Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all of my colleagues 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 553 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman 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 would say to my friend from Massachusetts that I have no further speakers remaining. I would be happy to close when the gentleman is prepared. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a great day. I don't know how your Wednesday has gotten started, but we are now in the throes of budget day. Budget day only happens on the floor of this House once a year, and it is one of those times where I would tell you the House operates as every man, woman, and child across this country believes the House should operate every day. I have the great honor as a member of the Rules Committee and as a member of the Budget Committee of bringing this structured rule to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 71, the rule that we will be debating for the next hour, makes in order every single budget substitute that was offered in the Rules Committee. Now, let me tell you what that means in practical terms. Over the next 2 days, we are going to hear visions laid out for what the American government should spend, what American policies should look like, what the Federal budget should include. Over the next 2 days, we are going to hear visions laid out from every single Member or group in this institution that cared enough about this process to craft a budget of their own. Mr. Speaker, I serve in the Republican Study Committee. I was once chairman of the Budget and Spending Task Force on the Republican Study Committee. I had the honor of crafting a substitute budget to bring to the floor to offer for my colleagues' consideration. Over the next 2 days, any Member who has a voice that needs to be heard has had the opportunity. We put out the call last week. My friend from Massachusetts and I, we sit on the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. We send out the call to the membership in advance to say this is what we expect to happen in the Rules Committee, this is what we are going to be considering in the Rules Committee. We sent out the call for any Member of this House to craft their substitute amendment, and we received four. We received one from the Congressional Black Caucus, we received one from the Progressive Caucus, we received one from the Republican Study Committee, and we received one from the Democrats on the Budget Committee. Every single one of those has been made in order by the rule that I will ask my colleagues to support today. We are going to debate those. We are going to vote on those each individually, allowing everybody to have their say. That budget that this House ultimately agrees on collectively, collaboratively after these days of debate, we will then send to the United States Senate for its consideration. Mr. Speaker, they say that budgets are a reflection of values. I believe that to be true. We are going to have budgets on the floor of the House to consider that cut taxes, budgets that believe that the economy has not grown to its full potential, budgets that believe that the American workforce participation rate is still at historically low levels. We have to get men and women back into the workforce. We have to reward that dignity of work. We have budgets that are going to cut taxes in an effort to stimulate that job growth across this land. We have other budgets that are concerned that we are not bringing enough revenue into the government coffers. It is true, Mr. Speaker. I know you are thinking it. We are bringing in more tax revenue today than we have ever brought in in the history of the United States of America. That is true, but we are still running budget deficits. So we will consider those budgets today that don't necessarily believe that spending is the problem; they think it is tax collection that is the problem. We will consider budgets that raise taxes by about $2 trillion. We will consider other budgets that raise taxes by about $4 trillion. Mr. Speaker, I think we will even consider budgets that raise taxes by $9 trillion. Mr. Speaker, there are only two things that can happen in this institution. We either have to raise more revenue, or we have to cut spending, or we have to mortgage our children's future. Three things: raise taxes, cut spending, mortgage our children's future. Over the next 2 days, we are going to have that debate and we are going to have that discussion. I know where my constituency lands, Mr. Speaker. There are tough decisions that have to be made, and they believe they sent men and women to Congress to help make those tough decisions. We sit on the Budget Committee. That is what we do. If you have not gotten a chance to work with her this season, Mr. Speaker, Chairwoman Diane Black on the House Budget Committee, if there is a more patient and more persistent Member of this body, I don't know who that would be. She has worked tirelessly to move this process along, to get us to this point where we are today, trying to bring people together around a unified vision of what we can do and what we should do not just as an institution, but as a nation. I expect we will have some disagreements over the next 2 days, Mr. Speaker. It won't surprise me at all. In fact, I think this institution is characterized by the things that we disagree about. Certainly that is what the media would like to focus on. But at the end of this process, what will have to be said is that we have considered every idea, that we have considered every point of view, that we have made room for every voice, and that we have now come together on a common pathway forward. That is what is ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, if we support this rule that we are debating now. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I hope you will find that budget that meets your constituency's needs, support that underlying budget, and then let's move a budget to the United States Senate and speak with one voice for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what I love most about budget day is the fact that we do get to talk about our competing ideas. I do reject some of the implications that we have heard that what we are talking about is whether we love people or not. That is actually not the debate today. I want to stipulate that I know the men and women of this Chamber on a personal basis, and each and every one of them that I know personally loves and cares for their constituency back home. The debate that we have is not whether we love people; it is how to love people best. Do you love people best by giving them a check or giving them a job? That is a legitimate debate. Do you love people best by leaving their children with them or taking their children away from them? That is a legitimate debate. I believe in families. I believe in the dignity of work. I want to have those debates. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we describe what is going on here today on the floor of the House as anything other than our absolute legal and governmental responsibility to pass a budget for the United States of America. Wherever you sit on the continuum, the political continuum, the economic continuum, the regional continuum, there is a budget for you today. If what you believe, Mr. Speaker, is that the problems we have in this country are because taxes are not high enough, there is going to be a Democratic substitute coming out of the Budget Committee that will raise taxes about $2.4 trillion. If you think taxes are too low, we can raise them $2.4 trillion. That budget never balances. That budget never stops borrowing from our children and our grandchildren. That budget never stops mortgaging America's future. But it is a legitimate debate because folks are taking those funds and they are investing them in America. They are prioritizing that investment over balancing. If you believe $2.4 trillion is not enough, Mr. Speaker, we will have a budget from the Congressional Black Caucus today that will raise taxes by $4.2 trillion. We can raise taxes by $4.2 trillion. Again, that budget never balances. It spends all that money and more, but it is a legitimate debate about where those dollars come from and where those dollars are going. I am glad we are going to be able to have it. If raising taxes by $4.2 trillion isn't enough for you, Mr. Speaker, we have the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget on the floor. It raises taxes by just over $10 trillion. Again, the budget never balances. It spends all of that money and more and continues to borrow from our children and grandchildren, but it is a legitimate debate and it is a conversation worth having. I am proud that the Rules Committee made that debate in order. To describe what is happening on the floor of the House today, Mr. Speaker, as anything other than what is exactly expected of this institution is to do us all a disservice. I talked about making taxes higher. Let me talk a second about making taxes lower. I talked to some friends back home; I talk to constituents; I talk to folks for whom I work, and some of them might say: ``Rob, I have enough to feed my family, and if it means paying down the debt and deficit, I am willing to pay a little bit more.'' Other members in the community, Mr. Speaker, say: ``For Pete's sake, I am trying to grow a business here, Rob. I am trying to employ your friends and neighbors. I am trying to keep the community working. I am plowing everything I have back into the business. If I don't have to pay as much in taxes, I am going to be able to hire more people.'' The Republican budget, Mr. Speaker, takes a shot at once-in-a- generation tax reform--once in a generation. This isn't what we talked about last year or the year before that or the year before that. This is a conversation we have not had since Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill had it in 1986. This is a conversation that we have not had since America slipped from number one in the world to almost last in the industrialized world in terms of tax competitiveness. This is a conversation that America has longed for and that we can deliver today. Mr. Speaker, let's have these debates about what our priorities are. Let's have these debates about whether or not we can do better. At the end of the day, let's agree that we, in fact, can do better, that our bosses back home expect us to do better, and that by supporting this rule and supporting one of the underlying budgets, we, in fact, will do better. I encourage my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, support this rule, begin this debate. Let's pass this budget. Let's fulfill our promises. Let's make the difference that we all came here to make.

