Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I look forward to working with my friend from Colorado to fight terrorism in this country. We have bill after bill after bill after bill that we are working on collaboratively here. We need go no further than the Defense Appropriations bill, which we all know needs to move across this floor. We know NDAA is a perennial challenge that we work on together and collaboratively in order to give folks the tools that they need. And certainly not to diminish the role this body has in fighting terrorism, this body also has a role in governing the civil service system. This happens to be a civil service bill today. Instead of bringing seven different rules on seven different bills and taking up all of that floor time talking about the civil service, we have combined them all into one bill so that we can move expeditiously and we can take care of the business that is important to do. Far from taking tools away from the civil service, this bill adds tools to the civil service. Instead of a 1-year probationary period, it is 2. Instead of having to demote someone, you have a possibility of removing someone. If the behavior is egregious, this is an addition of tools to the civil service arsenal. We heard testimony in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker, of a survey of Federal Government employees who themselves said it is too difficult in the current system to get rid of underperformers in their midst. Who among us does not want to work in a team of excellence? I am very inspired by the commitment of so many of the men and women in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. Folks that are depicted in the media as scoundrels, I am proud to work with so many folks here because they are hard-working public servants who want to do the right thing for their constituents back home even when we disagree. But I will tell you that, far from being a bill targeting this President, this bill has nothing to do with the President. Far from this being an opportunity to try to rein in the President's powers, I would remind my friend from Colorado, Mr. Speaker, that the Constitution gives absolutely no rulemaking authority to the President whatsoever. I will say that again. The President of the United States under the United States Constitution has absolutely no rulemaking authority whatsoever. Every bit of rulemaking authority granted to the President of the United States is, in fact, a grant, and it is a grant that comes from the United States Congress. To characterize having this institution do oversight on its delegation of its responsibilities to the chief executive officer, to characterize that as some sort of anti-Obama agenda is ludicrous. In fact, I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, it has been Presidents of both parties as lame ducks, while they are on their way out the door, when they are no longer accountable to anyone in America any longer, who have pursued their most aggressive rulemaking role in those lame duck days, in those final 2 months after the last election their Presidency has taken place. I don't understand how we are served by that on either side of the aisle, on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. And I would remind the entire Chamber that the rulemaking that goes on in executive branch agencies is rulemaking in pursuit of the goals that we have legislated. To suggest that failing to implement rules and regulations is somehow harming the President is ludicrous. It is this Congress that has passed the laws that need to be implemented. We are equally harmed in this way. My challenge to the White House, Mr. Speaker, is don't put it off. For Pete's sake, whatever you have got going on out there that is so mission critical that it could be described as an attack on the integrity of the administration for us to try to rein it in today, let's go ahead and get it done today, let's go ahead and roll that rule out tomorrow, let's go ahead and see it done in August, there is time in September and October. Every American citizen is instinctively suspicious of what goes on in this town in lame duck sessions. They are suspicious because time and time again they see things happen in lame duck sessions that could never have happened otherwise. Far from being an attack on the administration, Mr. Speaker, this bill is in service to the American people, and that is why I am proud to represent it today. I do hope we can get expeditiously again to the passage of this rule and to the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will tell my friends, I have only had a voting card in this institution for 5\1/2\ years, but I have learned enough in those 5\1/2\ years to know that we can't consider every issue every day. The gentlewoman from Connecticut just had her State ObamaCare exchange taken over by Federal regulators this week because it is so financially unstable. It was the 14th of 23 of these exchanges that have failed in the intervening year. Not failed the American taxpayer, though they have, but failed the American citizens who were forced into them. I will wait to hear if anybody is going to come to the floor today to wonder why it is we are not focused on abolishing those punitive actions, if we are going to have anybody come to the floor today and ask what we are going to do for those 400,000 people in Connecticut who we forced into an exchange that is now in receivership. We can't do every issue every day. I hope we will get to these issues as well, Mr. Speaker. But let's not minimize what this bill is today. I am not going to characterize anyone's motives, Mr. Speaker, but the reason this bill was necessary to begin with is because the Federal labor unions that represent Federal Government employees were standing between us and some serious national security