problem in 1 day. I encourage my colleagues to do
so. Get the Speaker of the House, the minority leader, majority leader
of the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, and the President in
a room, close the door, and don't come out until you have an answer
that they all agree to. How hard is it to understand that concept?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say, I think we have agreement here. We all want to open the
government. We all want to reopen the government. I think the
difference here is that we have no preconditions on reopening the
government. My Republican friends do have preconditions, and it is
whatever the President decides he wants to tack on at the last minute.
So there is a difference here. We have no preconditions. Open the
government up, start paying all of our Federal workers, let's get our
country back to normal here in terms of the Federal workforce, but my
Republican friends have all these strings that they want to attach to
it.
The gentleman from Michigan said, you know, he refers to one of the
``gotcha'' amendments that the Republicans offered on backpay for
Federal workers. I should remind him that we actually passed a law
here, S. 24, which created an entitlement to backpay for
[[Page H1017]]
Federal workers who aren't getting paid during the shutdown. So we
actually dealt with that here. We actually passed a law, and, that, he
may not have known that.
I should also say to my Republican friends, understand that the
American people are not on your side on this. There is a recent ``CBS
News'' poll--7 in 10 Americans do not think the issue of a border wall
is worth a government shutdown--7 in 10.
Now, I know there is this--you know, the President is worried about
that 25, 30 percent of his base, but the vast majority of the people in
this country aren't with him on this. They are not with you on this by
not stepping up and saying we ought to reopen our government.
You want to have a negotiation on border security, we have lots of
ideas to enhance border security, and that is based on conversations
with people on the border who talk about increased technology, who talk
about better infrastructure, who talk about more personnel, you know,
more asylum judges. I can go on and on and on. We are all for that.
Let's continue that conversation.
But why in the world does this President insist on shutting the
government down until he gets his way on this border wall? This is not
the way you do a negotiation. And, again, if you want to reopen the
government, and we do, we have no conditions. Reopen the government. It
is that simple.
And the bills--the gentleman from Michigan talked about bills that
the Senate would pass. Some of the bills that we are sending over to
the Senate passed unanimously. Boy, I mean, if that is not a signal
that they overwhelmingly agree with the substance of these bills, I
don't know what is, but they did. They voted unanimously, in some
cases, for some of these bills we are sending over here.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from ``The Washington
Post'' titled: ``Unacceptable: Coast Guard's top officer criticizes
lack of payment in government shutdown.''
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 22, 2019]
`Unacceptable': Coast Guard's Top Officer Criticizes Lack of Payment in
Government Shutdown
(By Dan Lamothe)
The Coast Guard's top admiral said Tuesday that members of
the armed forces should not be expected to shoulder the
burden of the partial government shutdown, citing the
``anxiety and stress'' it is causing military families as
their pay is withheld.
Adm. Karl Schultz, the Coast Guard commandant, said he is
heartened by the outpouring of support Coast Guard personnel
have received across the country but expects more.
``Ultimately, I find it unacceptable that Coast Guard men
and women have to rely on food pantries and donations to get
through day-to-day life as service members,'' he said,
speaking on a video posted to his Twitter account.
The comments marked the admiral's most forceful remarks
about the shutdown since it began 32 days ago amid a dispute
over President Trump's demands for funding for a southern
border wall. While the majority of the U.S. military is part
of the Defense Department and has funding, the Department of
Homeland Security and is agencies, including the Coast Guard,
are affected by the shutdown.
About 41,000 active-duty service members and 2,100
civilians who are considered ``essential personnel'' are
working without a paycheck under the promise they will get
back pay when the shutdown is resolved, said Lt. Cmdr. Scott
McBride, a service spokesman. That situation grew more urgent
Jan. 15, when service members missed a paycheck. An
additional 6,000 civilians working for the service are
furloughed.
Overall, about 800,000 federal workers are not receiving
paychecks amid the shutdown, with nearly half furloughed.
Schultz, appearing alongside the service's top enlisted
man, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Jason M.
Vanderhaden, noted that civilian employees will miss another
paycheck Friday and called it a 'sobering'' situation.
Senior Coast Guard officials and the American public, he
said, ``stand in awe'' of the affected service members'
'continued dedication to duty and resilience'' and that of
their families.
The admiral, in keeping with the military's tradition of
not commenting directly on politics, did not blame anyone
specific for the shutdown. He and Homeland Security Secretary
Kirstjen Nielsen are making their case for the service on
Capitol Hill, Schultz said.
The Coast Guard has continued to carry out operations
across the globe during the shutdown.
On Sunday, the Coast Guard Cutter Bertholf departed from
Alameda, Calif., with about 170 people aboard for a
deployment to the Pacific that will last up to six months.
The Defense Department will reimburse the service for the
deployment, but Coast Guard personnel still will not be paid
until the shutdown is resolved.
``The crew, like all other [Coast Guard] members, are
affected by the lapse of appropriations, and are not being
paid,'' said Lt. Cmdr. Steve Brickey, a service spokesman.
``It is always difficult to deploy for months and leave
behind family and loved ones. That stress is of course
magnified when you add on the uncertainly of the shutdown.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Admiral Schultz, the Coast Guard's commandant said:
``Ultimately, I find it unacceptable that Coast Guard men and women
have to rely on food pantries and donations to get through day-to-day
life as servicemembers.''
In total, 41,000 Active Duty servicemembers and 2,100 civilians are
essential personnel and working without pay and have been for 33 days
now. An additional 6,000 are furloughed. As of this Friday, these brave
men and women will have missed two paychecks. That is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article titled: ``America's
veterans said to be disproportionately affected by government
shutdown.''
