PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 264, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 265, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG...; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 4
(House of Representatives - January 09, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H302-H311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                               H. Res. 28

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

[[Page H303]]

  

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


                             General Leave

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

[[Page H304]]

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

                              {time}  1245

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

[[Page H305]]

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

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

  Secondly, Mr. Speaker:

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

  And lastly, Mr. Speaker:

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

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

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

                              {time}  1300

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

[[Page H306]]

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

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

[[Page H307]]

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

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

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

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

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

  On April 13, I said:

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

  On September 2, I said:

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

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

                              {time}  1315

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

[[Page H308]]

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

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

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

                     [From USA Today, Jan. 3, 2019]

                           (By Janna Herron)

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

[[Page H309]]

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


                        Waiting for repair money

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


                      What about other mortgages?

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


                            On Capitol Hill

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

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

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

[[Page H310]]

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

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

                             [Roll No. 16]

                               YEAS--231

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Buck
     DeFazio
     Frankel
     Hastings
     Jones
     Kelly (PA)
     Mast

                              {time}  1352

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

[[Page H311]]

  


                             [Roll No. 17]

                               YEAS--231

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Buck
     DeFazio
     Frankel
     Hastings
     Jones
     Kelly (PA)
     Mast

                              {time}  1403

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

                          ____________________