concerns. Now, that hasn't been raised yet. But I want to make sure that if we are going to go down some rabbit holes, that we try to come back to why this is so important. At the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Speaker, they saw an uptick in the infections of their computer system. Now, they are mandated by Federal law to protect the Federal IT infrastructure. And when they delved further, Mr. Speaker, what they found was that individuals accessing their personal email, their Web mail, from their office computer was providing the gateway for these infections at the Department of Homeland Security. So, as you would expect, the Department of Homeland Security--and this was in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement subdivision--said no more Web mail until we get this figured out. The labor union filed suit. The labor union appealed that decision and said: No, no, no, no, I understand that you are trying to protect national security here, but we think we have collective bargaining rights and that our employees have the right to access their personal email on their work time and you cannot take this step to protect national IT infrastructure security without coming to the labor union collective bargaining table first. That is just nonsense. That is just nonsense. Now, you don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. I don't claim to be a labor union attorney. I have never done that kind of work. But I will read from the report. This is the dissenting member, because when the labor union appealed to the labor union board, the board came down in their favor. The dissenting member of the board wrote this. He said: It is obvious to me (after having served for seven and a half years as the chief information officer at the U.S. Department of Labor) that neither the FLRA-- That is the board. --nor the arbitrator possesses the specialized knowledge or expertise that would permit us to decide when a Federal agency ought to address specific security risks or permit us to second-guess how that agency should exercise those responsibilities. This is a member of the labor board saying: Guess what? Having been the chief information officer, I can tell you this board has no skills that enable it to make decisions in this area. He goes on: I cannot conclude that Congress intended for our statute to be read so expansively as to impose additional-- In this case bargaining. --requirements on Federal agencies before they can act to secure the integrity of their Federal IT systems, the breach of which could directly impact our Nation's security and economic prosperity. Mr. Speaker, this is a member of the labor board saying: I cannot believe that what Congress intended was to give labor relations so much power in this country that agency heads would be prevented from acting in the name of national security. And he was right. He was right. But you don't have to take my word for it that he is right. If this rule passes, if this bill comes to the floor, we are going to pass it again today. If you wonder what it was Congress intended, you need wait no further in the middle of the afternoon here on a Wednesday to find out what Congress intended because we are going to act on it again. It is lunacy, it is lunacy to suggest that collective bargaining rights have to run in conflict with national security. But that is the way the labor board came down. And only with the passage of this statutory change will we be able to see that Congress' original intent is fulfilled.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to my friends that I believe in this institution, and I believe in the debates that we have here. I was very disappointed in what I saw before the Fourth of July when folks took away the voices of many of us on the floor, and did so in violation of the rules that I hold to be very important; but I am grateful to my friends for the way that they are doing their debate today. They have an important issue that they want to spend time on, and I would be happy to reserve so that they could continue to do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 803 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to tell my friend from Connecticut how much I appreciate his comments. You don't solve big issues by fussing at each other on TV. You solve big issues by sitting down with each other and talking about them. I appreciate the gentleman's accepting the Speaker's invitation. It was an earnest effort to try to find a pathway forward. I am proud to serve in a House that is led by someone who is committed to finding pathways forward and to doing them in the collaborative way that the gentleman from Connecticut described. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, this week, the Rules Committee issued two announcements outlining the amendment process for H.R. 5485, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2017, and H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016. The deadline for amendments to be submitted for H.R. 4768 has been set at 10 a.m. on Monday, June 20. The deadline for amendments to be submitted for H.R. 5485 has been set for noon on Monday. The text of each bill and more detailed information can be found on the Rules Committee Web site, and Members are welcome to contact the Rules Committee staff with any questions they might have.