[From ABC News, Jan. 9, 2019]
America's Veterans Said To Be Disproportionately Affected by Government
Shutdown
(By Elizabeth McLaughlin)
As the partial government shutdown continues for a third
week, veterans groups are sounding the alarm because of what
they say is the disproportionate impact on America's veterans
and a growing fear that financial uncertainty could lead to
self-harm.
An estimated one-third of the federal workforce is made up
of veterans, according to the Office of Personnel Management,
meaning that more than 250,000 veterans are not currently
receiving paychecks.
``This shutdown has consequences that go beyond loss of
pay,'' the Union Veterans Council said in a statement this
week. ``Financial instability is one of the main cause of
suicides among the veterans' community. These hard-working
men and women who sacrificed so much for their country should
not have their families held hostage by lawmakers that cannot
relate to living paycheck to paycheck.''
Edward M. Canales is a local union president with the
American Federation of Government Employees and a veteran
liaison officer who serves as a resource to veterans working
in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons west of the Mississippi River.
He told ABC News that he's received numerous calls from
veterans who aren't able to support their families during the
shutdown and express ``no positive outlook on the future.''
``If this shutdown does not stop, we are going to have
fatalities. We're going to have suicides,'' he said.
Canales, a U.S. Army veteran himself who deployed to Iraq
during Operation Desert Storm, said he is referring calls to
the Department of Veterans Affairs hotline out of concern
that a veteran will self-harm.
He called the shutdown ``shameful,'' saying its ``slapping
every veteran in the face who has served their country.''
As a special investigative service technician who worked in
the federal prison system for 26 years, Canales is currently
not receiving his retirement pay.
Toby Hauck, a six-year Air Force veteran, is an air traffic
controller in Aurora, Illinois, who has gone without a
paycheck since Dec. 31. He told ABC News that his father and
grandfather served in the U.S. military and now his son and
daughter-in-law are deploying overseas at the end of the
month.
Hauck and his wife, a neonatal intensive care unit nurse,
will be looking after their two-and-a-half-year-old
granddaughter during the ten-month deployment, and the
continued lack of pay causes added stress to their already
hectic jobs, he said.
``We are hardworking, proud American employees doing a job
for the American public that is essential as an air traffic
controller,'' said Hauck, who is also a representative for
the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. ``It's not
acceptable as a veteran, as a federal employee, as an air
traffic controller to use my profession and my livelihood as
a political football.''
``[Veterans] are very proud of our heritage and what we've
done for the country. And those of us who continue to serve
the federal government as a federal employee continue that
pride throughout their careers,'' he added.
Mr. McGOVERN. The Union Veterans Council said in a statement this
week, ``Financial instability is one of the main causes of suicide
among the veterans' community. These hardworking men and women who
sacrificed so much for their country should not have their families
held hostage by lawmakers that cannot relate to living paycheck to
paycheck.''
According to the Office of Personnel Management, one-third of the
Federal workforce is made up of veterans. That means 250,000 veterans
are not receiving paychecks right now during this
[[Page H1018]]
Trump shutdown. That is an absolute disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, as the Trump shutdown continues, hundreds of Internal
Revenue Service employees have received permission to skip work due to
financial hardships, and absences are only expected to grow.
I would like to share a story about Marissa Scott, an IRS employee
who is gravely affected by this Trump shutdown. Ms. Scott lives outside
of Kansas City, Missouri. She drives 98 miles roundtrip to work each
day. Right now, she cannot afford to fill her gas tank and has stopped
going to work.
She shared that she typically helps 50 people a day with their tax
returns and fears that this shutdown may cause delays in tax refunds
for months as more employees like her are unable to continue working
without a paycheck. These are tax refunds that Americans rely on and
are eagerly waiting to be processed.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from ``The Washington
Post'' titled: ``Hundreds of IRS employees are skipping work. That
could delay tax refunds.'' It also details Ms. Scott's story.
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 22, 2019]
Hundreds of IRS Employees Are Skipping Work. That Could Delay Tax
Refunds
(By Danielle Paquette, Lisa Rein, Jeff Stein and Kimberly Kindy)
Hundreds of Internal Revenue Service employees have
received permission to skip work during the partial
government shutdown due to financial hardship, and union
leaders said Tuesday that they expected absences to surge as
part of a coordinated protest that could hamper the
government's ability to process taxpayer refunds on time.
The Trump administration last week ordered at least 30,000
IRS workers back to their offices, where they have been
working to process refunds without pay. It was one of the
biggest steps the government has taken to mitigate the
shutdown's impact on Americans' lives.
But IRS employees across the country--some in coordinated
protest, others out of financial necessity--won't be clocking
in, according to Tony Reardon, president of the National
Treasury Employees Union, and several local union officials.
The work action is widespread and includes employees from a
processing center in Ogden, Utah, to the Brookhaven campus on
New York's Long Island.
The move is the leading edge of pushback from within the
IRS, and it signals the potential for civil servants to take
actions that could slow or cripple government functions as
the shutdown's political stalemate continues in Washington.
U.S. Department of Agriculture meat inspectors have begun to
call in sick, Transportation Security Administration sickouts
at airports have been rising, and federal law enforcement
agencies say the shutdown is increasing stress among agents
and affecting investigations.
``They are definitely angry that they're not getting paid,
and maybe some of them are angry enough to express their
anger this way,'' said Reardon, whose union represents
150,000 employees at 33 federal agencies and departments.
``But these employees live paycheck to paycheck, and they
can't scrape up the dollars to get to work or pay for child
care.''
Not receiving pay for more than a month has taken a toll on
employees across the government, but especially on those who
are not in high-salary jobs. The employees summoned back from
furlough to process tax refunds are paid between $25,800 and
$51,000 a year, depending on their seniority. IRS employees
will miss a second paycheck Monday if the government does not
reopen this week.
