Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, you have heard the thundering defense of the constitutionality of a constitutionally questionable proxy voting procedure. That is what our motion is in the previous question. My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely certain that every constitutional scholar in the land is on board and believes it is absolutely fine, which is good news for those of us who want the district court to decide, because the constitutionality can be sorted out in the courts in no time flat. If it is this settled of a question, we are saying just give it a couple of days. Let the court have an opinion. Let's go ahead and sort this out. If it is a nonjudicial issue, then we will learn that. If it is so clear that it is okay, why won't we allow time for the court to take a look? My friend from Massachusetts says we have had this debate and the House has spoken. That is undeniably true. Now, to be fair, it spoke in a bipartisan way against this; in a partisan way in favor of proxy voting; in a bipartisan way against proxy voting. Yes, the House has spoken, and, in a bipartisan way, we have serious concerns that we would like to be addressed. If we defeat the previous question, they will be. It is not going to slow down the underlying bill. It is not going to slow down any other important issues on the House floor today. It simply delays proxy voting that has never before happened in this Chamber until the courts rule on its constitutionality. Madam Speaker, the underlying provision is an extension of our Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act measures. This is something, as the majority leader said, that we have done in a bipartisan way time and time again. I have been a part of that bipartisan coalition. Today, we have a Senate bill in front of us, and a bipartisan House amendment that improves that bill. What you didn't hear from the majority leader, what you didn't hear from the Speaker, is that the Rules Committee did not allow that bipartisan amendment; and we have now a take-it-or-leave-it piece of legislation from the United States Senate. I get it; that happens to us sometimes, but it doesn't have to happen to us today. We have a bipartisan option, a bipartisan choice. We, collectively, if we pass this rule, will choose to ignore that opportunity, an opportunity that, in a bipartisan way, we agree both protects national security and protects civil liberties better than the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I don't know how many of my colleagues decided to show up for the vote today. We will soon find out. Each one who is voting by proxy is going to have to go through you and the Member they have designated. The two issues before us are serious issues, and they are threatened by the underlying constitutional issue of the manner in which we will vote, as will every single vote we take until this measure is litigated. Let's litigate first. Let's not throw all of this important work into question. If my friend from Massachusetts is right and it is crystal clear legally, we will find out in no time flat. But if my friend from Massachusetts is wrong, then we will prevent the next round of litigation that calls into question every single bill this House acts on between now and then. I want to close, Madam Speaker, by saying I don't question my friend from Massachusetts' love of this institution or his understanding and knowledge of the Constitution. He is in a tough spot as the Rules Committee chairman. We have a crisis in front of us. It was his job to move something forward. The report he wrote earlier this year reflected his wisdom. The measure this House passed reflected his wisdom. He has got a very difficult job, and that is why you hear the very passionate defense he is making of what will become known as the McGovern language. But let it not be said by any Member of this Chamber that his intent is anything other than serving this country and serving this House. He is in a very difficult spot, but I know that his heart and his intellect are 100 percent with the people of this country and in service to this institution. I regret that we are on different sides of this particular issue. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Defeat it. Add this litigation timeout. If we can't do that, then I need my colleagues to defeat the rule. Defeat the rule, and let's take a better bite at this decision with the bipartisan amendments that we have before us. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding. These are strange times. I saw my friend Alcee Hastings on the floor. I wanted to sit down beside him and whisper in his ear like we would have done when we gathered last year. I wanted to grab his hand and tell him I have been praying for him. Now, he is gone, back off the House floor and back into social distancing. No one denies that these are unusual times, even dire times, that require a substantial response. In many ways, what we are doing here today isn't unusual. We have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives that will, in fact, jam through, on an almost party- line vote, its agenda. That is not unusual. We have a majority in the House that is going to implement its ideas for rules changes in the House, even without a minority amendment. That is not altogether unusual. But I have listened to colleague after colleague come to the House floor and talk about the unusual times that, I would argue, require an unusual response. I feel a little empty today in what I usually enjoy as a Rules Committee debate. I know how the Rules Committee goes, Madam Speaker. There are nine members of the majority and four members of the minority. The majority wins every vote, and not by a little, by a lot. Your job, as a minority member on the Rules Committee, is to lose. You go up there, and you lose every day. That is often the way the House is when we are trying to put together a House position that is going to go into negotiation. But I have heard the sense of urgency that I know each of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle believes, and our sense of urgency today doesn't allow us time to push a messaging bill across the floor. Madam Speaker, this is the single largest borrow-and-spend bill the country has ever seen, and it included not one Republican amendment-- not