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I love watching my friend from Florida speak. The only thing I love more than watching him speak is talking to him one-on-one when the cameras are turned off. It is not as easy as it ought to be in 2016 to come to the floor of the House and speak one's mind. Folks are worried about what the newspapers are going to say. Folks are worried about what the news is going to broadcast. Folks are worried about what the Twitterverse is going to do. A lot of folks will tell you one thing when the cameras are on and another thing when the cameras are turned off, Mr. Speaker, but Alcee Hastings is not one of those folks. It is the same message no matter who he is talking to and no matter where he is saying it because he comes from a place of conviction, and I love serving with people like that. Truthfully, Mr. Speaker, if folks knew that it wasn't just their Member of Congress that was like that, but it was the one next door, and the one down the road, and the one across the river, and the one upstate, I think we would have a very different discussion about whether Congress is working or whether Congress is failing. But, Mr. Speaker, when I try to sort those issues out, I don't really have to go back home to figure out why folks are disappointed. I don't even have to go back to the public record. I don't have to go any further than this one debate on this one legislative day. Just in our hour together, Mr. Speaker, I have heard Members suggest that this House is using tactics not seen since Joe McCarthy. I wouldn't pay for that. I have heard Members suggest that this House is perpetuating racism and hate. I wouldn't pay for that. I have heard that there are dastardly things happening in the work of this institution. I am not going to pay for that. I have heard that we have been involved in activities particularly shameful. Mr. Speaker, I think we have all got a great relationship with the men and women who send us here to serve them. We have a special relationship, and a relationship that, I think, the men and women in this Chamber work exceptionally hard to make good on; but when we use the credibility that we develop in that relationship to tell folks that we are broken, to tell folks that we are worthless, to tell folks that the greatest experiment in self-governance that the world has ever known is failing, they believe us. They believe us. Mr. Speaker, the discussions that we have, the differences that are brought to life on this floor, those are not failures. Those are successes. The back and the forth, the fights that we have, the headlines that get made when folks just can't agree, those are not failures: those are successes. When the Framers put together this Constitution, Mr. Speaker, they made it hard--they made it hard to change the law of the land. It was supposed to be the rare thing that happened when we all came together and found agreement, and when we did, it was going to be in the best interest of a young Nation. Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues challenge us to defeat this bill today, as if funding the United States Congress is a self-serving action. I don't know who the self-serving Members of this institution are, Mr. Speaker, because I have not met them. My friend from Texas came to the floor, and she said: If we don't get our work done, NIH will not be funded. And she is right. She said: If we do not get our work done, justice reform will not happen. And she is right. She said: If we do not get our work done, families that are struggling to respond to floods in her home part of the country will not get the dollars. And she is right. She is right. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about changing the appropriations process to allow a little less openness, and I regret that. We are talking about it because, in the name of doing that energy and water bill that she spoke of, in the name of passing those bills that are essential to the functioning of the country, in the name of doing that responsibility that the Constitution places squarely on our shoulders, we have folks who pass amendments to bills only to let those bills fail. I would tell you, as someone who believes in an open process, who believes in an open process, that if we can have that festival of democracy that is an open rule on an appropriations bill, let's have it. Let's let the votes fall where they may, and then send that bill to the Senate and on to the White House and make it the law of the land. But if in the name of making a point, we prevent this institution from doing its constitutionally mandated business, if in the process of making a political point, we prevent this institution from providing the money for that fundamental research, from providing the money for that flood relief, from providing the money for essential justice reform, I tell you, we have not honored this Nation with an open process; we have failed it. And the question then falls to us: Are we going to have an open process that allows every Member to speak out on behalf of their constituency to fight for what may be best for this Nation that we all love? Or are we going to have election-year politics, decide that being able to produce that press release is more important than getting our work done? I happen to know the answer, Mr. Speaker. I happen to know the answer because I happen to know each one of these Members on a personal level. There is not one of them who wouldn't turn in their voting card tomorrow if they could take a vote on the biggest issue that matters to them today. There is not one of them that wouldn't turn in their voting card tomorrow if they could make a difference for this generation and the next generation today, and I love that about them. I love it about each and every one of them. Passing this bill lets those folks come to work and get this job done. Passing this bill allows us to get to work doing those things that I believe will honor the men and women who sent us here. Passing this rule allows us to get to the underlying bill that will keep the lights on not just for constituent service back in every district in this land, but the lights on in what I would argue is the greatest deliberative body, the greatest embodiment of self-governance that this world has ever known.