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of serving on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and I rise today in support of the 21st Century Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act. We call it the AIRR Act in the committee. H.R. 2997 is a unique opportunity in a bipartisan way to do something big together for the American people. I know we hear that a lot in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, but so often it seems like it is just out of our reach. That is not the case today. Under Chairman Shuster's leadership on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have worked to craft the kind of bold, forward-thinking reform that America's 21st century aviation system needs. It is in reach today to make that the law of the land. When we sit together to reauthorize the FAA, Mr. Speaker, it isn't just about attending to the Nation's business of ensuring safety of air travelers across the country. Of course, that is a priority, but it is an opportunity to implement the kind of innovative reforms that we have seen across the globe and that America needs to reestablish itself as the world's aviation leader. We have an opportunity together to deal with a bloated bureaucracy, to reduce taxpayer costs, to improve efficiency all in an industry that is designed to prioritize customer's experience and customer service. Mr. Speaker, Americans pioneered air travel, and we remain the safest aviation system on the planet. But our own outdated bureaucracy, our own outdated rules are standing in the way of American innovators and making air travel more time consuming, more costly, and safety innovations more difficult. Mr. Speaker, with this legislation, we have a chance to empower our innovators, to better serve our travelers, and to preserve the world's finest commitment to safety, as we always have. As is the case, Mr. Speaker, with any heavy lift, with any big task, there are always concerns in keeping America's system safe and the American people safe a highest among those concerns. Mr. Speaker, what you need to know today is that with the support of General Mattis, with the support of the Department of Defense, the AIRR Act has focused on preserving the primacy of preserving national security in our aviation infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, the bill has the support of those dedicated public servants at the Pentagon because it has been sensitive to these issues. It maintains the DOD's access and management of airspace. It doesn't allow user fees that are charged to passengers to be passed onto taxpayers through the DOD. It leaves intact the President's and the DOD's proper authorities to manage this space. In addition, it provides unequivocal definitions about the importance of defense to the American people and balances the needs of general aviation with the needs of the Department of Defense. The oversight will always remain with the FAA, with the DOT, and with the United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, after we preserve national security, we turn our attentions to the general aviation community. And if you have talked about this bill at all with any of your constituents back home, Mr. Speaker, you heard the concerns of the general aviation community about what it will mean to them to completely reform America's air traffic control system. Mr. Speaker, we have to balance the role of government oversight and accountability with private innovation. Our bill is designed to empower those innovators but to preserve the protections that GA has today. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to a graphic. You will find it at the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's website. It is transport.house.gov. You can't see it from where you sit, but I have line by line by line the law that we are talking about, the bill that we are talking about, the reforms that we are talking about, and how it protects our friends at the general aviation community. No fees. No new fees for our friends in general aviation, Mr. Speaker. If you have a doubt about that, look at section 9313, you will see ``charges and fees may not be imposed for air traffic services provided.'' Continuing airspace and airport access, Mr. Speaker, so important to American citizens involved in general aviation, again, I refer you to chapter 907: ``General rights of access to airspace, airports. . . . The Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that an air traffic services user is not denied access to airspace or air traffic services. . . .'' The stakeholder board, Mr. Speaker, the cooperatizing of air traffic services that we have seen done so successfully in Canada where they say they are getting twice the safety and modernization input for half the cost, getting it done in a third of the time, having done away with their bloated bureaucracy, the stakeholder board, Mr. Speaker, is defined by general aviation nomination. Transport.house.gov, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from California for yielding to me. As you know, Mr. Chairman, he is not just down here as the ranking member on the House Budget Committee. He is also the leader of the Republican Study Committee's Budget and Spending Task Force. The leadership he has provided in all those areas means a lot to the entire institution. I am grateful to him for it. I also want to say I am grateful to my friends in the Progressive Caucus. I disagree with their budget, and I plan to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, how often do we come down here and folks want to complain about what is not going right, but they don't want to do anything about it? To my friends' credit in the Progressive Caucus, they laid out a vision, and that is exactly what I came here to Congress to be a part of. Let's lay out our visions. Let's have some votes. Let's count those votes and see where we go from there. As you know, Mr. Chairman, absolutely any group could offer a budget today, yet we only have four alternatives being considered. That tells you something about how hard it is to put your ideas forward. So I want to thank my friends on the Progressive Caucus for doing that. I want to run through a couple of things that their budget includes, Mr. Chairman. It includes a 4 percent pay increase for Federal workers across the board. It includes $500 billion in green energy incentives. It imposes a carbon tax to deal with greenhouse gases. It cuts $70 billion from the Defense Department and, in fact, eliminates altogether the spending on the global war on terror. Mr. Chairman, these are all legitimate policy disagreements. Their budget also increases revenues, taxes, by $10 trillion, but spends so much more on American priorities that we continue to end up with almost a $1 trillion annual deficit in year 10. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of debate that we have to have. I want to understand the priorities of my friends. I want to understand where they want to see more investments. And then I want to understand how it is we are going to balance this budget together. Because what is lacking in this plan, Mr. Chairman, what frustrates me the most about the Progressive Caucus plan is not the investment in green energy, it is not the investment in the Federal workforce, it is not the investment in healthcare; it is the fact that they don't believe we can do these things while raising taxes by $10 trillion on the American people and balance the budget at all. Mr. Chairman, if folks want to raise taxes in this institution--I think our problem is a spending problem. I don't think it is a taxing problem, but I am willing to have that discussion with them to understand their point of view. But the reason I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this budget is not because it raises taxes $10 trillion; it is because it raises taxes $10 trillion, yet continues to borrow from our children and our grandchildren in the form of annual debt and deficits. I think we can do better. But we cannot do better without an honest discussion of the issues, Mr. Chairman. Say what you want to about the budgets you are going to see on the floor here, these alternatives that we are going to discuss. There are a lot of talking heads on TV who just want to talk about it and don't want to do anything about it. If you are looking for a ray of hope today, look at the Progressive Caucus, which I disagree with about almost everything as it comes to how to peg the numbers, but they put their vision forward tonight. They said: Let's take a stand tonight. If we can work together across that aisle, Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely nothing that we cannot do on behalf of the American people. Vote ``no'' on this budget, but applaud the effort that has gone into it such that we can try to find common ground going forward. If we have but one thing to agree on in this institution, let it be to agree to pay for those things that we think are important. Whether it is wars or whether it is green energy, whether it is troops or whether it is Federal employees, let us agree that we should pay for those things today with our dollars, and the borrowing from our children and grandchildren should be ended forever.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am always compelled to yield to my friend from New York because I am so fond of her and because her leadership has meant so much to this institution. My friend has served on the Rules Committee for even longer than I have, and so my friend understands how the Rules Committee works even better than I do. I don't want to engage my friend in a colloquy, at least not in my closing statement. We should have this conversation on day 1. Please, my friend from New York, give us one more word.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend's constructive counsel, but I know for a fact that her calendar looks just like mine does, and that means that we are going in in the early afternoon and we are not getting out till late at night. Why? Because you and I are sitting just three Members apart listening to Member after Member make their case, and in the spirit of accuracy, don't let it be said that our Members coming and testifying doesn't make a difference because it does. You and I both believe that. We know it to be true, and it is important that it be true. Those Members come and they testify, they make their case, and then we vote up or down on those amendments. Mr. Speaker, can we do better? We can. And I will work with absolutely any colleague of any political stripe of any region to do better at any time, but let's do recognize that we made a commitment to ourselves to get this job done for the first time in a decade. By coming to the floor right now, Mr. Speaker, quarter of 2 on a Thursday afternoon passing this rule, we are going to get this job done together for the first time in a long time. Will we wake up tomorrow and try to do better? You know that we will. Should we take a moment to thank the folks who helped us get here? You know that we should. Mr. Speaker, you are surrounded left and right by Members of the House team. The parliamentarians worked tirelessly to approve the amendments, to make sure they are all written and drafted properly. I want to thank the parliamentarian team for the work that they do. Mr. Speaker, we kick CBO a lot in this place because we don't like their score one day, we like it the next. CBO has to go through these amendments, score these amendments. I am grateful to them for the work they did to make this possible. Legislative counsel goes through, with each Member of Congress, making sure that every ``i'' is in the right place, every ``t'' is crossed. It is not a small task. It is a gargantuan task, and they do it on these big bills day in and day out. I am grateful for that. You are starting to see some of the appropriators come down, Mr. Speaker. Long after my friend from New York and I have left this Chamber, the appropriations team is going to be here until the wee hours of the morning once again going through each and every line and each and every amendment. I think about what my friend from Louisiana said about the school children who are turning on C-SPAN and watching this process. I don't know what they think goes into making this happen, but what I know goes into making this happen is a lot of hard work, staff work, Member work, a lot of big hearts, and a lot of big brains sitting down together hashing through these issues. This rule is worth supporting. The underlying legislation is worth supporting, Mr. Speaker, and I ask all of my colleagues to do exactly that.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), one of our leaders from the great State of California.