``I'm at the point where I cannot afford to go to work,''
said Marissa Scott, 31, an IRS customer service
representative who is out on hardship leave. Scott lives
outside Kansas City, Mo., and drives 98 miles round trip to
work each day. ``I cannot afford to fill my gas tank.''
Scott, who has worked at the IRS for four years, says she
typically helps as many as 50 people a day with their returns
during tax season, including U.S. troops stationed overseas.
She said the shutdown could delay refunds for months, and
without employees like her on the job, ``it's going to be a
disaster all around.''
Many of the IRS employees who are choosing not to come to
work despite getting called back are taking advantage of a
provision in the union contract that allows them to miss work
if they suffer a ``hardship'' during a shutdown, according to
the labor groups.
That could mean a blown car tire, an empty gas tank or a
child-care bill.
``I have fielded no less than 30 to 40 calls, emails or
text messages about hardship requests from employees daily
since Thursday,'' said Shannon Ellis, president of the NTEU's
Chapter 66 in Kansas City.
In Andover, Mass., more than 100 customer service
representatives, electronic filing workers and other IRS
employees plan to use the hardship exemption and won't report
to work, said Gary Karibian, chapter president of a local
union.
``I would say a majority of employees are calling out under
hardship,'' Karibian said. ``I'm getting reports whole teams
are requesting out. One person told me, `I'm the only one on
my team here.' ''
The union lacks an official head count of absent workers--
the IRS declined to share data on hardship exemptions--but
staffers in Fresno, Calif.; Austin; Andover; Kansas City and
Atlanta, among other locations, say they won't be showing up
for work, Reardon said.
Duncan Giles, who has worked for 24 years at an IRS call
center in Indianapolis, said more workers are requesting
hardship leave as they learn it exists.
``The more this goes on and the tougher it is to get to
work--they simply cannot afford it,'' said Giles, president
of NTEU Chapter 49, noting that about 30 of the 170 employees
who have been called back to work in Indianapolis have
requested the exemption. ``Every single person wants to be at
work. They want to help the American taxpayer. But we have to
pay for gas and child care.''
The hardship exemption allows IRS employees not to have to
use sick days to be absent from work, and managers must
approve the exemptions.
Lawmakers also have heard reports of IRS staffers intending
to miss work and are planning to ask Treasury, Secretary
Steven Mnuchin for details when he testifies on Capitol Hill
this Thursday, a House aide said.
The IRS declined to say how many workers are on hardship
leave, and spokesman Matt Leas said the IRS is continuing its
work to prepare for the beginning of filing season next week.
``We are continuing our recall operations, and we continue
to assess the situation at this time,'' Leas said.
The IRS employees' moves come amid broad uncertainty about
the Trump administration's attempts to minimize the impact of
the shutdown. On Sunday, the number of TSA agents who failed
to show up for work hit a record 10 percent, resulting in
long wait times. Guards at federal prisons also are calling
out at high rates, with union officials at 10 prisons
contacted by The Washington Post this month saying the number
of employees skipping work has doubled.
As a result, officers who report for duty often are working
16-hour shifts, and prison secretaries and janitors are being
forced to patrol the halls and yards.
``All I have is pepper spray and a radio to call for
help,'' said 52-year-old Opal Brown, who works as a secretary
at Hazelton Federal Correctional Institution in West
Virginia.
The FBI Agents Association said in a report Tuesday that
the shutdown is hampering the ability of agents to perform
their ``duties and fund necessary operations and
investigations.''
USDA meat inspectors also have begun calling in sick--in
numbers large enough to trigger an agency crackdown. The
inspectors were told Jan. 11 to bring in a doctor's note,
even if they were ill for a single day, records show.
Six days later, after protests from union leaders, agency
officials reverted to existing policy, which calls for a
doctor's note after three days.
Some front-line managers at the IRS have threatened their
employees and said they could lose their jobs if they put in
for the exemption, but Reardon, the union leader, said most
have been instructed by senior management to approve the
requests.
IRS employees are some of the most impactful federal
workers caught in the middle of the shutdown, as the tax
filing season begins and millions of Americans are expected
to seek tax refunds in February. Last year, more than $140
billion in tax refunds was paid out through early March,
according to IRS data.
Trump has expressed an interest in making sure that tax
refunds are paid out next month, believing that if they are
delayed he could face major public backlash. His budget
office took the unprecedented step this month of ordering
thousands of unpaid IRS workers back to the office, saying
that processing refunds was an ``essential'' government
function even if the workers weren't paid.
As much as 75 percent of the roughly 4,000 furloughed IRS
employees in Kansas City could qualify for hardship leave,
said Christina Bennett, executive vice president of the local
National Treasury Employees Union chapter.``Right now,
they're being lenient,'' Bennett said.
Employees who process tax refunds, she said, are among the
lowest-paid IRS workers. Some are worried about losing their
cars.
Bennett, 63, who has worked nearly four decades at the IRS,
most recently as an accountant, said she, too, can no longer
afford her commute. She plans to request hardship leave if
the government calls her back to work.
``I just don't have it,'' she said. ``I'd have to walk a
half-hour to get to a bus stop. And it's so cold. We've got
rain, snow, rain, snow.''
Sakeya Cooks, 24, another IRS worker who guides taxpayers
through the refund process, said she might never report back
to work. She already has applied for a new job at a Kansas
City bank.
``How am I supposed to live like this?'' she said. ``I'm
worried about losing my apartment.''
John Koskinen, a former IRS commissioner, said federal
employees are dedicated to the agency's mission but might be
reaching their breaking point.
``As you put more and more pressure on the system, you
increase the risk of a significant glitch,'' Koskinen said.