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

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

Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I confess that I had no idea the Library of Congress was even in the subject change heading business. It wasn't until I read a press release from somebody talking about this issue that I even knew this issue existed. But now that I know it exists, I know that it doesn't exist in subject titles at the Library of Congress. It exists in the United States Code that is the law of the land for the greatest free nation this world has ever known. You want to talk about shame on us? Shame on us for letting the librarians decide when the debate begins and when the debate ends. It is the United States Code and the responsibility falls to one body and one body only, and that body is here. I want to go back home, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell my constituents they are getting every dollar's worth out of this institution and, candidly, I believe they are getting more value today than they were yesterday and they got more value yesterday than they did a week ago or a month ago or a year ago. I think we are getting better. I will give you a small example. We talk about legislative branch funding as if it is some sort of self-serving institution. That is just nonsense. We came here with one job and one job only, and that is to serve our constituents back home. This cycle we have passed the FAST Act, the first long-term transportation funding bill in 20 years. We did it together. We couldn't do it alone. We did it together. Mr. Speaker, after 17 years of kicking the can down the road on the sustainable growth rate, that Medicare tag line that threatened care for every single senior citizen on Medicare, 17 years of kicking it down the road, we came together and abolished it forever. Forever. We did it together because that is the only way we could get it done. The Visa Waiver Program improvement. Mr. Speaker, S. 139, the bill that made it easier for people with rare diseases to get involved in clinical trials. Can you imagine? Can you imagine a government that in the name of helping people said: Oh, no, you can't try that new cure. It might hurt you. When your response is, Mr. Government, I am dying, it is my only chance of survival. We fixed that. One of many things about what is best about this institution, Mr. Speaker, Time and time again, we come together to solve real problems that real people have asked of us. That is what this funding bill is about. I hope we are going to move past this bill today. I hope we are going to get back to regular order. It pains me that in an election year, it threatens the free and open debate that this institution prides itself on. But I think that is just fear. I think we are better than that. I think we are going to get past it. But that is not the debate today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Going back to my friend from Florida's case that we have hardworking men and women here who haven't had a pay raise in 9 years, if we are a part of a body that perpetuates racism and hate, I don't want a single one of us to get a penny. I don't want a single one of us to get a penny. My experience is that is not at all who we are. That is not who we are at all. My quick text search of the U.S. Code--and I am a lawyer, but I haven't read the Code cover to cover--tells me that ``illegal alien'' is referenced 32 times, even in a single title. Let's go change it. If you want to get rid of it, let's go in and get rid of it. Don't act like this is beyond our control and if only we can fix the Library of Congress, suddenly we can solve all that ails us. This is the United States Code. If you don't like the Code, change the Code. Tell me that we are ineffective and we can't get that done? We are talking about a title change here, one that we have already done, already this Congress. We eliminated the last reference to ``Oriental'' in the United States Code. We do these things together, but we don't do them by accusing one another of promoting racism and hate. We do those things by talking to one another.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I am not suggesting anything of the kind. I am suggesting that the language that folks are describing as offensive says from the Congress to the Library of Congress, use the laws passed by Congress. If we don't like the laws of the land, we have a process to change them, and for better or for worse, that process begins in the committee on which the gentlewoman serves. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so that I can continue my discussion with my friend from Florida.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I understand that my friend has great passion on this issue. What I love about this Chamber is that it allows people to come and express their passions. But I serve on the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has original jurisdiction of the unfunded mandate point of order, and it is designed to prevent Congress from imposing unfunded mandates--rules that we are not going to pay for--on outside institutions: State governments, local governments, and tribal governments. By definition, this is the legislative branch appropriations bill. It funds the Library of Congress. We are absolutely funding what this bill is asked to do. To debate the merits of the underlying language is absolutely legitimate debate. But to use this point of order, which is almost a textbook definition of what this