Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his guidance. Of course, there was no opportunity for the ADA to anticipate the internet, to anticipate websites. So it is unclear whether or not Congress intended for websites to fall inside the public accommodations statute. Because of this ambiguity, though, all of the small businesses-- everyone with a website presence, Mr. Chairman--are unclear about whether or not they are violating the law. They don't even have a framework of guidance so that they could comply with the laws that I know each and every one of these credit unions, community banks, and small businesses wants to do. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) if he would be willing to commit to working with me to encourage the Justice Department to move forward with some guidance in this area so that we could provide certainty not just to credit unions and not just to community banks, but to all of these small businesses looking to do their very best to comply with the ADA?

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland just said that, after decades, the ADA was well understood and the law was easy to comply with. In many cases, that may be true, but technology has been advancing so quickly that there are areas where the ADA is not clear today, and we are in need of guidance. Mr. Chairman, in the great State of Georgia, scores of businesses have received demand letters for their websites, that their websites should be considered public accommodations; and demand letters to say those websites do not comply with the ADA, when these businesses do not know how to make their websites comply with the ADA. Fifty credit unions alone, Mr. Chairman--folks who are in the business of serving our communities--have received these demand letters, unable to respond. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), if he would be willing, and ask if he is aware of the issues created by this emergence of technology and the predatory litigation that credit unions, community banks, and other small mom-and-pop businesses are facing.

Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, these are small businesses that want to do their very best to comply with the ADA. With guidance, they will be successful in that effort.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate that, and I appreciate you being here with us on a Thursday afternoon. I know that you came to Congress with the same optimism that I came to Congress with, and that is, if only we work hard enough together, if only we commit ourselves with earnestness to one another, we will be able to make a difference for folks. I still believe that, and I hope you still believe that, too, after your time here. I still believe that, if only we work hard enough, we are going to be able to serve the American people as we promised we would. But occasionally--occasionally--I don't want to vilify the entire fourth estate today, Madam Speaker. There is not enough time to go through that today. But occasionally, the fourth estate seems to suggest that we are failing the American people when, in fact, we are succeeding on their behalf, and that is what I want to talk about this afternoon. We just came through a difficult budget time, Madam Speaker. We came through that not because of any failures of any man or woman in this institution. I want to make that clear. This House came together as a body back in July of last year and passed every single national security appropriations bill that was upon us. July of last year--3 months before the end of the fiscal year--this body came together and did its job to fund our men and women in uniform, fund border security, and fund those incredibly important national security items that every single American family cares about. The Senate had been unable to get any of those bills passed. That brought us to just a week ago, when the President finally signed into law a funding bill for the United States Government to cover the remainder of fiscal year 2018. I mentioned the House passed, in July of last year, all of the national security appropriations bills. In September of last year, Madam Speaker, the House passed all the rest of the appropriations bills. So the entire Federal Government, from the perspective of the 435 men and women who serve in the House, that work was completed on time before the end of the fiscal year. But, again, the Senate was unable to take up any appropriations bills, for a variety of different reasons--and I am not interested in assigning that blame today. I am interested in figuring out what we can do about it going forward--took until just a week ago for the Senate to sign an appropriations bill, craft a plan, and do what we call raising the caps so that we can get a funding agreement that will take us over the next 18 months. Madam Speaker, you can't see it here, but I have a chart of defense spending going back over the last few years. In fact, I started the chart the year that I was running for Congress for the very first time. It was 2010. I came in in that big class of freshmen. There were 100 of us. Imagine that: 100 out of 435 Members, coming in for the first time, together, in January of 2011, and many of us came here with a desire to balance budgets. Among the many data points that get shared, Madam Speaker, one was shared with me when I was doing C-SPAN's Washington Journal this week. The host said: Rob, do you think the era of fiscal conservatism is over? I thought that was odd. I am thinking: No, I serve in a body full of men and women, both sides of the aisle, fiscal conservatives, who want to make sure the American taxpayer is getting a dollar's worth of value for a dollar's worth of taxes, who want to make sure we are not balancing the budget on the backs of our children and grandchildren, and who want to make sure we are not mortgaging the future of our children and our grandchildren. Why would the era of fiscal conservatism be over? Well, the