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

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. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the comments of my friend from California. She is absolutely right. When Republicans took control of this Chamber, they committed themselves to having a more open process. I was a part of that freshman class that came in to give Republicans a majority, and we have made good on that process. I want to talk about that just for a little bit. My friend from California serves on the Appropriations Committee, and I thank her for her service, Mr. Speaker. When you want to talk about an open process, that Appropriations Committee went through every single bill one subcommittee at a time, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, indeed, month after month. I am grateful to her for that service. The bill would not be as good as it is but for the men and women who serve on the Appropriations Committee. But I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons I was proud to be carrying the rule today is that we haven't gotten the appropriations process completed on time since Democratic leadership was able to achieve that back in 2009. They couldn't do it in their last year in power, 2010. In fact, they didn't do the appropriations bills at all. They punted it off to the next Republican Congress. But in 2009 they did. When I talk about that commitment to openness, let's remember, last time we had this shared success together and my friends on the other side of the aisle were leading, they allowed 17 amendments to the Financial Services bill. We are allowing twice that many today. When my friends were leading this institution the last time we completed this process, they allowed 13 amendments to the Interior bill. We are allowing six times that many. When my friends on the other side of the aisle were leading this institution, the last time we successfully completed this process, they allowed five amendments to the Labor-HHS. We are allowing 10 times that many. When my friends on the other side of the aisle were leading this institution, the last time we successfully completed this process on time, they allowed zero amendments to the Commerce-Justice-Science bill. We allow 49--infinitely more. My friends, can we always do better together? We can. I am grateful to my friends for the hard work they put in showing up day after day to do that better. But this bill is better, and if we pass this rule, we will move to the debate on this bill, and we will complete this process on time in the most open fashion that any of my colleagues have seen in decades. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have a long and proud history in this House, but it is sometimes tough to remember exactly how that history goes, Mr. Speaker. My friend from New York has her picture up on the wall in the Rules Committee room. If you haven't been up there, Mr. Speaker, you should go see it. My friend from New York is the first woman to have ever led the United States House of Representatives Rules Committee. She led it ably and proudly for the 4 years that the Democrats were in the majority the last decade. It is a hard job because, as the chairman of the Rules Committee or the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, you have to make decisions. When the bills come to you from the committees of jurisdiction--the authorizing committees--you often have to completely reorganize those bills. You have to meld those bills together. It is a powerful committee because it has a solemn responsibility. Yes, in the area of Rules Committee jurisdiction and the melding of all of those pieces of legislation is what amendments get added and what amendments get taken away. My friend from California (Ms. Lee), has an absolutely legitimate gripe, as does my friend from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Mr. Speaker, we all think our amendments are the greatest amendments to be known. Mr. Scott led, to his credit, with saying: I am glad so many of my amendments were made in order, but I am appalled my one amendment was kept out. We all want all of our amendments in. But to my friend from New York's comment that Democrats don't get a fair shake, I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, when my friend was leading the committee, the entire House of Representatives was offered 139 chances to change the appropriations bill in 2009, the last time we completed it. With Paul Ryan leading the institution, with my friend from Texas, Pete Sessions, leading the Rules Committee, we made 214 Democratic amendments in order. We have made more minority amendments in order in this process than my friends on the other side made in order for the entire House. Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to fear from openness. We have nothing to fear from a robust debate. I am so glad that we have had a chance to do that. But history should be reported accurately. The accuracy is: we can always do better. But we are doing better today than we were just a few short years ago. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from New York that I do not have other speakers remaining, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. I will say to my friend that I have no better days than the days that you and I are working together. I absolutely look forward to that.