``If I were the
[[Page H1019]]
administration, I'd be troubled. The pressure is going to
mount.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wasn't kidding when I said I was looking for the olive
branch in what my friend had to say. I genuinely believe, if you lock
me and the gentleman from Massachusetts in a room together for 24, 48,
maybe 72 or 96 hours, we could come to a solution and get us out of
this box. But it does take sitting down with people that you trust to
get a hard negotiation done.
I shared in the Rules Committee the other night, Mr. Speaker, and I
will share with you today, the story of one of my constituents. His
name is Doug Jenkins, and this is his story:
Jeanette Jenkins, age 76, of Lawrenceville, Georgia, passed away on
Saturday, April 28, 2018. Jeanette was a member of Hebron Baptist
Church for over 25 years and currently a member of First Baptist Church
of Atlanta. Jeanette had a passion for serving in many capacities of
the ministry, as a Sunday school teacher and volunteering in various
activities. She was an avid reader and enjoyed sewing. She is survived
by her loving husband of 57 years, Doug.
Jeanette didn't die of natural causes on April 28, Mr. Speaker. She
was just running out to pick up some drugs at the drugstore. Her
husband stayed at home. She was leaving the subdivision, waited for the
light to turn green, and pulled out, when a van full of gentlemen who
should not have been in this country, who were not in this country
legally, ran that red light and killed her. She never recovered
consciousness; died in the hospital later on that evening.
We can describe the President of the United States and his commitment
to border security as a temper tantrum, but it is not true. We can
describe the President of the United States and his commitment to
border security as some sort of political fixation, but it is not true.
The stories that my friends tell about Federal employees missing
paychecks, those are painful, those are hard, and we can do better. But
the stories that each and every one of us have about members in our
community who have lost loved ones, not for a week, not for 2 weeks,
but forever, because we didn't do our job protecting American borders--
I want to do better.
I was pleased to see the President talk about agricultural visas and
how he wanted to expand those programs. It is important to us in
Georgia. I am excited about EB visas, trying to get more investment in
this country. We need more. I come from a community of immigrants.
America's history is founded in immigration, and our future is founded
there, too.
But nobody else could have protected Jeanette Jenkins. Nobody. My
local law enforcement can't do it. My governor can't do it. That
responsibility falls to the national government and the national
government alone. The President campaigned on it; the President was
elected on it; and we have an opportunity to come together and do it.
I don't want to kick the can down the road for another year. I don't
want to kick the can down the road for another decade. I don't want to
have another Jenkins family come into my office and say: Rob, where
were you? What did you do when you had an opportunity to make a
difference?
I regret that we are in the box that we are in. It is a box of our
own making. But we can get out of it, and we can make America better as
a result of it. It doesn't have to be a lose-lose. It can be a win-win.
Nobody is winning today. Nobody has benefited by the shutdown today.
I cannot negotiate by myself. The President cannot negotiate by
himself. We need folks to say ``yes'' to the invitation. Take the
gentleman from Michigan's advice: Ask your leadership, as we have asked
ours, to lock yourself in that room together and don't come out until
you have an answer.
My friend from Massachusetts says he has no preexisting stipulations
about what the package has to look like. I hope that is true. It has
not been my experience--stripping out all the pro-life provisions, for
example. That was something that your conference wanted. Not working on
the CFPB provisions that the Financial Services Committee had done, not
including those 20 bipartisan bills, there are conditions that folks
have, as they should, because they were elected to this House, and they
are obligated to serve their constituents.
We can get this done, Mr. Speaker, but I commit to you, we are not
going to get it done by pointing the finger of blame at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. We are going to get it done by coming together
right here and doing our job, the task the Constitution assigns to us,
and, that is, agreeing on a provision amongst ourselves and sending it
to the President for him to accept or to reject.
I believe in what we can do together, Mr. Speaker, and I hope my
colleagues will again take ``yes'' to an invitation to the negotiating
table as an answer.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say, at the outset here, that if we all agree that the
government should be reopened, then what is there to negotiate about?
We should just open up the government.
We have no preconditions about opening up the government. We have
none. The gentleman from Georgia apparently has a precondition:
whatever the President's whim is on a particular day. Yeah, the
President did campaign on building a wall, but he didn't get up there
and say: We want to build a wall and you pay for it, American
taxpayers. What he campaigned on was saying: I want to build a wall,
and Mexico is going to pay for it.
Well, he has had 2 years, and, obviously, he can't get Mexico to pay
for it, so he wants to saddle the American taxpayers with that bill.
So, look, the bottom line is, we believe that border security is an
important issue, and we, on this side, have been more than willing to
invest in border security, and we are going to continue to do that.
As I mentioned before to the gentleman, President Trump's shutdown
has put a strain on local and Federal law enforcement, undermining
cooperation between them that helps keep our communities safe. While he
is having his temper tantrum, you know, our local law enforcement
officials are feeling the strain. That is why local law enforcement
leaders across the country, including those serving in border States,
are calling for an end to the shutdown.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to President Trump and
Members of Congress.
[From the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, Jan. 22, 2019]
Law Enforcement Leaders Call for an End to Shutdown
Dear President Trump and Members of Congress: As law
enforcement leaders who support commonsense immigration
reforms consistent with public safety, we write to express
our deep concern with the partial shutdown of the federal
government.
State and local law enforcement work constructively with
federal law enforcement to combat drug trafficking, gangs,
organized crime, and other threats. In addition, the federal
government provides needed training, equipment, and funding
to state and local law enforcement agencies--support that is
now threatened by the ongoing shutdown. A prolonged shutdown
threatens this cooperation and strains local resources. It
also negatively impacts our colleagues in federal law
enforcement, forcing essential law enforcement personnel to
work without pay. These circumstances threaten public safety
and cannot continue.