suggestion was made it is because we just signed a budget deal, and that budget deal raises levels of discretionary spending in this country; and if we are raising levels of discretionary spending, mustn't that mean that our commitment to fiscal responsibility is over? That led me to come to the floor today, Madam Speaker, because what you can't see on this chart, but I have displayed here, are two lines. One is a red line. Oftentimes, Madam Speaker, folks bring charts to the floor that only show you a part of the picture, so the amplitude is exaggerated. It looks like things are worse or better than they actually are. I have grounded my chart at zero. This is zero dollars in spending, going all the way up to $1 trillion in spending. The year I got here, we were spending about $689 billion a year on defense. Well, we got together as a body, Madam Speaker. And, I will remind you, Republicans controlled the U.S. House at that time. President Obama controlled the White House, Harry Reid controlled the United States Senate, and the House was in minority hands, being led by Republicans. But we got together, Republicans and Democrats--House, Senate, White House--and we crafted a budget plan forward that reduced spending. Now, the plan was that we were going to reduce spending on both the defense side of the ledger and the nondefense side of the ledger, and then we were going to come together and deal with those major healthcare entitlement programs that are driving the debt far out into the future, deal with the trust funds for Medicare and Social Security that are underfunded today that cannot sustain the promises that have been made to generations today, that we would repair those programs and make them solvent long into the future. It was a worthwhile goal. It was a goal worthy of this body, men and women--Republicans, Democrats, House Members, Senate Members--who came together. But what you can see on this chart, Madam Speaker, is the black line indicates the path we took of funding national security, each year, spending less and less and less. Now, mind you, nobody thought this was the right plan for how to fund national security. This was designed to be a driver to force folks to come together and deal with those larger entitlement programs that actually are the drivers of the debt. It didn't work. In fact, we had an entire Presidential election cycle that just went on 15 months ago, Madam Speaker, where you can't name the candidate who ran on either the Republican or the Democratic side of the aisle, who made debt and deficits their priority. Who was that? Who was that leader running for the White House, the last time around, who focused on debt and deficits as their priorities? For whatever reason, it slipped from the national stage, probably because we had been successfully curbing the needle on spending. So, fast forward, to just a week ago, Madam Speaker, where we raised defense spending by $100 billion a year. Now, if you calculate where the caps were going to go and how the sequester was going to happen, you actually turn out to have about a $150 billion increase over where folks expected us to be. Well, golly, Madam Speaker, even in Washington, D.C., when you raise a $550 billion budget to $700 billion, that is an enormous increase. That is why I was asked: Is the era of fiscal conservatism over? I direct you to this chart, I show you this enormous increase in defense spending, and I show you that we are still $100 billion a year lower than Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid had anticipated before I was elected to Congress in 2010. All of this area, between the red line and the black line, Madam Speaker, are dollars saved for the American people. Now, those dollars came at a price. I reference testimony that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, former General Jim Mattis, gave in the Armed Services Committee--this was just a week and 2 days ago--and he said this: ``I cannot overstate the impact to our troops' morale from all this uncertainty.'' He is talking about these continuing resolutions that get passed. Again, the House passed its bills back last July, the Senate hasn't been able to pass any of its bills, so we were funding the government one short-term bill at the time, creating havoc on the American military. ``I cannot overstate the impact to our troops' morale from all this uncertainty. The combination of rapidly changing technology, the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our Nation's history, and insufficient funding have created an overstretched and underresourced military.'' I don't believe there is a man or woman in this Chamber, Madam Speaker, who would disagree with that, ``an overstretched and underresourced military,'' or ``the longest continuous stretch of combat in our Nation's history.'' This is not an issue that divides this Chamber, this is an issue that unites this Chamber, Madam Speaker. I am proud that we came together, as a House and a Senate, as Republicans and Democrats, to address that failure. In fact, I will quote from General Mattis. Just two days after that morale quote, after this body had acted, after the Senate had finally acted, after the President had put his signature on the bill, General Mattis said this: ``I am very confident that what the Congress has now done and the President is going to allocate to us in the budget is what we need to bring us back to a position of primacy.'' ``What the Congress has done and what the President will allocate will bring us back to a position of primacy,'' I mention that again, Madam Speaker, because, among the many conversations we have here about military readiness, General Mattis has expressed confidence that, in a time of war, the Congress would fund the military. In fact, in that same testimony that I quoted from earlier before the Armed Services Committee, he said: ``I know that in time of a major war, Congress will provide our military with what it needs. But