one. The single largest rules change the House of Representatives has seen in any of our lifetimes, and the underlying rules change includes not one Republican amendment--not one. I listened to my chairman, for whom I have great respect. Candidly, with the small nature of the Rules Committee, we are able to develop relationships that the entire institution is not able to develop. I wish everybody on the House floor knew the gentleman from Massachusetts as I believe I know the gentleman from Massachusetts. When he talks about fighting hunger, when he talks about us doing better, he is absolutely right and absolutely sincere. When he talks about people suffering, when he talks about people in desperate need, he is absolutely right and absolutely sincere. When my friend from Florida, Ms. Shalala, said that she doesn't get calls in her office but that she gets cries from desperate people for help, I know that feeling because my office gets the same ones. But that is not everything that is in this bill. This bill isn't all testing. This bill isn't all hunger. I offered an amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee that said: You know what? We are going to perpetuate the myth that we disagree on everything in this institution. In a partisan way, let's divide this 1,800-page bill up. Let's divide it up into sections, and let's support those things that we can support and oppose those things that we oppose. Let's support hunger prevention and remediation. Let's support food for children. Let's support testing for first responders. Let's do those things. Madam Speaker, this bill also repeals the SALT tax. It reinstitutes the SALT tax deduction. This is not an idea that has come about in an emergency. This is something we have been arguing about since 2017. This is something the Ways and Means Committee acted on in an almost purely partisan way in December. This is something the House acted on in a purely partisan way in December, long before we were talking about COVID. This is a provision where 80 percent of Americans, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earning households, receive 4 cents out of every dollar of this provision, 4 cents to the bottom 80 percent of Americans. The top 5 percent of Americans, the top 5 percent of income earners, receive 80 cents out of every dollar. It is not an emergency. It is not COVID-related. It is not going to the neediest of these. It is not a million-dollar provision. It is not a billion-dollar provision. It is not a $10 billion provision. It is a $200 billion provision tucked into this borrow-and-spend bill. Madam Speaker, we don't disagree on serving those who need to be served. We don't disagree on medical research. We don't disagree on education. But we do have disagreements. An 1,800-page bill, and I offered an amendment to say let's divide it up into sections so we can support what we can support in a bipartisan way and push through in a partisan way the things that we can't support. It was denied. There are times and places to have partisan debates, Madam Speaker. Today is not one of them, and I reject the path that we are on.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity, and not an opportunity that is an untread path as the path we are on today. We have a well-tread path. I will remind my colleagues, as we fight amongst ourselves on this legislation, we have been to this floor already on COVID-related measures in a bipartisan, partnership-negotiated way. Not once, not twice, three times we have gone down that path. For folks who are watching the debate today, Madam Speaker, I hope they don't take away that we are divided when it comes to supporting our constituency. I hope they don't take away that we are divided when it comes to standing united on behalf of those families that cannot stand for themselves in this tough time. And I hope, for my colleagues who feel like they need to push a messaging bill through no matter what, that they remember those times just a few short weeks ago where we came together, where we stood together, largest change in American history, largest bill, not one Republican amendment.

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona for yielding. I want to stipulate, Madam Speaker, that I have seen the gentleman from Massachusetts, the leader of our committee, do some things on that committee that no one else has tried to do. I was in this institution for a decade as a chief of staff, now a decade as a Member of Congress, and he has done some amazing things that I believe will serve this institution and serve the committee, not just this Congress, but next Congress and for decades to come. And I applaud him and his very capable team for pushing those initiatives forward. But, today, Madam Speaker, we are talking about the exact opposite side of that coin, things that are done in the name of expediency today that may well do damage to this institution, not just this Congress and next Congress, but for decades to come. Habits happen in this institution, Madam Speaker. Habits happen. My friend from Massachusetts used to work for a great leader in this institution, Mr. Joe Moakley. In fact, his picture hangs on the wall as a former chairman of the Rules Committee. I used to work for a great Member of this institution as well, Madam Speaker, Mr. John Linder, out of the great State of Georgia. He also served on the Rules Committee. As we come down to the floor today, for my friends of the majority to defend for the second time in 6 weeks taking away the minority's right to have any input on the process whatsoever, I thought I would go back 20 years from today, back to the year 2000, when the gentleman from Massachusetts' former boss and my former boss sat in these very same chairs. At that time, Madam Speaker, Republicans were in the majority. I will go back to October 3 of 2000 when Mr. Linder took to the floor and said: And the rule provides a motion to recommit, as is the right of the minority. Republicans were in control, complete control, of this institution. They could jam anything through that they wanted to jam through. But it was the right of the minority to have at least a final voice and a final opportunity to amend the bill. October 12, a week later, Mr. Linder and Mr. Moakley were on the floor again. Mr. Linder says: And, finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, as