Instead, we call on Congress and the Trump administration
to reopen the federal government without delay and work
together on bipartisan solutions to improve our immigration
system. We believe there is room for compromise.
While there are partisan disagreements over the need for a
border wall across our entire southern border, there is
widespread agreement over commonsense steps that can improve
border security. A bipartisan deal can build on these areas
of agreement, improving border security by focusing on ports
of entry, strategically deploying and using technology and
ensuring that CBP has clear sight lines all along the Rio
Grande. With nearly 700 miles of physical barriers already in
place along the southern border, these targeted investments
in border security can contribute to improving public safety
and reassuring the American people that the border is a
priority.
Similarly, bipartisan immigration reform will benefit the
United States as a whole. We believe that immigrants should
feel safe in their communities and comfortable calling upon
law enforcement to report crimes, serving as witnesses, and
calling for help in
[[Page H1020]]
emergencies. By reforming our immigration system to bring
undocumented immigrants into the legal immigration system,
immigrants are incentivized to become constructive partners
with local police in public safety initiatives. Bipartisan
immigration reform can provide undocumented immigrants with
an opportunity to earn citizenship, requiring them to pay a
fine and back taxes and pass a background check, encouraging
further civic responsibility. This would improve community
policing and safety for everyone.
The current impasse is an opportunity for Congress and the
Trump administration to strike a bipartisan agreement to end
the shutdown and fix our immigration system. The shutdown
prevents state and local law enforcement agencies from having
access to needed federal resources, strains federal law
enforcement personnel, and undermines cooperation between
state, federal, and local law enforcement.
We urge Congress and the Trump administration to break this
deadlock and improve public safety by reopening the
government without delay and working to reach a bipartisan
compromise that includes commonsense border security as part
of a comprehensive reform of the immigration system.
Thank you,
Chief Art Acevedo, LEITF Co-Chair, Houston, TX; Chief J.
Thomas Manger, LEITF Co-Chair, Montgomery County, MD;
Executive Director Dwayne Crawford, National Organization of
Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE); Executive Director
Chuck Wexler, Police Executive Research Forum (PERF); Chief
Ramon Batista, Mesa, AZ; Chief Roy Bermudez, Nogales, AZ;
Sheriff Tony Estrada, Santa Cruz County, AZ; Chief Chris
Magnus, Tucson, AZ; Chief Steve Stahl, Maricopa, AZ; Chief
Roberto Villasenor, Retired, Tucson, AZ; Chief David
Valentin, Santa Ana, CA; Sheriff Joe DiSalvo, Pitkin County,
CO; Chief Dwight Henninger, Vail, CO; Chief Peter Newsham,
Washington, DC; Chief Orlando Rolon, Orlando, FL; Sheriff
Paul H. Fitzgerald, Story County, IA; Chief Wayne Jerman,
Cedar Rapids, IA; Director of Public Safety Mark Prosser,
Storm Lake, IA; Chief Mike Tupper, Marshalltown, IA; Sheriff
John Idleburg, Lake County, IL.
Chief Michael Diekhoff, Bloomington, IN; Chief Scott
Ruszkowski, South Bend, IN; Chief Ron Teachman, Retired,
South Bend, IN; Chief James Hawkins, Retired, Garden City,
KS; Commissioner William Gross, Boston, MA; Chief Brian Kyes,
Chelsea, MA; Sheriff Kevin Joyce, Cumberland County, ME;
Sheriff Jerry Clayton, Washtenaw County, MI; Chief Ron
Haddad, Dearborn, MI; Chief Todd Axtell, Saint Paul, MN;
Sheriff Mike Haley, Retired, Washoe County, NV; Chief Cel
Rivera, Lorain, OH; Public Safety Commissioner Steven Pare,
Providence, RI; Chief Fred Fletcher, Retired, Chattanooga,
TN; Chief Frank Dixon, Denton, TX; Sheriff Ed Gonzalez,
Harris County, TX; Chief Andy Harvey, Palestine, TX; Sheriff
Sally Hernandez, Travis County, TX; Chief Mike Markle, Corpus
Christi, TX; Sheriff Lupe Valdez, Retired, Dallas County, TX.
Chief Mike Brown, Salt Lake City, UT; Chief Chris Burbank,
Retired/FBI National Executive Institute Associates
President, Salt Lake City, UT; Sheriff Dana Lawhorne,
Alexandria, VA; Chief Carmen Best, Seattle, WA; Sheriff Mitzi
Johanknecht, King County, WA; Sheriff David J. Mahoney, Dane
County, WI.
Mr. McGOVERN. ``The New York Times'' reported yesterday that the
Trump shutdown has also impacted the FBI's efforts to crack down on
child trafficking, violent crime, and terrorism, needlessly putting our
communities and constituents at risk. I say to my friends: Look at what
you are doing here. Look what is happening. This has to end.
For example, a long-term MS-13 investigation that has resulted in 23
gang indictments has been constrained because of the inability--get
this--the inability to pay for interpreters needed to communicate with
informants. That is insane, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1315
Mr. Speaker, I include that article from The New York Times in the
Record.
[From the New York Times, Jan. 22, 2019]
Report Says Shutdown Is Impeding F.B.I.'s Law Enforcement Efforts
(By Katie Benner)
Washington.--As the partial government shutdown enters its
fifth week, the funding freeze has impeded F.B.I. efforts to
crack down on child trafficking, violent crime and terrorism,
according to a report issued Tuesday by the group that
represents the bureau's 13,000 special agents.
``The resources available to support the work of F.B.I.
agents are currently stretched to the breaking point and are
dwindling day by day,'' said Thomas O'Connor, the president
of the group, the F.B.I. Agents Association.