money at the time of crisis fails to deter war. . . .'' I know the Congress will provide what we need in a time of crisis, but money at a time of crisis fails to deter that crisis. We could have avoided that conflict had only we been properly funded. We came together with White House leadership. The President said: I need $700 billion for 2018; I need $716 billion for 2019. That is what General Mattis said as well. That is what we are hearing from the entire administration. That is what we came together and gave. But the era of fiscal conservatism, Madam Speaker, is not over. The era of shortchanging our military, in the hopes that we might come together on a bigger deal, the gridlock that was created by that, that gridlock is over. That uncertainty that General Mattis bemoaned, that is over. But fiscal conservatism continues. It is not just on the defense side. It is easy to talk about the defense side because I know that is something that unites everyone in the Chamber, Madam Speaker. But let's look at the nondefense side. Nondefense, as you know, Madam Speaker, is, well, everything else that the Federal Government does--it is not an income support program-- from parks to roads to courts, from prisons to education, from investments in NIH and the CDC, from our involvement overseas in hunger programs and refugee programs. Absolutely everything else the Federal Government does is in the nondefense discretionary side. I point you to two lines, once again, Madam Speaker. The red line is what President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid anticipated spending before I arrived. The black line is what we have actually spent since I arrived. Among the many changes made in the law, when the President signed the caps deals into effect last week, is that we raised nondefense discretionary spending, too. In fact, over the 2-year deal that the President signed, we are talking about an additional $300 billion-- billion with a B--in additional spending. Well, by golly, Madam Speaker, if you care about budgets, if you care about deficits, isn't $300 billion a frighteningly large figure to increase spending in a time of already existing deficits? Of course, it is. Of course, it is. But let me say, once again, that does not mean the era of fiscal conservatism is over. We had a choice. We could continue to keep the military in that space of uncertainty that General Mattis cited as being so dangerous, or we could cut the deal that we had to cut to break that cycle of uncertainty. I don't know what kind of negotiating experience you have had, Madam Speaker, but it turns out that when you walk into a negotiation and say, ``I have got to have what I have got to have, and I will give you whatever you need in order to get it,'' you are not in a particularly strong negotiating spot. That is the position the President found himself in. He was 100 percent committed to our troops, he was 100 percent committed to national security, he was 100 percent committed to that pay raise that we had promised our troops, but we had not funded, and he said: I am going to do whatever it takes to get $700 billion in 2018 and $716 billion in 2019, to make sure national security is protected and our troops are served. Well, what that led to was an increase in nondefense discretionary spending as well, Madam Speaker. But still look at these lines. That delta between the top line of where we were going to go and the black line of where we have actually gone is trillions of dollars'--trillions with a T--worth of savings. Between the defense spending, Madam Speaker, which changed dramatically after that big freshman class in 2011 arrived, and nondefense spending, which changed dramatically after that big class in 2011 arrived, trillions of dollars in debt has not occurred. Trillions of dollars in spending of American taxpayer dollars has not occurred. We have squeezed those budgets: the security budget and the nonsecurity budget, the defense budget and the nondefense budget. We have squeezed each of those budgets to make sure that we are getting a dollar's worth of value for the American taxpayer out of every dollar that we spend. The net result of that, Madam Speaker--that and a collection of economic outcomes that have been desirable--has led to a decrease in net interest spending: money that was not borrowed, interest that does not have to be paid--money that was not borrowed. Thus it didn't drive interest rates up. Those interest rates are lower on all the other money that has already been borrowed, not just trillions of dollars in savings on spending that was foregone, Madam Speaker, but trillions of dollars in savings of interest that was not paid. Why do I take the time to come down to the floor to tell that story, Mr. Speaker? It is because I grow weary, as I know all of my colleagues do, of reading the defeatist headlines that show up on the paper day after day after day: Congress failing; gridlock prevailing; bipartisanship dead; cooperation extinct. It is not true. What we have done together is worth bragging about back home. What we have done together is worth celebrating when we are together. What we have done together is worth using as a model for thinking about what we can do together again tomorrow. It doesn't matter whether you sit on the furthest right in this Chamber or the furthest left in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. That dollar worth of taxes raised from that American citizen is a valuable thing. It is a trust. There is a stewardship obligation to each and every one of those dollars. What do you want to use it for? Maybe you want to give it back to those American citizens. I am particularly pleased with the tax bill we passed that did exactly that. Again, passed it in the House, passed it in the Senate, moved it to the White House; done in a bicameral way. I think the American citizen can generally spend their dollar better than we can spend it on their behalf. I know they trust