is the right of the minority. Again, Madam Speaker, October 19 of that same year, just a week after that, Mr. Linder and Mr. Moakley on the floor again: The rule provides a motion to recommit, as is the right of the minority. We will go a week after that, Madam Speaker. Same two gentlemen on the floor again, same Republican majority in charge. Mr. Linder, on the floor: Resolution . . . as is the right of the minority. A week after that, Madam Speaker: Motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. I will go on and on and on. Because 20 years ago, it was not a question of whether or not the minority would have a single voice. Remember, Madam Speaker, these bills that the gentleman from Massachusetts is talking about, these immigration bills, went through committee, no Republican amendments were adopted; went to the Rules Committee, no Republican amendments were made in order. There has been absolutely no minority input of any kind on these bills he is talking about. There is so much more in this underlying bill. But 20 years ago, the habit was we would recognize that the minority has a right. In fact, I don't even need to go back 20 years, Madam Speaker. I serve on the Select Committee on Modernization. That is a bipartisan committee here in the House that is designed to look at the current rules and organization of the House and talk about how it is that we can do better. I don't have to go back 20 years, Madam Speaker. I can go back to last year, March 13, 2019, a press release from the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, on the remarks that she made in front of that joint select committee looking at modernizing the institution. And she said: Some people have talked about changing the motion to recommit, this or that. But she said: I am a big respecter of the rights of the minority in the Congress of the United States, and I believe as Speaker of the whole House that initiatives you put forth must come from the whole House. We are looking at how to make the motion to recommit better, Madam Speaker. I will take us back to a prescription drugs bill just a few short weeks ago, where the minority traded away its right to a motion to recommit in favor of a complete substitute. Let's debate the issues instead of the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit that passed last week, Madam Speaker, said let's not allow violent convicted criminals to serve as TSA agents. This is what the majority is protecting America from: amendments from the minority that would protect TSA employees from working side by side with violent convicted felons. This isn't an adversarial idea, Madam Speaker. This is an idea that we all agreed on, which is why it passed with great bipartisan support. You never know when the bad habits you get into are going to stick. I will take you back to a time when my friend, Mr. McGovern, and my ranking member, Mr. Cole, were on the floor just few short years ago, and my friend from Massachusetts said this. He said: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but the highest respect for my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), and I know he wants this House to run better. But the fact of the matter is I feel bad that he has to defend this lousy, restrictive, indefensible process. That is our job on the Rules Committee sometimes. And I want to say to my friend from Massachusetts, as he said to our friend from Oklahoma: I have nothing but the highest respect for my colleague from Massachusetts, and I know that he wants this House to run better. But the fact of the matter is I feel bad that he has to defend this lousy, restrictive, indefensible process.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I don't think of it as interrupting. I apologize to Chairman McGovern. I think of it as elucidating. What my friend has said is absolutely right. This process has been used before, just not for this purpose, which is why Politico ran----

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding. I have so many things that I want to say now in light of that. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, I just came over, had to walk out on some constituents to be here. Hunter Pruett is in town. He is advocating on behalf of the Juvenile Arthritis Foundation, and he has been meeting with me every year for the 10 years I have been in Congress. I said: Hunter, I am sorry. I have got to go to the floor. This is our bill today. I will see you back home. He said: I just want to tell you one thing, Rob. He said: Whatever is going on in politics, just forget it. What I want you to do for your next 9 months in Congress is just go and do the right thing for the right reasons, and we will be with you. That is a pretty common message that we get, but our committee process doesn't always allow that to happen, and I want to thank the chairman for leading a process that has allowed exactly that to happen. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if it has been mentioned, but I am looking at the chairman of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress sitting beside the chairwoman of the House Administration Committee. Now, as you look through these 30 recommendations today, you will see that a lot of them have to do with House Administration jurisdiction. I am standing right beside the ranking member of the House Administration Committee. It is extraordinary in this institution for a chairwoman and her ranking member to allow another committee to have any sort of input on what goes on, much less delegate some of that conversation and thinking. The lack of self-interest that has gone into this committee is something I haven't gotten to see much in the 10 years I have been here. You won't see in these recommendations, Mr. Speaker, a recommendation to turn all of the committees into the exact same bipartisan 50/50 committee that we have had the pleasure of working on. I don't think you will see that in the next round either. But I will tell you that one of the favorite stories I get to tell back home to folks who feel like politics has taken over this town, for folks who feel like MSNBC and FOX News run this institution these days, that think Twitter is the be-all and end-all of in-depth political thought, I have gotten a chance to work with Members who have, time after time after time, put the