Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the men and women that I have had the pleasure of working with over these 10 years in Congress. When you announce that you are retiring, folks need to start looking for that next opportunity. So the people who stick it out with you are a special breed. So, too, are those men and women who come and join you, knowing that their service will be short. Mr. Speaker, there are three such people: Sean Lerner, Emily Macdonald, and Tomas Rodriguez. Knowing I was going to retire, they came and joined the fight to serve the men and women of the Seventh District of Georgia and have done an amazing job for me over the past year. Catherine Morvis, a name long known in Georgia circles, having served with Congressman Phil Gingrey, came back to the Hill to help keep things together for me and move us across the finish line. She is still serving even today. Mr. Speaker, I have longtime staffers--Lauren Williams, Nicholas Scoufaras, Vesna Kurspahic, Naomi Pillsbury--men and women who have been doing extraordinary work, always under difficult circumstances, recently under incredibly difficult circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I have got staffers who have been with me a decade or more, who have recently departed: Alex Poirot, Kelley Kurtz, Janet Rossi, and Elena Gabrysh. Elena and I started working together in 1999, serving the people of Georgia. Now, more than 20 years later, she has gone into retirement, having served literally thousands of constituents. Mr. Speaker, I want to call particular attention to two public servants that I have been incredibly honored to be able to know in my life: My State director, Debra Poirot; and my chief of staff, Derick Corbett. Mr. Speaker, if you have not had an opportunity to meet Debra Poirot, she brightens up every room that she walks into with a genuine love for this country and a love for her community. She lives in Forsyth County, though she grew up as an Air Force child, calls Texas home from that time, but has claimed Georgia. So committed is she, Mr. Speaker, I remember a World War II veteran, a widow, and she was losing her housing. Debra woke up on a Saturday morning and read about it in the newspaper. She spent the next week finding this family and spent the week after that solving that problem. She made a difference in that life that can never be measured and did it not because a constituent called, not because someone knocked on the door, but simply because she lives a life of looking for opportunities to make other people's lives better. She finds herself out in the community each and every day, not just serving us but fulfilling a true heartfelt mission to see what she can do that others could not. An amazing woman, an amazing mother, and certainly an amazing public servant, and I thank her for that. Derick Corbett, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of hiring him back in the year 2000. I didn't think he was going to amount to much at that time, but we needed somebody on the bottom rung of the ladder and he agreed to raise his hand and do it. He could not be more of a rock, a rock for our office, a rock for our community. The common refrain I find when I go out into the district is: ``Hi, Rob, good to see you. Where is Derick?'' because he has such an impact on folks. He won't take ``no'' for an answer when a Federal agency won't serve a constituent. He demands the service that each and every citizen knows that they deserve. He is an even better husband and an even better father than he is a public servant. But, Mr. Speaker, there would be no Congressman Rob Woodall if there were not a Chief of Staff Derick Corbett, if there were not a District Director Debra Poirot. These two have changed countless lives, and among them has been mine. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my staff for the amazing work they have done over the years. They are great Americans. They love this country, and I love them.

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think about how many times the gentleman from Ohio has been down here to do exactly what he has just done, which is to say: I have a bill that is ready to go, a bill that I know will get bipartisan support here on the floor of the House, a bill my friends in the Senate will be anxious to move, and a bill that I know the President will put his signature on. I appreciate his efforts in that, and I know it is not a Johnny-come- lately commitment to these struggling businesses. I remember when we were sitting down trying to work out that very first package in the spring, and the very productive role that the gentleman from Ohio played in bringing people together to get that done. You remember that, Mr. Speaker. We didn't have a bunch of debates on the floor of the House, a bunch of previous questions to defeat, a bunch of amendments designed to confuse or distract. No. We worked it all out together, both sides. Both sides, politically here in the House, both sides bicamerally here in the Congress, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Why? Because we all felt that sense of urgency to get something done, and we did it. Mr. Speaker, I tell constituents back home that the thing most freshmen are going to learn in the first 6 months that they didn't know when they got here is how hardworking and conscientious all of their colleagues turn out to be. All you see are these faces on FOX News or MSNBC fussing with one another, but the truth is that behind the scenes it is a very powerful orchestra of men and women trying to get the people's business done. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Massachusetts, first and probably most importantly, I wish he was not chairman of the Rules Committee. I wish a Republican was chairman of the Rules Committee because the American people felt in their wisdom that Republicans should be running this institution. There are a lot of reasons why it didn't happen. I am not here to place blame on that today. But I will say to the gentleman that if it cannot be a Republican who leads the Rules Committee, how pleased I am that the gentleman has led the Rules Committee, because his love for this institution far transcends whatever the political passions of the day are. The Rules Committee has had to do a lot of difficult decisionmaking in this Congress, Mr. Speaker. I wish we did not have proxy voting in this institution today. We do. That is the product of a Rules Committee effort. In many cases, the effort of the wisdom of Solomon trying to figure out how to protect an institution and all of its practices, where we are just caretakers of this institution, going to pass it on to the next generation, while we have had to grapple with some challenges that we never anticipated grappling with, and hopefully will never have to grapple with again. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has brought an incredible amount of not just leadership, but a great amount of love for this institution, and for the members of his committee. And I don't want to embarrass the gentleman by pointing out some of these circumstances, but I can go through a list of times this year where the gentleman from Massachusetts stood not on behalf of the Democratic Caucus, but on behalf of the Rules Committee against some other undercurrents in the United States Congress, to stand up on behalf of his 13 members and the work that we have to get done there together. That's never an easy thing to do, and I want to tell the gentleman how much I appreciate and notice those efforts. Mr. Speaker, to do the really big things that we all know need to get done, not the least of which are on the committee you and I serve on, the Budget Committee, it takes strong men and women, men and women of conviction, but also men and women of faith, not just faith in their Lord, but faith in this institution that we can bring out the very best in one another as opposed to bringing out the very worst. Far too often we have bills like the one before us today that could be bills that we were talking about with one voice. When is the right time to decide that