themselves to spend their dollar more than they trust us to spend it on their behalf. We could take that dollar, we could put it back in an American citizen's pocket. Leave it with them to begin with and never even take it. That is what we did with the tax cuts. We could invest that dollar in national security. We could look to see what is that additional training an airman might need; what is that additional equipment that a marine might need; what is that additional item that we could research, purchase, improve, repair, that would make a difference in the life of a man or a woman who is serving this country. We could spend that dollar on national security. We could spend that dollar on nondefense needs; research in Alzheimer's; research at our major universities; research into that next generational transportation outcome that is going to change the way that we deal with congestion in America. There are 1,000 different ways to spend each and every one of those dollars. It does not matter where you believe that dollar ought to go. It is a worthwhile purchase to make sure we are using that dollar, either with the American citizen in their pocket, with the DOD in the pursuit of national security, or with one of our great research institutions in pursuit of the next healthcare discovery, rather than paying it in interest to someone around the globe who lent us money in our time of need. We need to restrain those dollars today, Mr. Speaker, so that when we have a time of need in the future, we will be able to access them. The era of fiscal responsibility is not behind us; it is upon us. We have an opportunity each and every day together to squeeze those dollars until they scream; squeeze the value out of every nickel that comes through this institution. We have done it together, Mr. Speaker. This isn't an aspirational goal. This is a certain fact, that we have done it together year after year after year after year. This isn't something that maybe one day, if only we work hard enough, we can do. This is something we have achieved year after year after year after year. Let's not stop. Let's not stop. And let's not let folks tell us that we can't get it done together. Let's not give in to that devil on the left shoulder that says we should go down and run each other out and talk about why the institution fails. Let's give in to that angel on the right shoulder that talks about how, if we put our minds together, if we commit ourselves to one another, there is genuinely no limit to what we can do together. I am not just talking about what we can do together as the body here in the United States House, Mr. Speaker. And I am not just talking about what we can do together as a House and a Senate and a White House. I am talking about what we can do together as the American people. The strength of this institution has never been the 435 Members who are in it. It has been the 300 million Americans who have sent us here. The strength of this institution has never come from the Members. It has come from the Nation that lends us its power. I genuinely believe there is no limit to what we can do together. I am genuinely disappointed in those days that we give in to that devil on the left shoulder that tells us that running each other out, running each other down, denigrating the institution, denigrating the Nation, denigrating one another is the pathway to success. But we have had enough victories together. We have come through enough challenges together. When they said we would fail, we have succeeded together enough that I have great optimism not just about the next 10 months in this Chamber, but about the next decade, the next generation, the next hundred years for this country. We don't know when the economy is going to fail us, Mr. Speaker. We have to plan for that rainy day. We have been doing that. We have been doing it with spending at every single level in the government, and it has made the biggest difference in debt and deficits that I have seen in my lifetime. Let's build on that success. Let's recommit ourselves to that goal. Let's surprise the naysayers about the things that we do together. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, most of what you just heard from the Reading Clerk you could have heard during the previous 4 hours of testimony that we have been taking in the Rules Committee this morning. I understand there was no other game in town going on this morning, so if folks were tuning in to C-SPAN, they were treated to my friend from Massachusetts, our ranking member from New York, our chairman from Texas, and all the gang there on the Rules Committee as we worked through this. But forbid the thought if someone else had something else on their mind this morning, I want to go through just briefly what you heard from our Reading Clerk. This is a single rule that provides for consideration of two measures. The first is the Senate amendment to H.R. 1370. It is continuing appropriations to make sure the lights stay on and the checks go out the door. It makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of this continuing resolution. To debate that, Mr. Speaker, we provide an hour of debate divided between the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. I think every Member of this Chamber understands the nature of this legislation, but we provided that time nonetheless. The second measure is H.R. 4667. It is the disaster aid package. Mr. Speaker, as you know, this House has been working through, in a bipartisan way, funding our neighbors who have been so dramatically affected by disasters, whether in the Virgin Islands, in Puerto Rico, in Florida, in Texas, or the devastating wildfires in California. This has been a national focus, and billions of dollars have already gone out the door to meet the initial emergency needs. This is an additional appropriations measure. It comes under a closed rule, Mr. Speaker, but it does self-execute two amendments that had been offered: an amendment by Mrs. Mimi Walters and an amendment by Miss Gonzalez-Colon. It also provides for an hour of debate, equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and it provides for a motion to recommit for the minority. The rest of what you heard from the Reading Clerk, Mr. Speaker, was that typical language that you hear at the end of the year when Members are going to be traveling, to allow for the housekeeping that takes place here, to allow the House to continue to function as the traditional authorities provided in December and January during the district work period. With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I think we have exhaustively debated these issues. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Let's get on to the underlying measures. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. There has been a lot of productivity this week. There has been a lot of work that has gone on this week. I am looking around up there at the dais with you, Mr. Speaker. I see a lot of unshaven faces. I'm not just taking about Josef. I am talking about folks who intended to shave and might not have made it home last night to get that done. It takes an incredible amount of staff time to do this. So what Mr. McGovern and I do up in the Rules Committee, our staffs have been there past midnight time and time again this week and then back in at dawn. I wish that more of the American people, Mr. Speaker, could see the hardworking, dedicated staff, the team that goes into making all of this possible, because I think it would make them proud. I think, in a season like this, it would lift them up and make them feel better about who we are as a people and the things that we could accomplish together. One of those young people, Mr. Speaker, is Nate Blake on the Rules Committee. He is sitting right here behind me. He is leaving us after 5 years of service. I want to put that into perspective, Mr. Speaker. There is not a staff member up here that can't leave today and get better hours and more money going anywhere else in town. You will work on Capitol Hill for one reason and one reason only, and that is that you believe, if only you work hard enough and long enough, you would make America just a little bit better. Mr. Blake is one of those believers. We will miss him on the committee. It is a great honor for me that his very last rule is to be one of mine, and I thank him for his service. Mr. Speaker, they often say everything's been said but not everyone has said it. We don't need to go down that path today. This House has done its job. It has done its job in a collaborative way. It has done its job in a way that the American people can be proud of. If we pass this rule, we will not only fund the government, send money to the troops, send money to community health centers, send money to education, send money to courts, send money to the environment; we will not only take care of those funding responsibilities; we will also provide those dollars needed for those men and women spread out from Florida to Texas to California to Puerto Rico to the Virgin Islands. There is a real human being behind each and every one of these dollars that will go out the door today. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, vote ``yes'' on this rule so we can get to that underlying legislation.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Massachusetts that I have no further speakers and I am prepared to close when he is. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about what isn't in the bill today, and we could actually talk a lot longer about what isn't in the bill. It is a fairly narrowly focused bill, but what is in there, in addition to funding to keep the government operating, is funding for our community health centers that we all care so much about; is funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program--that is a bipartisan issue across this Chamber--is funding for the Special Diabetes Program. Mr. Speaker, that is so important to so many families. I can go on and on and on. Are there things that are not in this bill? Of course there are, and I look forward to coming back with my colleagues to address each and every one of those, but there is so much good that is in this bill, Mr. Speaker. If we conclude this debate to pass this rule, we can get on and make those things a reality. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this time of year folks get rightfully exorcised about the issues of the day. We all came here to do something for the men and women whom we represent back home. Every time we get to the end of a year, we think: I have got to get it done; I have got to get it done; I have got to get it done. I recognize those passions are going to exist. I actually don't believe for a minute that my friend from Massachusetts believes my vote in favor of the tax bill had anything to do with fundraising or my donors. He might believe that about somebody in this Chamber--I hope that he does not--but I know he doesn't believe it about me. It just isn't true. I have been fighting for tax reform since the day I was elected. In fact, I ran for this job to fight for tax reform. We do the American people a disservice when we suggest something nefarious is going on. Sometimes we just disagree, Mr. Speaker, and those disagreements are okay. In fact, those disagreements are expected. Our Founders intended them, and they created this institution to sort those disagreements out. So I hope we won't sell either ourselves or the American people short in that regard. But I do want to agree with my friend that this is frustrating. It is frustrating to be here for a continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker. Remember that we passed the National Security and Defense Appropriations bill in July of this year. We have waited patiently for the Senate to be able to take it up, and it has not. We passed all of the appropriations bills, Mr. Speaker, before the