institution first with one goal in mind. Mr. Speaker, I am certain it has been said already, how can we serve our constituency better, every single conversation, how can we serve our constituency better; what can we do to better serve the American people; how is the institution broken, not so that it is not serving Members, but so that Members are not serving their constituents. I know this isn't the most glamorous of topics, modernization of Congress, but I would just say to all of my colleagues, if you are feeling down, if you are feeling beaten by a political season, if you think that this is the time of the electoral cycle where folks are fussing with each other, more likely to tear each other down than build each other up, read these 30 recommendations. Tune in to the next Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, Mr. Speaker, because what you are going to see is exactly what every single one of us wanted to see when we ran for Congress, and that is serious men and women sitting down in a collaborative way, putting the American people first. It couldn't happen without the leadership of our chairman. It wouldn't happen without the chairwoman of the House Administration Committee and her willingness to be such a productive partner. It couldn't happen without Ranking Member Davis and his willingness to be so involved and so collaborative. There should be recommendation No. 31, Mr. Speaker, and that is, let's do this again.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and thank my friend from Maryland for yielding. Madam Speaker, it is not lost on me that you are in the chair for this debate; and having put in the years that you have put in working on this issue, I know you couldn't be down here for your amendment later on this afternoon. I am glad that you are in the chair today. It matters, folks who invest themselves in ideas around here; and what I love about this Chamber is that, if a man or a woman, either side of the aisle, any region of the country, commits themselves to something, commits themselves in a transparent, heartfelt way, their colleagues respond to that. I have had the great pleasure of voting for your amendments on this topic many times over the years because what my friend from Maryland says is exactly right. When it comes to matters of war and peace, this institution has, in many ways, by the wheelbarrow load, carried its authority down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and left it down there, and the American people deserve better than that. Our men and women in uniform deserve better than that. And we, as stewards of this institution, can do better than that. Though, while I am pleased to see you in the chair, Madam Speaker, I confess I regret that it is on this bill, at this time, in this way. For decades, you have worked to build bipartisan support; you have not tried to work alone. When you have had to, you do go it alone. When you are going to be the only voice there, you will lead because you believe, and you will follow that path. But when you can, you build bridges. What is so frustrating to me about the rule that is before us today is we have an opportunity to come together; we have an opportunity to speak with one voice; we have an opportunity to restore exactly the kind of dialogue that my friend from Maryland suggests this House owes the American people; and we are letting it slip. I will start with the easier one. That is the Financial Services Committee bill that is wrapped up in this rule. Madam Speaker, I don't know if you recall. It was just a few weeks ago we had another Financial Services Committee bill. It was H.R. 2534. It was the Insider Trading Prohibition Act. It seems like something we ought to all be able to get together on, but it was brought to the floor in a partisan way with absolutely no consultation on the other side. It was going to be a straight party- line vote, but to the credit of the chairwoman and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, they continued to work together right up until the Rules Committee finished its meeting--you know that is the last stop before the bill comes to the floor--and they found a bipartisan pathway forward. They changed directions from what was going to be a straight party- line vote on the floor of the House that goes nowhere, to a vote--let me consult my notes because I want to be right--410-13 was the result when we got together and worked in a bipartisan way. That is a bill that is going to go somewhere. All the challenges my friend in Maryland talked about with credit reporting agencies, they are real, and the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee agrees with that. In fact, he has a substitute that has supported those ideas in a bipartisan way that he wanted to make in order to try to get us away from a partisan path. The Rules Committee, in its wisdom, voted on a party-line vote to deny the ranking member an opportunity to bring forward the bipartisan language that he had. So, we will go down this partisan road. Again, that is a partisan road on protecting consumers. It is a shame that has to happen. This bill is going to go nowhere. The President has promised he will veto it. The Senate is not going to take it up. We are not going to protect any consumers. We had a chance to, and we let that slip. Shame on us. As shameful as that is in the financial services space, as you know from your decades of work in the war and peace space, the consequences of failure for war and peace are even greater. Time and time again, oftentimes with your leadership, this House has had opportunities to revisit the Authorization for Use of Military Force that it passed in 2001 and that it passed in 2002. Generally, it is in our appropriations bill, as you well know, because the committee of jurisdiction, the authorizing committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, that has the ability to have a full-throated debate on this issue to decide whether to repeal, whether to replace, how to structure that, has not moved legislation forward. We are in that exact same place today. You introduced your language, Madam Speaker, in May 2019. That is the language that this rule is going to stuff into the Congressional Gold Medal bill for merchant mariners. We will talk about that here in a bit. It is going to stuff your language that you introduced