point of order does not apply to, is a dilatory tactic, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that we vote to dispense with that, oppose this point of order, and get on to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I applaud my friend for coming down here and speaking on the underlying bill. I think it is very important that we have the conversations that we will have on the underlying bill. But it is also important, in the name of good government, to use these points of order for the purpose these points of order were intended to be used. The Library of Congress cannot spend one penny except for those dollars provided in the underlying legislation. Yes, the underlying legislation has mandates for the Library of Congress, but those mandates are funded because that is the only way the Library of Congress can be funded. This is an incredibly important point of order, Mr. Speaker. The power that we have in this body to dictate to State, local, and tribal governments what they must do and then refuse to pay the bill is a dangerous practice that this institution recognized when it created this point of order to avoid. I hope my friends on both side of the aisle will continue to bring up unfunded mandates points of order when they are applicable. But I implore my colleagues: Do not take a vote to suggest that a point of order designed to prevent us from putting unfunded costs on local governments should apply when we are funding the responsibilities of the Federal Government. That perverts the intent, and it undermines our ability to use this point of order effectively in the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge us to allow the House to continue our business for the day. Vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 771 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, the buzz you hear around this Chamber, I suspect, is enthusiasm for the underlying bill. This is the legislative branch appropriations bill for FY 2017, and it is the single piece of legislation that enables all of the constituent services that go on from this institution. I want to say that again. Not one act of constituent service would go on anywhere in this country but for this underlying text. It is the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, led by my friend and colleague from Georgia, cardinal Tom Graves. They do great work on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, Mr. Speaker. It is no surprise to my colleagues in this Chamber that the House Appropriations Committee has been hard at work in producing those 12 appropriations bills that we are required to pass every year. Our success record in getting that done as a body has been spotty, but the success record of our committee in getting that done has been historic. Even more, unlike many bills that come to this floor, the Appropriations Committee has said: Do you know what? We did the very best that we could do, but we welcome the input and counsel from our colleagues because we all have different experiences; we all come from different parts of the country; and we all have something to add. So this bill, Mr. Speaker, makes in order 13 different amendments-- seven offered by Republicans, six offered by Democrats--so that we can improve this bill and discuss this bill even more. Among the top line items in the bill is the funding for our Capitol Police. No more so than this year have folks had the Capitol Police on their minds. The service that those men and women provide is indispensable in this Chamber, and I would argue, more than it is valuable to us and more than it is valuable to our constituents who visit this Chamber every day throughout the year, it is valuable to the families of those who send their loved ones to work here each and every day. This bill funds the Architect of the Capitol. We talk so much about spending reductions and trying to be responsible. I am so proud of the spending record in terms of those reductions on inefficient programs that this Chamber has generated, but we have priceless American treasures right here in this building. I recall when you could see the water running down from the Capitol dome as it destroyed those precious American, historical treasures. So this bill funds the Architect of the Capitol so that we are not a penny-wise and pound-foolish in terms of our obligation to tend to America's treasures. This bill funds the Government Accountability Office. I dare say there is not a Member of Congress in this institution who hasn't had a constituent ask about a GAO report, who hasn't had occasion on his own to ask our auditing agency--our accounting office--to do a study of the best ways to use our resources, to make use of the limited resources that we have. They provide an incredibly valuable, nonpartisan service so that we can do the very best for our constituents back home. Mr. Speaker, this bill is funded at a level that is lower than the level was when I arrived in this Chamber. It is lower than the level was in 2009 and in 2010. I think that is important, because I think thrift really does begin at home. Throughout every year that I have been in this institution--I am now in year 5--we have absolutely gone after inefficient programs elsewhere in the government. We have absolutely tried to make a difference in curbing that tidal wave of debt that threatens the next generation, but we have started here in each and every bill. Mr. Speaker, folks don't know it. The newspapers always carry the stories of excess on Capitol Hill. I don't know where they