The report reflected the scope and seriousness of the
shutdown's effects, and came as President Trump and the
leaders of the two parties on Capitol Hill maneuvered to find
a path out of the impasse. The Senate scheduled procedural
votes for Thursday on competing Republican and Democratic
proposals, although neither appears likely to win sufficient
support to pass.
The Justice Department, which oversees the F.B.I., is one
of the government agencies affected by the partial shutdown,
along with the State Department, Transportation Department,
Agriculture Department, Interior Department and others.
Mr. O'Connor said that national security was directly
related to the bureau's financial security. ``It is critical
to fund the F.B.I. immediately,'' he said.
Because of the shutdown, the F.B.I. has been unable to
issue grand jury subpoenas and indictments in several cases
cited in the report.
An agent working on an MS-13 investigation that has gone on
for more than three years and resulted in 23 gang indictments
for racketeering, murder and money laundering has been
hamstrung by his inability to pay for an interpreter who can
communicate with his Spanish-speaking informants, the report
said.
The bureau has also not been able to pay its informants, an
important source of intelligence in terrorism, narcotics,
gang, illegal firearm and other national security cases. The
F.B.I. could lose those informants.
``It is not a switch that we can turn on and off,'' the
report said.
The 72-page report described how field offices in some
cases have run out of basic supplies like tires for vehicles,
copy paper and forensic supplies like DNA swab kits, and do
not have the funds to buy replacements.
The F.B.I. is not the only part of the Justice Department
struggling during the funding lapse. The department has had
to ask the federal courts to postpone some major civil
litigation, including a lawsuit over the lawfulness of the
Affordable Care Act, which the department no longer defends
in court.
The federal courts that hear Justice Department cases are
also running out of money. The nation's legal system could
soon be hobbled if Congress and the Trump administration
cannot come to an agreement to reopen the portions of
government that have been closed since last month. The
federal courts will run out of money by around Feb. 1,
requiring them to cut back to essential services at that
point and furlough some workers.
The F.B.I. Agents Association has been warning of the
negative effects of the shutdown for nearly two weeks.
On Jan. 10, the association and representatives from all of
the F.B.I. field offices signed a petition that said the
shutdown could create financial issues for agents that would
make it hard for them to pass the routine financial
background checks necessary for them to obtain certain
security clearances. They also said the pay freeze would make
it hard to retain and attract agents.
The latest report from the association, which is based on
the accounts of scores of agents, outlines more dire
consequences. The group allowed the agents to speak
anonymously to protect them from retaliation and other
negative repercussions.
Correction: Jan. 22, 2019--An earlier version of this
article incorrectly described the F.B.I. Agents Association.
It is a professional association, not a union.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 40 million Americans struggle with hunger
and food insecurity, and the Trump shutdown has needlessly made this
terrible problem worse. Without funding for USDA in place, access to
SNAP benefits for hungry families is threatened. Millions and millions
of people will be affected.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities titled ``Many SNAP Households Will
Experience Long Gap Between Monthly Benefits Even If Shutdown Ends.''
[From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Jan. 22, 2019]
Many SNAP Households Will Experience Long Gap Between Monthly Benefits
Even if Shutdown Ends
(By Dorothy Rosenbaum)
The Administration and states' efforts to issue February
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food
stamp) benefits early to avoid deep benefit cuts in that
month that might otherwise have occurred as a result of the
partial government shutdown have created a new problem: a
lengthy delay between February benefits (which most
beneficiaries received by January 20) and March benefits.
In turn, this will place additional strain on the emergency
food network and other community resources, which already are
stretched.
Most Households Receiving February SNAP Benefits in January; March SNAP
Benefits Remain Uncertain and at Risk
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on January 8
that it would work with states to pay the vast majority of
February SNAP benefits early, by January 20, to ensure that
SNAP has the funding to stay open through February 2019.
Despite the operational challenges of this approach, it
appears that every state was able to issue benefits early,
and in combination with SNAP's contingency reserve, there
will be sufficient federal funding to cover all February SNAP
benefits as a result.
These recent actions that USDA and states have taken
protect millions of low-income households--including millions
of poor children, parents, elderly people, and people with
[[Page H1021]]
disabilities--from having their basic food assistance cut
back substantially in February. With a continuing shutdown,
USDA would have to issue additional guidance to states
explaining whether it has other options available to cover
all of March benefits, or if not, how deep a benefit cut will
be required in March and how states should implement it.
Ending the shutdown, and funding and reopening the
Agriculture Department and other parts of the government that
now are shuttered, would be the best way to avoid cutting
millions of households' SNAP food assistance. For the
remainder of this paper, we assume that SNAP will receive
funding so that full SNAP benefits can continue in March and
subsequent months--an assumption that is far from assured.
Many Households Will Have a Long SNAP Benefit Gap Even if the Shutdown
Ends
Some states may be able to adjust their March issuance
schedules to partly address this issue, but if all states
paid February SNAP benefits on January 20 and don't make
changes to their March issuance schedules, we estimate that
about 90 percent of SNAP households that receive ongoing SNAP
benefits--about 15 million low-income households--will
experience a more than 40-day gap between issuances. Almost
60 percent will experience a gap of more than 45 days, and 25
percent will experience more than a 50-day gap.
States have long had the option to pay SNAP benefits to
different SNAP households on different days of the month.
Spreading payments across multiple days evens state workloads
across the month and helps to ensure that retailers that
participate in SNAP do not face a severe increase in demand
for food and staffing on the day that SNAP benefits become
available. Any given household, however, must receive its
SNAP benefits on or about the same day of the month, usually
resulting in only 28 to 31 days between SNAP issuance dates.