in May that has never had a markup. Now, you led this issue when President Bush was in the White House, and we didn't get a markup. You led this issue while President Obama was in the White House, and we didn't get a markup. You are now leading this issue while President Trump is in the White House, and we still have never had a markup. Now, don't tell me about your commitment to men and women in uniform. Do not tell me about what our Framers intended and bring language that has never had a committee markup to the House floor. I asked these questions last night in the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker. I said: So which operations that are going on in Iraq today are going to be curtailed if we repeal the AUMF tomorrow? I am not misremembering, Madam Speaker. So many times, when you have offered this language, you offered it for a date certain in the future. You recognized that doing something immediately would have consequences that would be very difficult for men and women in uniform to deal with, difficult for the administration, difficult for our allies. So very often you said: Let's put this down the road 6 months, 9 months, 12 months. Let's be certain that we are going to be done with it, but let's give time to transition. I asked: This language today, what is the impact of that? I asked: Which members of the State Department have come to testify that this is not going to put our allies in a predicament, in a precarious predicament in Iraq? The answer was: Well, we haven't had those hearings. We don't know those answers. We believe that we know, but we have not had those folks come to testify. Well, what about the FBI? How is this going to impact counterterrorism operations? Well, we have not had those conversations. We have not had that in an open hearing. We have not had a chance to talk about it. Well, what does the Pentagon have to say? Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to do this in a thoughtful, bipartisan way. The leadership that the new majority is providing in the House, candidly, gives you an opportunity to do things that might not have been possible in a Republican-led House. After your decade of work on that, I think you have earned that, and it would have been a bipartisan vote. Instead, we are here today for a partisan exercise, with no input from the minority, that the President has already recommended a veto on. I think our men and women in uniform deserve better. I think this institution deserves better. Madam Speaker, I don't know if you were paying attention as the Reading Clerk read. He did not go through and read all the amendments that were offered. For the very important issue of credit agencies and how we regulate them, the majority, in its wisdom, has made 14 amendments in order. Fourteen different ideas are going to be considered for how we regulate credit reporting agencies. For the question of war and peace--what should be the wind-down timeline, how quickly should it take effect, who should be affected, what are the impacts of that, should it be replaced, should it just be repealed--for those very complicated life-and-death questions, no committee hearing, not one amendment made in order. The majority, in its wisdom, has provided 1 hour of debate on the floor of the House. My friend from Maryland is very adept at quoting our Framers. His knowledge of the Constitution runs deep. Debate has never meant an hour to come down to the House floor in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion. Debate, as our Framers intended it, meant that we were going to engage in dialogue with one another, that we were going to have a conversation about how to get it right together, that we were going to do what you have done for much of your career, in terms of building coalitions. We are doing none of it today. Madam Speaker, I have 30 minutes on the rule. We will have an hour of a take-it-or-leave-it debate. For our men and women in uniform, as I hold the veto threat from the White House here, and we are going to produce a partisan outcome with no hope of overriding a Presidential veto, if the Senate were even to take it up, which it won't, we are going to be absolutely no closer to achieving the goal that you and I have striven for together. In fact, I believe we are going to be further away from that goal at the end of this. I used all the ability I had as a Rules Committee member to try to keep this from going forward last night because I believe it is a missed opportunity. But on a 9-4 party-line vote, I was defeated. Madam Speaker, the only way to get back to the partnership that our men and women in uniform deserve, the partnership that the efforts that you have brought forward over the years have received, is to defeat this rule today and have the open hearing in the Foreign Affairs Committee, to have that testimony from the experts in this field, and then to move forward, not on a party-line vote that goes nowhere in this House, but in a big, big, big bipartisan vote that moves through the Senate and either receives the President's signature or overrides that veto. This isn't going to get that done. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), because I have seen the gentleman from Maryland change his mind many times over the years when he was on the wrong side of an issue to make himself right.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Spano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I share with my friend from Maryland that if the gentleman is interested in a real debate, the gentleman would allow minority voices to be heard. If the gentleman is not following this, the reason that Members are coming to the floor to make this request is because these resolutions, as they pertain to dealing with Iran, do nothing to protect our ally, our strongest friend in the Middle East, Israel, and we would like to make sure that Israel is protected. I ask my friend if he would yield for the debate on protecting our friend, Israel, and to have an opportunity for not dozens of minority amendments, but my friends are asking unanimous consent for one single Republican amendment to the underlying bill: a right that has been guaranteed to the minority for over 100 years, but has been turned off by clever procedural tricks in this particular rule today. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.