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a good day. It is going to be a good day. I don't know if you came down to Washington as a young man. I remember sitting right up there on the second row of the gallery, and I came into the Chamber and I was so excited. It was my first visit to see the people's House. The Reading Clerk was standing there at that podium and read and read. I had absolutely no idea what was going on, and here nobody hands you a pamphlet or anything to tell you what is happening on the floor of the House. I thought the activity was going to happen down here, and it was all going on up there at the podium. That has been 40 years ago now. I now see that however long that conversation happens, it lays the groundwork for what is going to be an even greater conversation here on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, I am fond of saying that if you come to this institution on the right day, you are going to see a festival of democracy take place right here. Today is going to be one of those days. If you were on the House floor yesterday, you saw us take up the first of these divisions in this appropriations bill. Today, because of the work that my friend from New York and I did with the rest of the members of the Rules Committee right up there last night, we are bringing to the floor the remaining four divisions of H.R. 3354; 224 additional amendments. 224 additional amendments. Division A is the Interior section; division C is the Commerce, Justice, Science section; division D is the Financial Services section; division F is the Labor, HHS, and Education section. When I was on the floor yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I talked about how proud I was of the work that we have all done here together. This annual appropriations process has been conducted in a more comprehensive fashion this year than in any other year in my memory. When we get jammed, you end up with one of those long-term, yearlong continuing resolutions that shut out every Member's voice. In a good year, maybe, you end up with one of those giant leadership-negotiated White House and the leader of the House and the Senate omnibus appropriations bills that shut out all but two or three voices. This year, the Appropriations Committee, beginning its work way back in April, has worked through every single appropriations bill one by one at the committee level, and we are seeing the culmination of that effort here on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, it has been since 2010 that the House has finished its work before the September 30 fiscal year deadline. It was the 2009 calendar year. They were doing the work for the 2010 fiscal year. It is hard to get this done, and it doesn't happen because Democrats are successful or Republicans are successful. It happens because the collaboration that we have together is successful, and we are seeing the result of that today. If we pass the underlying rule, we will make in order those 224 amendments, we will begin that process of debating the last four divisions, and we will have the voices of this House heard. We went until midnight last night, Mr. Speaker. We went until midnight the night before that. I suspect midnight is going to seem early to us where we are headed over the next couple of days. But at the end of that process, Republicans, Democrats, folks from all regions of the country, are going to be able to look each other in the eye and know that--in a way that makes folks back home proud--we worked through each and every appropriations bill and we got our work done on time. That is why I ran for Congress, Mr. Speaker, to deliver results back home, and that is why I am proud to be standing with my friend from New York today delivering on those promises. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend is absolutely right, there is a lot of work to get done. That is why we both ran for Congress, to get that work done. I am incredibly optimistic that we will get that work done. I wish from time to time we would celebrate our successes as fiercely as we observe our failures. My friend is absolutely right, there was a time in congressional history where appropriations bills came to the floor and any Member could offer any amendment they wanted at any time, and the process could go on for days or weeks or months. To my friend's point, we can reminisce about those days and celebrate them, but we can't do it at the same time we observe the very limited deadlines that we have now trying to get work done. It was back on August 24 that the Rules Committee created a deadline and said: We want to have every Member have their voice heard. We want to hear from every single Member on every single appropriations bill to understand what it is you would do differently to have the bills serve America better. We created that deadline, Mr. Speaker, for exactly the reason my friend from New York suggested, and that is so folks would have the time to look at those amendments, to digest those amendments, to be thoughtful about those amendments. Now, it turns out even in a body of 435 Members, you can have some repetitive ideas. It turns out a lot of us think a single amendment is a good idea. The Rules Committee looked at amendments and found multiple Members had exactly the same idea. In order to speed the process along, we let one of those Members offer the amendment; we asked the other Members not to. That is not closing down the process. That is a good use of the American people's time, because we have so much that we must get done together. Mr. Speaker, for folks who care about openness--and I am one of those Members--I just want to remind you that it is not just the 1,000-plus amendments we looked at in the Rules Committee. It is thousands upon thousands that were worked through the Appropriations Subcommittee process, and then the Appropriations full committee process. The appropriations process is one of the best opportunities for any Member in this Chamber to make their priorities known, act on those priorities, change the law of the land for the men and women they serve back home. Every single Member of this Chamber knows of that process, avails themselves of that process, and if we pass this rule, we will make several hundred more amendments in order and complete this process for the first time since 2009. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.