Only seven states issue SNAP to all households in the state
on the first day of the month. Most others spread issuance
out, often over ten or 20 days, and usually based on
households' Social Security or case numbers or the first
letter of the head of household's last name.
In fact, SNAP law requires that ``no household experience
an interval between issuances of more than 40 days. It is not
clear whether USDA will waive this requirement in response to
the unusual circumstances resulting from the shutdown--as
seems likely--or whether the agency will require states to
develop an alternative issuance schedule to avoid gaps of
longer than 40 days One possibility would be for states to
change March issuance to occur on March 1, and to stagger the
adjustment back to households' normal issuance cycle over
several months, as needed to stay within the 40-day maximum
interval between issuances.
Households in Almost All States Will See Gaps Longer Than 40 Days
The length of the gaps between February and March issuances
will vary by state, but the vast majority will be longer than
40 days.
States where all households will have 40 days between SNAP
issuances: Seven states, accounting for about 2 percent of
SNAP issuances nationally, issue SNAP benefits to all
households on the first day of the month. In these states,
the gap for ongoing SNAP households that received the early
February issuance on January 20 would be exactly 40 days, as
households would receive their March benefits on March 1.
Those states are: Alaska, Guam, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Virgin Islands.
States where households will have 40-49 days between SNAP
issuances: Another 21 states issue all (or almost all) of
their ongoing SNAP benefits within the first ten days of the
month. In these states, SNAP households will experience a 40-
to 49-day gap in benefits. Those states are: California,
Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
States where some households will have 50 days or more
between SNAP issuances: About half the states have some
households that will have more than 50 days between SNAP
issuances if the states do not change their issuance
schedules. In states that issue some SNAP benefits for
ongoing SNAP households after the 10th day of the month,
those households will have at least a 50-day gap; households
that typically receive their benefits after the 15th day of
the month will have a gap of 55 days or more. These
households account for much of these states' ongoing SNAP
benefits: in 17 states, 50 percent or more of benefits will
be issued with at least a 50-day gap.
Long Period Between SNAP Issuances Will Cause Hardship for Some SNAP
Households
Assuming SNAP has full funding to continue in March, SNAP
households should have available the same total amount of
SNAP benefits over the three-month period (January through
March) that they otherwise would have. However, the change in
the timing of February's issuance and the long interval
between January 20 and a March SNAP issuance is likely to
cause hardship for some households and, as a result, increase
the demands for emergency food assistance and other community
services.
It's well documented that SNAP benefits normally run out
for most households before the end of the month. Within a
week of receiving SNAP, households redeem over half of their
SNAP allotments. By the end of the second week, SNAP
households have redeemed over three-quarters of their
benefits, and by the end of the third week they have redeemed
90 percent.
SNAP benefits are not intended to cover the entire month
for most households. The SNAP benefit formula assumes that
families will spend 30 percent of their available cash income
for food. Many households spend their SNAP benefits quickly
because they can only be spent on food. Cash income from
other sources is needed to pay for other expenses, such as
rent or mortgage, utilities, essential non-food items,
clothing, gasoline, and car repairs. As a result, families
use their SNAP benefits first to make food purchases, saving
cash for other needed expenses.
Moreover, SNAP benefits are low. SNAP is intended to
provide additional benefits to meet the cost of the Thrifty
Food Plan (TFP), the Agriculture Department's estimate of a
bare-bones, nutritionally adequate diet. But substantial
research has found that the TFP, which currently provides at
most $1.85 per person per meal for a family of three (the
average benefit is about $1.40 per person per meal), is not
sufficient to meet the needs of most low-income households.
Because SNAP benefits often fall short of meeting basic
monthly food needs, and because struggling households have to
use available cash to meet non-food expenses, families can
find themselves at the end of their 30-day SNAP benefit
payment cycle without enough food or the resources available
to buy more food. Research has found that food spending, food
consumption, and diet quality fall and that food insecurity,
hospital admissions, and school disciplinary problems rise
after households have exhausted their monthly SNAP benefits.
SNAP families often have to turn to social networks, food
pantries, and others to get through the month.
Given the experience of the strain on low-income
households' budgets and community resources under normal SNAP
issuance patterns--when the gap between SNAP issuances is no
more than 31 days--stretching that gap to 40 to 50 days or
longer could create substantial hardship and hunger and
sharply increase demand for local emergency food providers
and other community social services providers.
Many SNAP households may find ways to weather this
disruption. In general, households that participate in SNAP
demonstrate a capacity to manage limited budgets. But
extending the time between monthly benefit payments for the
vast majority of SNAP households will certainly cause
difficulty for some substantial number of poor families. Many
families may not be able to budget the advance food-
assistance benefit over an extended period of time for
several reasons, including:
Lack of information. USDA, state officials, retailers, and
state and local nonprofit groups and charities are working to
educate SNAP households about the early issuance of February
benefits and the fact that those households will not receive
another issuance in February. States are urging households to
factor the early payment and the delay until a March payment
into their February food budget. But USDA did not require
states to send SNAP households individual notices about the
change in February benefits. Instead, states are trying to
use newspaper stories, posts on their websites, fliers in
local welfare offices, and their partners' networks to spread
the news about the changes in the timing of SNAP benefit
delivery. Many households likely won't understand that the
benefits they received around January 20 are an early
issuance of their February benefit and that a lengthy gap
will ensue before they receive their next benefit insurance.
Confusion and misinformation. Reports are emerging that
there is considerable confusion about why households are
receiving early SNAP benefits for February and what to expect
in the future, especially given the uncertainty resulting
from the government shutdown. The confusion may result in
some SNAP households spending their SNAP benefits relatively
quickly, exacerbating their food shortages in the latter part
of February and the first part of March.