edible marijuana for our children should be banned at the Federal level? Is it after 50 States have grappled with these decisions? Is it before? Well, we have made that decision in terms of alcohol. We have made that decision in terms of tobacco. It seems like the easy time to make that would be now. But we have not made that decision in the underlying bill. We have not made those amendments in order. Mr. Speaker, I said at the beginning, and I will say here at the end: I am glad we are taking up this legislation. It offends me, as one who loves the law, that we ask Federal law enforcement officers to enforce one set of rules while the State and local law enforcement officers may be enforcing a completely different set of rules. It offends me that we would put Federal law enforcement officers in harm's way for an industry that, as my friend from Massachusetts pointed out, is a multibillion-dollar cash cow legalized by State jurisdictions across the country. I am troubled by having two sets of laws in this country. Laws we choose to follow and laws we choose not to follow. This is the institution to solve that. Having this discussion for the first time is a step in the right direction. Having this conversation end today, because it is a partisan package that is not well thought through serves none of us. Mr. Speaker, I would again encourage my colleagues to defeat the rule so we don't go down that road. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts mentioned Janet Rossi on my team. I have Nick Scoufaras on my team, sitting beside me. We all are surrounded by great people that we get to work with day in and day out. When you go to work for a member on the Rules Committee, that means you will work early, and you will work late, and you can work often. It is an amazing opportunity that we have to serve in this institution. It is also an amazing opportunity that folks that we get to surround ourselves with have to serve in this institution. There is no more humbling space than having someone who can do anything they want to with his or her life say, Rob, I will join you; I will sit here with you; we will work side by side and we will accomplish things together. While I appreciate the very heartfelt comments from my friend from Massachusetts and my friend from Oklahoma, one thing that occurs to me on my way out the door is how much less one would be able to do without all the greatness that folks are surrounded by. Mr. Speaker, I get to thank Nick because he is here. I can thank Janet because she is here. But I would just say to each of my colleagues who are here, we are all so lucky folks are surrounding us in order to help us all lift this great Nation up. We often get sucked into the drumbeat of whatever the activity of the day is if you have not had an opportunity to recognize the greatness of those staffers around you, and occasionally even the Members around you, even those who sit on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to be concerned about in America today, but a lot of opportunities for optimism. And many of those opportunities sit here, and sit here, and sit there, and sit here. I am grateful to be a part of that. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can bring the Chabot legislation to the floor. If we can't defeat the previous question, defeat the rule so that we can go back and make sure all voices are heard. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the ranking Republican on the Small Business Committee, a gentleman who has had great experience bringing together bipartisan groups in an effort to make a difference for families back home.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to allow for consideration of a bill that will assist our struggling small businesses as we enter the winter months and folks are anticipating increased risks of having to shut their doors. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this may very well be the last rule I do down here on the floor of the House, and I was sad when Susan was reading from the rule because I have gotten to do some humdingers. We have done some serious legislating in the 10 years I have been in Congress. We have done some serious rulemaking in the 2 years Mr. McGovern has been chairman of the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, you can always tell when we have been burning the midnight oil in the Rules Committee because the rule will take a good 7, 8, or 9 minutes to read here on the floor of the House. Why? Because getting good legislation done is a complicated, difficult thing to do. It involves a lot of give and take; it involves a lot of voices at the table; and it involves a lot of time in the Rules Committee to make that happen. Mr. Speaker, we are down here today surrounded by Purell wipes, hand sanitizer, and social distancing, and we are not here to talk about that COVID package that my friend from Massachusetts referenced. We are here to, sadly, participate in what has become a theme in this Congress, and that is folks will have the germ of a wonderful idea on the Democratic side of the aisle. They will nurture that idea in their Democratic Caucus, and they will put together all the parts of that idea they believe need to come together in their Democratic Caucus. Then, we will come to the House floor, and we will pass that idea with Democratic votes. Then, we will be vexed, truly vexed, about why that idea goes to the United States Senate and dies. I say truly vexed, Mr. Speaker. I have been here a long time. We have seen this happen. Leadership of both parties knows, when you put together an idea all by yourself, when you don't take the time to get all the voices in the room together, and when you don't take the time to build the strategic partnerships, then good ideas do die. Sometimes it is on the way to the other Chamber; sometimes it is in conference; and sometimes it is on the President's desk. We had numerous amendments offered to this bill. None but the manager's amendment was made in order. We had Republican advocates for many of the provisions in this bill speak of the opportunity to do something together but that those opportunities were missed along the road in the Judiciary Committee. I take my friend from Massachusetts' comments to heart when he is so enthusiastic by a conversation that our Speaker has had with the majority leader in the Senate. I, too, am excited about that because talking about what we have done all by ourselves in a partisan way doesn't lead to positive outcomes for my constituency. Our leadership in the Democratic-led House getting together with the leadership in the Senate, the Republican-led Senate, that kind of bipartisan partnership does lead to good outcomes for our constituents back home. I am hopeful that we will be able to see that come to fruition. Today, however, we do not have the COVID package. We have the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act. Mr. Speaker, I have long said that we needed to have a bill like this on the floor of the House. My friend from Massachusetts tells me we have debated more marijuana amendments in the past 2 years than we have in the past 20 years. I take him at his word that that is true. I don't think this is a topic that we have not been spending enough time on. I think it is a topic that has received more than its fair share of attention in this Congress. The racial equities that my friend talks about deserve better than to be part of a partisan package that goes nowhere. The generational disparities that my friend from Massachusetts talks about deserve better than to be part of a package that has been cobbled together for the floor rather than built together for the President's desk. I agree with absolutely every heartfelt comment my friend from Massachusetts shared, from the time being now, to the opportunities that have been wasted, to the inability to have these discussions when we need to and the ability that we have had recently to have them more. So to have all of that truth there to be wasted on a December 3 package that will not be moving anywhere, I would say to my friend, I believe