end of the fiscal year, back in September, and we have been waiting for the Senate to take those up. It has not. It is an incredibly frustrating time. Now, my friend suggested a solution would be bipartisanship. I could not agree with him more. It takes 60 votes to move something through the Senate. I just barely have over 50 Republicans. The only way these funding bills are going to move through the Senate is with bipartisan support. For anyone in this Chamber to deny that is going to be to deny the reality of math. Bipartisanship is the solution. I remember, Mr. Speaker, when my President invited the Democratic leadership down to the White House to work on exactly this issue a month ago. Folks got frustrated with the tweet he sent out that morning and decided they were going to stay home. I understand the frustrations. What I don't understand is missing out on an opportunity to build this bridge. It happens above my pay grade, I am going to confess. To the 700,000 people I represent back home, Mr. Speaker, let me go ahead and confess this deal is taking place way above my pay grade. But it is probably right there at the pay grade of the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, and the minority leader. When folks don't show up to the table for the conversation, it makes it harder to get there. Is there always a good reason to stay home? I am sure there is. Are there more good reasons to be there? I think the answer is: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I will advise my friend from Massachusetts that I don't have any speakers remaining this morning. Folks have been exhaustibly elucidated by the 4 hours of discussion we had this morning, and I am prepared to close when he is. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman that it appears I have committed all of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, you likely did, as I did yesterday, get a wonderful Christmas card from our friend from California, which I very much appreciated. She was there with her beautiful family. I appreciate the sincerity of her words today. I will just remind this Chamber that we are having that conversation for one reason and one reason only. That is because, when Democrats had the White House, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate, but--much like Republicans today--didn't have 60 votes to get around the filibuster, instead of President Obama and the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate trying to find a bipartisan pathway forward that could get 60 votes, they chose to craft an administrative solution, one that I thought was illegal, one that I thought was unconstitutional, but chose to go it alone. Mr. Speaker, that is not a blame statement. It is an explanation of some systemic challenges that exist in this place. I can assure my colleagues, and I am happy to have someone disabuse me of the notion, but I have yet to see the issue that we have solved by blaming each other more for it. I have yet to see that pathway to success. The pathway I have seen is when folks turn the cameras off, when they roll up their sleeves, when they decide they don't much care who gets the credit for a solution, they just want to solve it. I will put another one on my colleagues' plate, because, again, I don't doubt their sincerity. Raju is one of my constituents. He is here on an H1-B visa. His wife, Manju, is here on an H-4 visa. He came to this country legally 11 years ago. Every few years, he has to renew his visa, which costs thousands of dollars. When his visa expires, when his driver's license expires, he has to go back and do it. He is not complaining. That is what the law of the land said. When he agreed to come here, he agreed to follow the law of the land. He can't start his own business. He can't change employers. He is a captive of the visa program that he came in on. There is no pathway, Mr. Speaker, for Raju and Manju to get the same benefits that my colleagues are arguing so passionately for for 800,000 additional people. Mr. Speaker, the human stories don't begin and end with the DACA program. Again, a problem that President Obama created; not solved, but created. I can go line by line by line of folks who are facing similar challenges, and I question where the justice is when I can name constituent after constituent after constituent who has done everything right, who has paid every dime the government has asked, who has applied for every piece of paperwork that the government has asked, who has stood in every line that the government has asked, and there is no pathway forward for them. Let's not pretend that there is not common ground that we can come together on. Let's confess that perhaps we haven't spent enough time trying to do it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 670 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here, in these cold days outside, it is easy to create a lot of rhetorical heat on the inside. I would argue that legislative light is what we need more often than not. We brought the Children's Health Insurance Program bill to the floor that my friend from Texas just referenced, Mr. Speaker. We didn't just bring it to the floor; we brought it through committee. We brought it through committee, and we passed it. We brought it to the House floor, and we passed it. We sent it to the Senate, and there it sits. But when it passed the House floor, my friend from Texas voted ``no.'' He voted ``no.'' Now, do I believe for a moment that is because he hates children? I do not. Do I believe for a moment that it is because he doesn't want folks to have access to healthcare? I do not. I believe he had legitimate policy reasons for deciding not to reauthorize the program then that he has just taken to the floor and talked about the merits of reauthorizing. It is okay to disagree on those issues, and it is even okay to highlight those differences. What is not okay is to describe this Chamber as a Chamber that doesn't