Household income fluctuations or unexpected expenses.
Households living with very low incomes experience shocks to
their monthly income on a routine basis. Workers can see
their hours and pay reduced with little warning. Individuals
with monthly income below the poverty line rarely have
savings to manage unexpected expenses. If their income drops
or expenses spike unexpectedly during this timeframe, perhaps
because of a high winter heating bill, households generally
will use available cash to manage their non-food needs,
leaving less money to buy food at the end of the SNAP payment
cycle.
Differing abilities among SNAP participants. Even with
advance warning and robust information, some SNAP households
can struggle to manage a significant shift in their budget,
particularly those with cognitive limitations. Managing a
major monthly budget shift like this could be difficult for
some individuals with mental impairments who do not receive
assistance to manage their benefits.
Conclusion
Even if the government shutdown is resolved quickly, the
disruption in the timing
[[Page H1022]]
of February SNAP benefits is likely to make it hard for many
SNAP households to meet their basic food needs as they wait
for their March SNAP benefit payment. Some 30 million people
in about 15 million households--the vast majority of SNAP
households--will not get their March benefit until at least
40 days after they received their February payment. Of these,
8 million people in more than 4 million households will need
to wait more than 50 days. This benefit disruption will
likely cause hardship for a substantial number of these
households. We expect more households to try to turn to
emergency food networks and other social services for help as
they seek to stretch their benefits across more days.
Mr. McGOVERN. The crisis already has started. Access to food for SNAP
beneficiaries also is being threatened by the shutdown, as reports
indicate that 2,500 retailers around the country are unable to take any
form of SNAP EBT payments.
As PBS reported over the weekend, the licenses for these retailers
are on hold due to the shutdown.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the transcript of the PBS story.
PBS News Hour: Why Many Stores Can't Accept Food Stamps During the
Shutdown
(Jan 17, 2019)
While so far there have been no major lapses in benefits
for the nearly 39 million people who depend on food stamps
amid the partial government shutdown, 2,500 retailers around
the country are unable to take any form of SNAP EBT payments.
Judy Woodruff:
With the government shutdown now in its 27th day, many
federal programs have been affected, including food stamps.
So far, there is no major lapse in benefits used by nearly
39 million people each month. That's because of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. It found a way to pay SNAP
benefits, as they are called, earlier than normal.
February benefits, awarded through a debit-style card used
at stores, are being paid out this week. Several states,
including California and Florida, are warning users to be
careful and make sure they manage to make the money last
longer.
For 2,500 retailers, the problem is already here. That's
because those stores needed to renew a license for the
Electronic Benefit Transfer, or EBT debit card program, and
they failed to meet a deadline before the shutdown. Those
renewals, required every five years, are on hold.
Sarah Jackson is an employee at one store in Northern
Arkansas.
Sarah Jackson:
We have been completely unable to take any form of SNAP EBT
payments. Grocery stores need a license to process EBT
payments, and ours expired and was unable to be renewed on
schedule because of the government shutdown.
Because of an argument about a wall, I have to look people
in the eyes every day and tell them they can't pay for their
food, for their children's food.
Judy Woodruff:
Sarah Jackson in Arkansas.
We reached out to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a
response. A spokesperson wrote back--quote--``Over 99 percent
of SNAP retailers are able to accept benefits as usual. There
is a small percentage of stores that failed to complete a
required reauthorization process that was due on December 21.
These stores can take steps to update their status once
funding is restored''--end quote.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on and on about the
impacts here. If we all agree we should end the shutdown, let's just
end the shutdown.
Maybe my Republican friends should be calling Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell to say, you know, let's come together and pass a bill
to reopen the government without any conditions. That is what the
American people overwhelmingly want.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle
rushing to congratulate the President for his so-called compromise plan
over the weekend. Let me repeat: This is no compromise at all. Just
read the fine print.
The Washington Post said simply: ``The proposal on the Dreamers was
whittled down to the point where it only undoes the disaster Trump
himself is orchestrating.''
That would be like an arsonist offering you a fire extinguisher to
put out the wildfire that they created. That is a compromise? Are you
kidding me?
I have an idea. Mr. President, stop causing disasters. Congress
should be more than a cleanup crew for your messes and failed policies.
Let me close with this, Mr. Speaker. When I think of the best of the
United States, I think of the Statue of Liberty. It wasn't built from
within our borders. It was gifted to us by friends from abroad, the
French, to represent the freedom that we stand for, to welcome all
those immigrants who come to this country, not to transport drugs or
crime, as the President portrays, but to live a better life that they
can find only here in the United States.
When President Trump thinks of the best of America, he dreams about a
concrete wall, something to prevent immigrants from coming here,
something that offends our allies, that would make our country, a
global leader, turn away from the rest of the world at a time when
American leadership is badly needed.
On top of all of that, a wall will not work. It would be ineffective.
If we built a 50-foot wall, someone would build a 51-foot ladder.
As I said, it is a medieval idea when we have better solutions here
in the 21st century: cameras, sensors, radar, and drones. If anyone
doubts that they work, go visit the border, as I have.
Democrats are for border security. The minibus includes $328 million
in new funding to help secure the border. This is what professionals
are asking us for. A concrete wall is being discussed as a viable
option only at the President's rallies and in the right-wing media.
Here in the real world, hundreds of thousands of people are
struggling. They need us to reopen the government today, right now, not
years from now, as the President has suggested.
These bipartisan, bicameral bills will get us there. This continuing
resolution to fund the Department of Homeland Security will get us
there. Let's end this shutdown and reopen this government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. 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 the resolution.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 23, 2019, on page H1022, the following appeared: 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 online version has been corrected to read: Mr. 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 the resolution.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. 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.
____________________