hurts me as much as I know it will hurt him. He does not go through these efforts to simply be a part of the motion; he goes through these efforts because he believes in the goal. I regret that this appears to be another messaging exercise in front of us today. NDAA, Mr. Speaker, National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that we have come together as Republicans and Democrats to speak with one voice on for over 60 years, still hangs out there, needs to be done by this year; funding of the Federal Government, not just because of all the healthcare items, but because of those more mundane items, from transportation to education to our veterans--all of those dollars need to be provided. Reauthorization of program after program, like the United States Coast Guard, for example, we have priority after priority after priority that this House still has left to accomplish, not in a partisan way, but in a unified way that can move through the United States Senate and on to the President's desk. I know we are going to get to these priorities, but it is not without some frustration that I find myself on the floor here again talking about bills that will not be on their way to the President's desk. I find myself talking in a disappointed tone with my friend from Massachusetts about opportunities that we have to make a difference for families, but opportunities that are going to be missed because of the way we have crafted it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and give us a chance to do better. In the absence of that, I also will have an opportunity to defeat the previous question and bring up some of those COVID packages that really can make a difference for our friends back home. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), one of our former colleagues on the House Budget Committee, currently the leader of the Republican side of the House Committee on Rules.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding. And I want to welcome our new colleague to the Chamber. This isn't usually the way that it is, and nothing about the path you took to get here is usually the way that it is. But so often, on this floor, we talk about giving a voice to the voiceless, and sometimes it seems as if it is a simple cliche. I wonder how many of my colleagues would put in the kind of time and effort that we all put in to get reelected to provide a voice, not for 2 years, not even for 12 months, but for the remainder of a cycle. It speaks to the character of Mr. Hall, and it speaks to his commitment to the Fifth Congressional District of Georgia that he put himself out there and committed himself, as he did throughout that campaign cycle, to be that voice and to make sure that there was not a day that went by that the Fifth Congressional District of Georgia could have been represented but was not. You are joining, certainly a very special seat, but you are joining a very special delegation here, and I want to, on behalf of all of the Republicans in the Georgia delegation, congratulate you and welcome you here today.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York, not just for his kind words, but for the time today. We always say, Madam Speaker, that time is yielded for the purpose of debate only, and for folks who don't follow what the Rules Committee does, that just prevents the shenanigans that could occur if the gentleman from New York wanted to give me 30 minutes unlimited and I could start calling measures to the floor. But we do need more debate, less vitriol and more debate. As my friend from New York pointed out, the apprenticeship program is one of those programs that really does bring people together. The track record speaks for itself when we talk about the 90 percent employment retention rate that these apprentices bring forward, when we talk about the $300,000 in lifetime earnings that apprentices generate compared to their nonapprentice peers. This really is a partnership opportunity that I am afraid the House is missing again today. Lameduck sessions, Madam Speaker, are strange things. Sometimes we bring the biggest bills that Congress is going to work on during lameduck sessions; sometimes we bring the smallest. Sometimes it provides that extra time to bring people together; and, candidly, on this bill, I thought that is what we would be doing because, exactly as my friend from New York points out, this is a partnership issue. But we find ourselves here today with a base text that passed out of committee on a party-line vote. I think we can do better than that. I know we can do better than that. And to the majority's credit, because this is a majoritarian institution, the majority can do absolutely anything they want to. Oftentimes, a minority substitute is excluded from the rule. In the wisdom of Rules Committee members like Mr. Morelle and our chairman, Mr. McGovern, the Republican substitute was made in order by the Rules Committee, so we will have an opportunity to debate different visions of the apprenticeship program. But I wonder, in this exceptional time where folks are exceptionally worried about the future, if maybe this isn't the time to have more of those Republican-alternative, Democratic-alternative debates and not one of those times that we should be speaking with one voice to the American people. There were amendments made in order and, candidly, more amendments than are traditionally made in order for a bill like this. Again, I can't fault my Rules Committee colleagues for trying to get out of some of the closed amendment process ruts that we have been in, but we were so close to being able to make this a truly bipartisan process; and I am concerned, having excluded about half of the Republican amendments that were offered, we are going to fall a little bit short of that today. At its core, Madam Speaker, our disagreement is about how easy should it be to have these apprenticeship programs certified. We absolutely have, through the Department of Labor, an official process for putting apprenticeships on the official U.S. Government list. It comes with lots of benefits and privileges and also comes with many burdens. As we sit here today, Madam Speaker, this is a process that has been in place for 80 years and is in need of a modernization in the 21st century. Many of the numbers we look at, Madam Speaker, suggest that there are more apprenticeships happening outside of the official Department of Labor program than inside the official Department of Labor program. One of the amendments we have made in order today is one from my friend from Washington State (Mr. Kilmer) that is going to make computer science programs, computer programming programs eligible for the first time. Well, of course, anybody who has been in that field--I happened to be in one of the first computer science classes that America had back in the 1980s--knows that you learn more from your friends, more from your colleagues, more from being in the process together than you ever learned from reading a book or sitting in the classroom. Of course, computer science ought to be on that list of programs, yet it has taken us well into 2020 to get to that place. I would argue we may be a decade or two late in that process, but better late than never. As my friend from New York referenced, I am on my way out of the institution; and, candidly, I am pleased that we have a process that, even though the result is a partisan result, has more bipartisanship in it than many of the bills that I have had to represent here in the Rules Committee minority position that I hold. It is my great hope that, as this institution shrinks the distance between the majority and minority heading into 2021, it is going to provide opportunities to remind us how much we need each other to get things done. The best votes I took as a young freshman Member, Madam Speaker, were not the ones that John Boehner jammed through with all of the Republicans voting ``yes'' and all of the Democrats voting ``no.'' The best votes that I took freshman year were the ones that John Boehner jammed through with Nancy Pelosi's help that had about 50 percent of the Democrats and about 50 percent of the Republicans and did the big things that you just couldn't do alone, Madam Speaker, that required Members to stand up and get outside of their ideological comfort zone and get into that space of how can we really make a difference. Is this bill going to make a difference for American workers and young people trying to get started in their career and businesses trying to recruit good talent? Of course, it is. Of course, it is. It is a modest step in the right direction, but it is a step in the right direction. I am going to encourage my colleagues to defeat the rule so that we can take a larger step in the right direction. Sometimes, Madam Speaker, you have to play small ball to get the gears of success turning at the appropriate speed. Sometimes you are up against crises like COVID-19 where you don't have time for small ball, and you have got to take those big steps. I will mention just one to you, Madam Speaker. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment by my friend from Pennsylvania, whom you saw on the floor here earlier, Mr. Thompson. His amendment simply said this: During the COVID-19 crisis, while we are seeing the economy evolve in ways that we could have never predicted and still cannot predict, let us give the Secretary of the Department of Labor the ability to be nimble in terms of designating new apprenticeship programs. Now, for the next 40 days, that Department of Labor Secretary is going to be a Trump appointee. After those 40 days, we are going to have a different scenario happening there. Is this an issue of our being in the rut of voting ``no'' on the administration that is not of our political persuasion? Is this an example of our starting to reclaim some Article I power and to stop delegating things down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and instead retaining those authorities here? We didn't get to have that debate because we didn't make that amendment in order, and we are not going to be able to have that conversation. It is a conversation that needs to be had. We need to get out of our habits of voting ``no'' on the other team that sits in the White House, and we need to get into the habit of being so nimble ourselves that we don't have to delegate authority to the executive in order to get things done, that we are able to get those things done. It is difficult for me, Madam Speaker, to be this close to the kind of legislative process that I came here to be a part of and our not reaching that goal. I do want to recognize success where success lives, and we had a more successful Rules Committee process this time than many times in the past, but it only reminds us of how close we are to that process that I believe all of our constituents expect of us, and that is bring all the ideas into the room, vote ``no'' on the bad ideas, vote ``yes'' on the good ideas, bring all 435 of our collective experiences to the floor, and let's put the best of it into the lawbooks to serve those whom we are sworn to serve. If my colleagues are willing to work with me to defeat the previous question today, I think we are going to have a chance to move in that direction. I look forward to talking with my friend from New York and the rest of my colleagues about that more to come. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, again, thinking about things that the American people are looking for and the opportunities we have to craft those in a bipartisan way, Mr. Stauber brings his lifetime of law enforcement experience to this Chamber, giving us an opportunity to do those things that we all know need to be done. How can we serve our constituency better? Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) to share not just his partnership effort in trying to work across the aisle to get that done, but also his vast experience in that area.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, there are a lot of issues out there, certainly student loans and educating young people for 21st century skills is one of those, and I am glad we are taking this time out today to focus on that before the end of this Congress. There are other issues out there, though, that we all know in a bipartisan way need attention, whether it is COVID testing, vaccines, and therapeutics, that are in the newspaper every day but on which Congress has not acted recently, we know that needs attention; whether it is the Paycheck Protection Program, those programs that were supporting employers and employees that have expired that in a bipartisan way we know need attention but the Congress has not acted on that; whether it is on police reform, again, in the paper and in the media every day and we know in a bipartisan way we can do better to serve our citizenry, and yet we have not acted on that. If we defeat the previous question today, Madam Speaker, it will not slow down the apprenticeship conversation that we are having. What it will do is make sure that in the limited time we have remaining in this Congress that we do tackle those three issues that I mentioned: COVID, vaccines, therapeutics, and testing; police reform, ways that we can act together in a bipartisan way to serve the country; and the Paycheck Protection Program, helping employers and employees to survive into 2021 as we all know they need to do. I ask unanimous consent, Madam Speaker, to include the text of my amendment in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I led talking about therapeutics as it relates to COVID. I am very fortunate on the Rules Committee, as is Mr. Morelle, to be able to serve with a gentleman who spent his lifetime in the service of others through medicine, Dr. Burgess. Dr. Burgess also sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee which has had jurisdiction over this issue, and which has had numerous bipartisan bills and opportunities to move forward. Defeating the previous question today would make in order the gentleman from Texas' bill. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) to talk about the real impact that could have on the American citizenry.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I have worked with the gentleman from New York long enough to know that it is true that we sometimes measure our success by what the House does. But working with the gentleman from New York, I have seen him measure his success by what he actually gets done for folks. You never see him trying to take credit for getting the work done. He is just doing the work. And too often, I think, all of us have come to talk about what it was that we passed in a partisan way and how that absolves us of any more responsibility. It is true, the House jammed through a partisan COVID package 7 months ago, and absolutely nothing has happened to it since then. That is what happens when you jam through partisan packages. If we jam through a partisan apprenticeship package, that is also what is going to happen to a partisan apprenticeship package. Madam Speaker, I yield to the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, who crafted the last bipartisan package. And when that bipartisan package was crafted, it didn't just pass this House, it didn't just pass the Senate, it was signed into law by the President of the United States. And it made the difference in the life of our constituents that my friend from New York and I would like to make. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question today, we will have the chance to, again, go to that bipartisan well of support that my friend from Ohio has generated. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, when you reach the end of your service in Congress, you start thinking about those things that you are really, really proud of, and you start thinking about those things that you wish had gone differently. I have only gotten to override one of President Trump's vetoes since I have been here in Congress. And I will tell you--and I will tell President Trump--I thoroughly enjoyed that, thoroughly enjoyed it, because I didn't come here as a Republican, I came here as a United States House Member. And any time the Article 1 branch comes together and speaks so loudly and proudly in a single voice that it can even swamp the voice of the most powerful leader of the free world, the President of the United States, that tells me something about how our Republic is functioning. And I am excited about that. I don't think I am going to have a chance to do that in our next 3 weeks here, but I appreciated the opportunity to do it the one time I did. Madam Speaker, we have to get back into that habit of speaking with one voice. We are stronger not just as an institution when we speak with one voice, we are stronger as a nation when we speak with one voice. This apprenticeship bill should have been one of those things. Instead of having me on the House floor saying, ``We are taking a small step in the right direction, and that is great, but why didn't we go big?'' it would have been nice if the chairman and the ranking member could have negotiated that middle ground first and I could have been down here talking about how it didn't go as far as I wanted it to go, but we did the best we could with what we had to work with, and so let's all vote ``yes.'' We can do that, and we have had some experience doing that. Our initial response to COVID was exactly that. Candidly, this is as close as we have come in quite some time. I know that the ranking member, Virginia Foxx from North Carolina, wanted to get over the finish line there. We have made two Republican amendments in order in this rule, Madam Speaker, and we have made two bipartisan amendments in order, and we have made 13 Democratic amendments in order, all on a bill that passed on a party-line vote out of committee. Sometimes the process works that way. Sometimes the House needs to put down a marker. But late November of an election year is not the time for putting down markers. It is the time for putting points up on the scoreboard for the American people, and this bill fails in that regard. If we defeat this rule, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on it, I know--I don't think, Madam Speaker, I know--that the chairman and the ranking member can come back together and we can bring that partnership bill to the floor that I am talking about. My friend from New York talks about expanding the apprenticeship program. That is the crux of the problem: He expands it a little; we want to expand it a lot, because we all recognize what the needs of the American worker and the American economy are. Defeat this rule, and we will have that chance. Defeat the previous question, Madam Speaker, and we are going to have a chance to talk about these three bills. My friend from New York is absolutely right; they are extraneous to what we are talking about today. But the three gentlemen who spoke spoke truth when they said we have been trying to bring these up through the regular process and we can't. We know a vote to extend and reform the Paycheck Protection Program would pass this House with a huge bipartisan majority today, but the House leadership has not given us an opportunity to have that vote. We know that an investment in community policing, a goal championed by Republicans and Democrats for decades, could pass this floor in a bipartisan basis, but the House leadership hasn't given us that opportunity. We know, as every single one of our constituents is concerned about their health and their business and their children, that if we passed a COVID therapeutics program, a testing program, a program targeting vaccines, getting the rest of that job done, we know it would pass in a bipartisan way, but we have not had a chance to bring up such bipartisan legislation. I have served in this institution when the House and the White House were held by one party and the Senate was held by another party. What I found during that time is that the negotiation happened between 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Constitution Avenue, and those of us on Independence Avenue were largely left out of that conversation. For my colleagues who remain, I worry about that for you, because I believe that we operate differently than the Senate, and for good reason. I don't want to change the majoritarian nature of our institution. I am glad that it is passionate and it is deep and it is messy and sometimes the fights spill out of the committee room and onto the House floor. I value that. I value the Senate's go-slow approach and the larger voice given to the minority there. We don't often get opportunities to fix our bad habits. While Paul Ryan was Speaker of the House, we had not one open rule, not one chance in his entire Speakership for the House to come together and have everyone have a chance to contribute and have their voice heard--not once. And during Speaker Pelosi's second Speakership, we have had not one opportunity either. For years now, this House has gotten in the habit of deciding that every voice is not worthy of hearing. Certainly, there are bills and there are measures where that needs to be true. A partnership issue like the apprenticeship program, a partnership issue like serving our young people, a partnership issue like jump-starting our economy, this is one of those opportunities where the bad ideas would be rejected in a bipartisan way and the good ideas would be adopted in a bipartisan way and we would speak to America in a single voice, bipartisan way about the pathway that we have crafted to go forward. Madam Speaker, if you would surrender your gavel and allow Mr. Morelle and me to sort out all of the issues I have mentioned today, I think by the end of November, certainly the first week of December, we could crack all of those nuts. For whatever reason, our Framers did not believe that it should be given to two bipartisan folks who want to solve problems. They believe that all 435 voices should be heard. It is hard. I worry when we miss chances like the one we had today to demonstrate to the American people what we know to be true about the way that we work together. When we miss an opportunity to demonstrate that to folks from the floor of this House, we do some bit of damage to the fabric of our Republic. That damage happens under Republican leadership and that damage happens under Democratic leadership, and I fear one day that damage will be so great that neither party is going to be able to turn it back. I do want to urge defeat of this rule today, and I want to urge defeat of the previous question. But I want to recognize Members like Mr. Morelle from New York and Members like our chairman, Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, who have made sincere and difficult efforts to move us in that partnership direction. Defeat this rule. Defeat the previous question. Let's give them a chance to move us even further in that bipartisan direction going forward. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time. She and I have the pleasure of serving on the Congressional Modernization Committee together--a bipartisan committee--and it is not infrequent that we will have identified a problem and she will have identified a solution, and I will think: Why haven't we come up with that before. And we will move forward in partnership together. I think that is the way the American people expect this House to run, and doggone it, we are close to getting there today, Mr. Speaker. But I listened to my colleague as she laid the mantle of blame at the feet of our friends in the Senate and our friends in the White House, for why can't they get more things done? The truth is we have opportunities here to get things done, and I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the mantle of responsibility sits with us, and we are missing some of those opportunities today to come together and do things in a partnership way. Over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, I was with our colleague, Denny Heck from Washington State. We were in a forum on polarization in Congress, and we were talking about what that has meant, how that has come to be, and how legislation is affected by that. Mr. Heck said something that I thought was very profound and not really understood