find those excess stories. I will tell you that the allotment for the spending of my office--for all of the constituent service that we do--is less than was allotted 10 years ago. Inflation corrodes it, and the job market erodes it. Time and time again, every dollar buys less, as every American family knows. We have committed ourselves as an institution to do more with less--thrift beginning at home. There is a modest increase in this bill from the last cycle to deal with those issues, like our Capitol Police, like the Library of Congress, like the preservation of the Capitol. I support all of those underlying measures, and I support the rule by which we are bringing this measure here again. Thirteen amendments are made available by this rule. If we pass the rule, we will then move to the underlying bill, vote on those 13 amendments, and move to final passage. I urge all of my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Florida that I do not have any speakers remaining and am prepared to close when he is. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is not widely known, but I have believed, in the 5 years that I have been in this institution, that if you were to lock the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and myself in a room together, we could solve most of the issues that ail this Nation, that there really is more common ground in this institution than folks are willing to let on. But I find myself in the very uncomfortable position today of disagreeing with almost every conclusion that he reached, while I agree with so many of the fundamental issues that he believes brought us to this point; for example, regular order is bringing these appropriations bills to the floor. The 1974 Budget Act lays out this process clearly. It lays out the process for passing a budget, and it lays out the process, if the disagreements over that budget become too great, how we can proceed with the appropriations bills. It is exactly what is happening here today and exactly the way we envisioned it in 1974 when they passed the first Congressional Budget Act. It continues to roll on that way today. This is a success; it is not a failure My friend is absolutely right; it has been 9 years since Congress last received a pay raise. I will say to my friend that I go down to townhall meetings and I say: One day, I am going to come down here and tell you that I have so satisfied you and your needs that I think I deserve a pay raise, too. I listened to my friend, and my friend talks about how the process is broken and we can't pass budgets. My friend talks about particularly shameful episodes that go on here on the floor of the House. My friend talks about failure to do the right thing and shenanigans that go on from leadership. I will tell you, I failed to find anything in those few minutes that I thought my constituents would find worthy of a pay raise, and I regret that, Mr. Speaker. Because these men and women that I have the great pleasure of surrounding myself with here, these Representatives that come from 343 other very different districts across the country, they work hard, and they are honorable men and women fighting the hardest for their constituents who often disagree with me and mine. We did have a very important vote 2 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker. You remember it well. I heard my colleagues trumpeting victories for equality, trumpeting historic votes in favor of equal opportunity when they passed an amendment, and not 20 minutes later, they voted against sending that bill to the Senate so that that amendment could become law. Hear me again. We have big debates in this Chamber about serious issues that matter; and at some point, it has to be incumbent upon each and every one of us, if we get what we want in the amendment process, we need to support the final bill and get it moving to the President. I don't need to be right about policy; I need to make a difference on policy. Like it or not, there are only two ways to change the law of this land from this Chamber. One is sending a bill to the President's desk and winning his signature; and the second is sending a bill to the President's desk, receiving his veto, and overriding it right back here in this Chamber. Neither of those processes for change, Mr. Speaker, even begin if we don't send the legislation from this floor. I say to the gentleman from Florida, I am not scared of tough votes. To our colleagues who want to be protected from tough votes, I say you need to get another job than running for Congress. I am sure there are other folks who will have you. If you don't want to take votes, don't become a United States Congressman. The toughest votes are the best votes we take in this institution. They tell us who we are as a people. But the issues on which we are voting are too important to reduce to a bumper sticker tagline that goes on a campaign commercial that is going to be useful for 6 months or less. Let's have the big debates; let's do the big things; and then let's send those bills to the President's desk so that it becomes the law of the land. We can talk and we can talk and we can talk, and so much of that talk centers around bringing change to America. Whether it is restoring a value of old or bringing a new value, it relates to bringing change to America. But that change cannot start until we change a little bit about ourselves. Vote for the amendments; vote for your conscience; send those bills to the White House so we can get this process going. I reserve the balance of my time.