care. What is not okay is to describe this as a Chamber that doesn't act. My friend was absolutely right: it is a bipartisan priority to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program, and we did. The Senate has not acted. It hasn't gotten the full reauthorization done. If we pass the continuing resolution today, that funding will continue. Let's disagree on those things that we disagree about, but let's be honest with ourselves about the legitimacy of those disagreements. Let's try to find more light than heat in this new year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend from Florida is a good accountability partner up on the Rules Committee. I have learned from his intellect, and I have learned from his experience in this Chamber. I value that, and I value his friendship. When he says that more closed rules have been passed in this Congress than any other, he is absolutely right. He is absolutely right. And that is worth talking about, as my friend does regularly in the committee. Unfortunately, we usually just have that half of the conversation. What we don't talk about is that many of those closed rules were for bills that were so well worked out in a bipartisan way in committee that there were no amendments offered, that we had already come together in such a collaborative, productive, admirable way that we ought to be bragging about instead of denigrating that we didn't have amendments that were offered. Other bills, Mr. Speaker, were bills that might not have been so generally agreed upon. But when my friend the chairman of the Rules Committee sends the call out to all 435 Members of Congress and says: If you have any ideas, bring them to the Rules Committee. For many of those bills, Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one idea suggested, not one idea suggested to change the underlying bill. So did it come under a closed process? Well, of course, it did, if closed means we ask everybody for all of their ideas and no one had one, so there was no idea to debate on the floor. Mr. Speaker, there are so many ways that we can do better with one another, but I would suggest to my friends that the way to do better with one another is to build that on a foundation of trust, not a foundation of recriminations. We have an opportunity in this new year, Mr. Speaker, to turn a page in this institution. I want to say, in my time on the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, I have never had a chairman who worked as hard to open the process and hear from Members as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the current chairman. Time and time again, where other folks would have walked away from the table, the chairman has stayed there to get input, to hear ideas. Time and time again, when the process would have been truncated, he has extended it to make sure folks had a chance to have their voice heard. I am grateful for that, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the chairman for that model that he sets in that committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) to speak on this rule.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the chairman for yielding me the time. I have the great pleasure serving on the Rules Committee. I also have the great pleasure of serving on the Budget Committee. So I felt it incumbent to come down and talk a little bit about the Byrd rule process that goes on in the Senate. It is part of the 1974 Budget Act. It became a custom in the Senate during 1985 and 1986, and ultimately it was codified and put in the act permanently. To describe what went on in the Senate as some sort of proofreading error is just nonsense, just absolute nonsense. We have this process called reconciliation that allows the Congress, the House, and the Senate to get really tough things done. As a part of that process, the Byrd rule says: What we don't want to do is get involved in extraneous issues. We want to stay focused on these issues that are most important to the American people. So if you try to get outside the lanes of fundamental tax reform, those provisions become what they call ``Byrdable.'' But, Mr. Speaker, you are probably as uplifted as I am by the conversation you hear about the importance of bipartisanship and collaboration. I wish that that were more true. What we saw yesterday in the United States Senate I would tell you is a little bit of the pettiness that we see on Capitol Hill. Is it true that the Senate had the right to prevent parents who homeschool their children from being able to finance that homeschool education through taxes and 529 savings accounts? The Senate had that right under the Byrd rule and they exercised it. Democrats went after homeschooling parents and said: No tax breaks for you. They had the right to do it, but to describe that as some sort of proofreading error over here is a mistake. It was intentional to give homeschooling parents that opportunity and it was intentional when the Senate Democrats stripped it out. Secondarily, it was intentional to put a title on the bill: Jobs and Tax Cuts. It was intentional. That is why we came together to focus on this bill, because we care about jobs and we care about a 21st century tax system. Was the Senate completely within their rights to strip the title of the bill? Mr. Speaker, they were. If you believe when the Senate can't fund the government, when the Senate can't reauthorize CHIP, when the Senate can't reauthorize a 702--you go right down the list--and if you believe it is an important use of the Democratic minority's time on the Senate side to strike the title of the bill because it doesn't actually impact deficit reduction, it is within their right. Does it represent the highest and best use of their time? It does not. Does it represent the highest and best of those of us who are here in public service together? It does not. I recognize that we have fundamental disagreements about the impact of tax reform and its merits.