outside of the Halls of Congress. Folks often talk about their partisan achievements, but, he said that--and I will paraphrase him--there is really a special sense of pride that Members take in sorting out those really thorny issues, those issues that you had to come together and work on, those issues where you had to give a little to get a little, and those issues that not just anybody could have solved but that we came together with a unique mix of people at a unique time and that Members take special pride in cracking those hardest of nuts. I think that is exactly right. The media doesn't cover those successes, I think, with the same glee that partisan bickering is covered, but, absolutely, men and women of conscience in this body take special pride in solving particularly hard problems. We have an opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, to solve some problems, and I am not sure that we are taking full advantage of that. Principled compromise, Mr. Speaker, does not mean finding the lowest common denominator. It means finding those things that all of our constituents are asking us to do and figuring out how in 435 different districts and different sets of ideas we can meld those things together. We have in this rule today, Mr. Speaker, a whole host of bills. I miss the days where we did one rule and one bill. I recognize the pandemic has caused some time crunch problems, but I hope that when these masks come off--as I am absolutely certain one day they will--we will return to being a body that can handle one idea at a time and have a full-throated debate on each idea, but this bill makes in order a number of bills. I will start with H.R. 2639, the Strength in Diversity Act, Mr. Speaker. It must have been said by every Member who spoke yesterday that discrimination is wrong, that it is immoral, that it is unlawful, and that we have to do absolutely everything we can to ensure that American school children are treated equally in our schools. H.R. 2639 purports to do that. Again, this is an idea that has great bipartisan support. It has moral right on its side. Separate is not equal, and learning from diversity is part of the strength that our Nation provides. I am glad, even though we offered a motion for an open rule so that all Members could have their voices heard, my friends in the majority on the Rules Committee saw fit to make 12 separate amendments in order, including one from my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Allen) that I believe will make this bill better. The Allen amendment is an opportunity for us to work together and move forward, not just on something that goes to the Senate, Mr. Speaker, but something that goes to the Senate and moves beyond. I have been there, and so I understand the need to say: I have sent my idea to the Senate and the Senate isn't moving it, and shame on the Senate. Mr. Speaker, if you talk to your friends in this Senate, whether it is a Democratic-led Senate or a Republican-led Senate, they will tell you that if you send them bad ideas they are not going to move them. We can send good ideas to the United States Senate, Mr. Speaker, good ideas that will move across the floor, ideas that will move to the President's desk and thus ideas that will make a difference. We all grow weary on this floor of talking about things we would like to do, and we often mistake passing something using a very partisan majority in the House as getting something done. It is not. It is absolutely making a statement, but it is getting absolutely nothing done. Only when the Senate acts and only when the President acts are we able to get something done. We have that opportunity with the Allen amendment today, Mr. Speaker, and I hope folks will take advantage of that. Mr. Speaker, another bill that the rule makes in order is the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, H.R. 2694. Again, there is not a single Member in this body who believes that discrimination is appropriate. This is another opportunity that we had to work in a partnership way to move a bill forward. We all believe it is important for employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers. We all want what is best for these workers; and, in fact, we heard from the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that Chairman Scott, the chairman of that committee, had worked to try to make this bill better. The bill is different today than it was when it was introduced because of that partnership effort. Again, any good thing that comes out of this institution comes out in a partnership way. One more step that, of course, the minority was hoping we could make would be one to protect religious freedoms in this bill, the rights of religious institutions, Mr. Speaker. This is not a radical idea. This is something we have been doing for 50 years when we have talked about nondiscrimination statutes. It is my hope that Chairman Scott, having heard the arguments yesterday in the Rules Committee and having heard from our ranking member, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, that he will take yes for an answer. There is still time to come back and improve this bill and get it across the floor in a very bipartisan, again, partnership way that not just makes it to the Senate but makes it through the Senate on to the President's desk to effect the law as we all desire. I think the American people will thank us if we seize this opportunity to find common ground. Mr. Speaker, we see this, again, in H. Res. 908 that this rule makes in order today. It condemns all forms of anti-Asian sentiment and bias as it relates to COVID-19. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage you to go and read this resolution. As you know from House resolutions, you have a series of ``and whereases'', and then you have what it is that we want to do. If you read this series of whereases, you will find it to be as stridently partisan as you often find House resolutions to be, and it is not necessary that it be that way. We all condemn and denounce anti- Asian sentiment, Mr. Speaker, all manifestations of racism, of xenophobia, of scapegoating, and of intolerance. We all condemn those ideas, and we all want Federal law enforcement to play a strong role in ensuring that Asian-American communities across this country are protected and that crimes against them are investigated and properly prosecuted. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in July of this year I joined, again, in a partnership, bipartisan way Mr. Lieu and Ms. Chu on the Democratic side of the aisle and Mr. Olson and myself on the Republican side of the aisle. We led a letter to Attorney General Barr that included signatories like my friend from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) asking that the Justice Department bolster its work in this area and to send an unambiguous message to the American people that anti-Asian bias and discrimination will not be tolerated at any level of our government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, because I do want to highlight those things that we do together not in a partisan way but in a ``let's-get- something-done-together way'', I include in the Record the letter. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, July 20, 2020. Hon. William P. Barr, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Barr: Thank you for featuring the quote ``Coronavirus is no excuse for hate'' on the Department of Justice's hate crimes website. The COVID-19 pandemic affects all Americans and has wrought enormous pain in the United States. Some Americans are facing increased discrimination as a result of the pandemic. We write to draw particular attention to an increase in verbal and physical attacks as well as discrimination towards Asian Americans who have been wrongly blamed for the virus' spread. We respectfully request that you publicly condemn acts of anti- Asian bias, and provide us with regular status updates regarding the steps the Department of Justice is taking and will take going forward to combat this behavior. Asian Americans are not responsible for the spread of coronavirus in the United States; yet, since the start of the pandemic they have experienced continued harassment, violence, and discrimination. As of June 3, the Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council reported 2,066 incidents of coronavirus-related discrimination. These and numerous news reports have documented cases ranging from the denial of services at stores to verbal harassment on the subway to physical assaults. In one particularly egregious instance, an individual in Texas stabbed three Asian Americans, two of whom were children, because he thought they were infecting others with COVID-19. In March, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Houston field office acknowledged the likelihood of a surge in hate crime incidents against Asian Americans. And most recently, a new Ipsos survey conducted for the Center for Public Integrity found that more than 30 percent of Americans have witnessed someone blaming Asian people for the coronavirus pandemic. We appreciate the op-ed the Department placed in the Washington Examiner generally stating that hate crimes will be investigated and prosecuted. However, the dangers faced by the Asian American community today are very real and deserve a strong and specific response by our government. In fact, on May 8, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights acknowledged its concerns ``over the increase in xenophobic animosity toward Asian Americans (and perceived Asian Americans) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic'' and unanimously issued recommendations urging federal agencies reduce this sentiment. We note that in the early 2000s during the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak, the Bush Administration immediately took steps to prevent discrimination against Asian Americans by creating a community outreach team to monitor and document acts of anti-Asian bias and engage with the community. Two years earlier following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Administration had similarly sought to prevent attacks against Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian American communities by engaging with community leaders, conducting coordinated civil rights enforcement, and speaking out forcefully. While these prior responses were not perfect, they represented an important effort to acknowledge and address the specific discrimination. Despite the fear present within the community, each and every day Asian Americans help to combat COVID-19. While Asian Americans comprise 7 percent of the U.S. population, 17.1 percent of active medical physicians are Asian American. Similarly, Asian Americans are serving our country by working as nurses, health aides, and in many other essential occupations. Asian Americans are just as American as any other group of people in our country. We respectfully request that you, as head of the Department of Justice, forcefully condemn anti-Asian bias to send an unambiguous message to all Americans that discrimination against this community is un-American and will not be tolerated. Further, we would ask that you update us regularly as to what steps the Department has taken to address our concerns. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Ted W. Lieu, Member of Congress; Rob Woodall, Member of Congress; Judy Chu, Member of Congress; Pete Olson, Member of Congress. Jerrold Nadler, Ted S. Yoho, Adam Smith, Derek Kilmer, Frank Pallone, Jr., John Yarmuth, Nydia M. Velazquez, Karen Bass, Adam B. Schiff, Dan Crenshaw, Eddie Bernice Johnson, James P. McGovern, Kathy Castor, Peter A. DeFazio, Joaquin Castro, Brian Fitzpatrick, Carolyn B. Maloney, Eliot L. Engel, Zoe Lofgren, Mark Takano, Ted Deutch, Abigail D. Spanberger, Alan Lowenthal, Alma S. Adams, Ph.D., Andy Kim, Ann McLane Kuster, Ayanna Pressley, Bill Foster, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Brenda L. Lawrence, Chellie Pingree, Danny K. Davis, Adriano Espaillat, Alcee L. Hastings, Ami Bera, M.D., Andy Levin, Anna G. Eshoo, Barbara Lee, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Brad Sherman, Brendan F. Boyle, Cheri Bustos, Darren Soto, Al Green, Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez, Andre Carson, Angie Craig, Anthony G. Brown, Betty McCollum, Bobby L. Rush, Bradley S. Schneider, Cedric L. Richmond, Colin Z. Allred, David N. Cicilline. David Trone, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Doris Matsui, Ed Case, Eric Swalwell, Grace F. Napolitano, Gwen Moore, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Jackie Speier, Jan Schakowsky, Dean Phillips, Denny Heck, Donald S. Beyer Jr., Dwight Evans, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Gerald E. Connolly, Grace Meng, Hakeem Jeffries, Ilhan Omar, Jahana Hayes, Jared Huffman, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Dina Titus, Donna E. Shalala, Earl Blumenauer, Emanuel Cleaver, II, Gilbert R. Cisneros, Jr., Gregory W. Meeks, Harley Rouda, J. Luis Correa, Jamie Raskin, Jason Crow. Jennifer Wexton, Jimmy Gomez, John B. Larson, Juan Vargas, Kim Schrier, M.D., Lisa Blunt Rochester, Madeleine Dean, Mark DeSaulnier, Max Rose, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Jerry McNerney, Jimmy Panetta, Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Katherine M. Clark, Lauren Underwood, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Marc Veasey, Mark Pocan, Mike Thompson, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ron Kind, Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Joe Neguse, Josh Gottheimer, Katie Porter, Linda T. Sanchez, Lucy McBath, Marcia L. Fudge, Mary Gay Scanlon, Peter Welch, Rick Larsen, Rosa L. DeLauro. Ruben Gallego, Scott H. Peters, Seth Moulton, Stephanie Murphy, Susan A. Davis, Suzanne Bonamici, TJ Cox, Veronica Escobar, Yvette D. Clarke, Salud O. Carbajal, Sean Casten, Sharice L. Davids, Steve Cohen, Susie Lee, Sylvia R. Garcia, Tony Cardenas, Vicente Gonzalez, Nanette Diaz Barragan, Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Sean Patrick Maloney, Sheila Jackson Lee, Steven Horsford, Suzan K. DelBene, Thomas R. Suozzi, Tulsi Gabbard, William R. Keating, Members of Congress.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General, I have no doubt, feels exactly the same way about this as Ms. Scanlon and I do, as Mr. Lieu and Ms. Chu do. And that is why I am saddened that we have a resolution before us today that includes these ``whereases'' that make it difficult to take ``yes'' for an answer. Mr. Speaker, I want you to remember that we had a very similar conversation with H. Res. 576 last year. That was the resolution asking that the whistleblower's complaint be provided to Congress. Mr. Speaker, I went up to the Rules Committee on that afternoon last spring, and the conversation was the Trump administration is derelict, it is full of scoundrels, all of these bad things are going on, and we demand the whistleblower's report. Mr. Speaker, well, what are we supposed to do with that? As Article I says, we are entitled to the whistleblower's report, and we made a recommendation to the chairman of the Rules Committee at that time and to the House leadership to give us an opportunity to speak with one Article I voice on whether or not the House is entitled to see a whistleblower's report. We said, ``Please, take out these partisan jabs and let's just get to the heart of the matter and get access to those documents that we want. In the chairman's wisdom, and in the Speaker's wisdom, they took that advice. A resolution that had been on its way to being whipped ``no'' from the Republican side of the aisle, came back and passed with absolutely no dissent when we decided to spend less time poking one another and more time trying to make progress together. Mr. Speaker, we have that opportunity again today, and I hope we will take ``yes'' for an answer. This is obviously an election year, an opportunity to get off the rails on partisan rhetoric from time to time, but we all know that we speak with a stronger voice when we speak with one voice here in this institution, and we have that opportunity to find that space in H. Res. 908. Mr. Speaker, finally, the last bill in this very long rule, is H.R. 2574, a measure that purports to strengthen Federal civil rights laws in educational settings, creating a private right of action on the theory of disparate impact. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope it surprises you, as it surprises me, that we are talking about a fundamental change in American civil jurisprudence, and this bill didn't go through the Committee on the Judiciary at all. Now, again, it purports to change the laws it relates to educational settings, but, of course, in fact, changes the law across the entire spectrum of civil litigation and not one opportunity for the Committee on the Judiciary to be heard. Now, I talked about principle compromise and not seeking the lowest common denominator. I don't want to pretend that it will be an easy thing to find that common ground on disparate impact litigation. Litigation is something that divides this House time and time again, and it takes serious people, which is why serious men and women, like my friend from Pennsylvania, find themselves on the Committee on the Judiciary. It is not an easy path to find. But for not one opportunity--and we asked the Judiciary chairman about that yesterday, Mr. Speaker--and he said he looked at the Committee on Education's work product and he thought it was appropriate. Well, I am glad that he does not feel undermined by being completely left out of changes in judicial procedure in the United States of America. I would feel that way if I were chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. But even if he doesn't feel left out, even if he thinks that is good enough, I have got dozens and dozens of Members who are on the Committee on the Judiciary who were placed on that committee because of their expertise in that area, who have been placed on the Committee on the Judiciary because of their thoughtfulness in this area. And I think America would benefit, not be burdened, by having an opportunity for those voices to be heard. Again, if your position is ``let's pass bills in the House and thank ourselves, congratulate ourselves for passing something in the House,'' we have got exactly the right bill before us today. If our position is, we want to make a difference for the men and women that we serve--and I say, ``if our position is''--Mr. Speaker, I take that back. I shouldn't have even said that, because I am certain, knowing each one of my colleagues as I do, that it is their position that they didn't come here to make a statement, that they did come here to make a difference. I want it to come to fruition that we can make that partnership progress together. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat this rule, we are going to have that opportunity. I am not talking about an opportunity to quash any of these bills. I am talking about an opportunity to perfect these bills in those ways that I have mentioned, not so that they go to the Senate and die, not so that they receive a veto threat from the White House, but so that they go to the Senate and pass, so that they receive the President's signature, and so that they make the difference that each one of the men and women in this Chamber were sent here to do. Mr. Speaker, we are close to that today, and I believe if we defeat the rule, we can get that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with a word my friend from Massachusetts had to say, and, in fact, I want to thank him for joining the letter that we led on this very topic in a bipartisan way earlier this year. And I do not believe I am speaking out of turn. If the gentleman will partner with me for stripping out the political ``whereases'' in this resolution, I am certain not only will we get a bipartisan vote, we will get a huge bipartisan vote in the same way that we did when you followed that same good advice that I gave about this time last year. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to make in order H.R. 1325, the Protect and Serve Act, and H.R. 8251. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, these measures before us today are critically important. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a gentleman who can speak to these critically important issues with not just his words, but with a lifetime of service.

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my friend from California. What makes this institution strong is so many of those experiences that each one of us brings from our lives. Again, we have an opportunity to speak with exactly the one voice that my friend asks us to if we can simply remove the partisanship from this resolution and make it the condemning resolution that it should absolutely be. Along those lines, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Missouri to talk about, again, not hijacking the rule by defeating the previous question, but simply adding to what is already a very long rule, two additional bipartisan measures that won't just be statements, Mr. Speaker. They will be opportunities to move through the Senate and on to the President's desk. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers. I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I can't say it any better than my friends from Missouri and Florida have just said it. My colleague from Pennsylvania is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. We have a regular order process. Here we are, halfway through September. We are back for our first day of session this month. I wish we were here more. I wish there was more work going on. I wish there was less campaigning and more working together, but there simply isn't. The previous question is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to add things to the rule. You can use it to hijack the rule. You can use it to take down the rule. That is not what we are doing today. What we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is to add two commonsense, bipartisan bills. Mr. Speaker, you heard the arguments from the gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from Missouri. Did you object to a single word that they had to say? Did you find one bit of partisanship or disagreement in their words? You did not. The question isn't are we going to get some Democratic votes to defeat the previous question and add these two bills. We are. We absolutely are because these are bipartisan ideas. The question isn't if we are going to get them. The question is: Are we going to get enough? The truth is, Mr. Speaker, the question isn't if their words ring true with you. The question is, knowing that their words rang true with you, will you add your vote to theirs? I am asking you to do that. I am asking my friend from Pennsylvania to do that. I am asking my friends from Massachusetts and California to do that. I opened the debate today, Mr. Speaker, telling you we were so close to what I believe every man and woman in this Chamber come here to do, and that is work together, not to pick a fight, not to make an argument, but to make a difference. With some minor, minor tweaks, we can do that with every single piece of legislation that my friends in the majority want to bring forward today. With just one vote to defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, and no tweaks at all, we can do that with the two measures that the gentlewoman from Missouri and the gentleman from Florida have put before us here today. Mr. Speaker, vote with me. Defeat the previous question. Let's move forward to speak with one voice, not just to condemn anti-American sentiment, not just to protect pregnant women in the workplace, but to stand behind the public safety officers, the men and women in this country who show up every day of the week for us. I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. In the absence of that, let's defeat the rule and follow exactly the advice my friend from Pennsylvania suggested, take all of these bills back to committee and bring them back out one more time. It doesn't have to be that way. We can move forward today. Mr. Speaker, I do encourage my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.