Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Massachusetts I do not have any speakers remaining, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. WOODALL. If my friend would yield, I was advised that I had yielded an abundance of time. I just wanted to make sure that I was not being more generous than you and I would have intended.

Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate that. I would like to inquire of the Speaker: Is my friend from Massachusetts working on my yielded time or is he working on his time?

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has issued announcements outlining the amendment process for three measures that will likely be before the Committee on Rules next week. The amendment deadline has been set for Monday, May 22 at 10 a.m. for H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017; for Monday, May 22 at 3 p.m. for H.R. 1761, the Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act of 2017; and Tuesday, May 23 at 10 a.m. for H.R. 1973, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act of 2017. The text of these measures, Mr. Speaker, is available on the Committee on Rules website at this time, and Members can feel free to contact the Committee on Rules with any questions regarding the amendment process.

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that they had me at hello. When they said this was a great bill underlying this resolution and they didn't see any controversy, they thought we ought to pass this and they thought this was a good step forward for the American people, yet you had me. I would like to do that. I remember, Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine, his name was Jay Pierson. He served in this institution for over four decades. His job was not to be particularly partisan one way or the other. His job was to make sure this place functioned. I wonder what goes on over the 40 years of changes in the way that we treat each other on the House floor and the way that we work with each other on the House floor. My friends have a perfectly legitimate concern. In fact, they brought it up as a privileged resolution already this year. It has been tabled. I recognize that my friends and I have disagreements--vast disagreements--in numerous areas of public policy, but today we have a chance to talk about one of the agreements that we have. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what folks back home watching think. Do they think, just like the media loves to report, that, golly, those guys can't even agree on what time to start in the morning? For Pete's sake, we have worked a bill through the process, just like we learned about in civics class. Don't make me sing ``I'm just a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill,'' Mr. Speaker, because that is exactly the process that we all want bills to go through, and we have done that here today. We can't even take a moment to talk about how successfully we have worked together, not even a moment to talk about how the process worked, not even a moment to talk about how we delivered for folks. We have to shift gears to something that is not even the topic of the bill today. We will have time to talk about every controversy we want. If folks want to go fisticuffs with one another, I am certain we will make time for that, but right now we have a chance to talk about those things that unite us. In the spirit of dispelling those myths, Mr. Speaker, dispelling those myths that things don't get done around here, dispelling those myths that we don't respect each other, and dispelling those myths that we can't work together, I want to dispel the myth that what this underlying rule does is it provides Republicans with a pathway for doing whatever it is they want to do whenever it is they want to do it, because that doesn't really sound like fair play. I wouldn't want to support such a bill either. What this rule does do is, contrary to the rules, allow us to bring up suspension bills at any time. Now, what a suspension bill is, Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is a bill that can pass not with a simple majority, but with a two-thirds majority. So this rule says, forbid the thought, should bipartisanship break out in the next 72 hours, you all should be able to bring those bills to the floor and deliver it for the American people. Well, dag gum it, I support that. I don't look at that as a way of Republicans to manipulate the system. I look at it as a way for the United States Congress to deliver on behalf of the system, and I am glad we are doing it. Number two, the bill says, if the Rules Committee, in its wisdom, passes a rule to bring a bill to the floor rather than have that bill lay over for a night, you can bring that bill to the floor directly. So my friend is absolutely right when he says that passing this rule would allow us to rush legislation to the floor. It would rush that commonsense, bipartisan legislation that two-thirds of us would agree on, we can rush those results across the finish line for the American people; and, if the Rules Committee acts and we pass that rule on the floor of the House, it will allow us to consider the legislation that that rule would bring to the floor on the same day instead of waiting 24 hours. Now, what my friend says about having an opportunity to read the bills is critically important--critically important. I want to point out because, again, folks have so many concerns about what goes on in this institution, I got lots of things I can gripe about, but when we are getting it right, I want to make sure that we are telling folks that we are getting it right. This tradition of self-flagellation in this institution drives me crazy because, when we tear ourselves down, Mr. Speaker, it is not us who bears the cost of that. It is our constituents. It is the board of directors of the United States of America. It is the folks who come beyond us. We have a responsibility to lead this institution, and when we are doing it right, we ought to tell the American people that we are doing it right. For example, there might be a healthcare vote that comes to the floor of this House in the next 24, 48 hours. I don't want to get my expectations high for that, Mr. Speaker, but I sure would be enthusiastic if that happened. If that were to happen, my friend is exactly right: we will go to the Rules Committee; we will pass a rule; we will bring it to the floor; and we will bring it up the same day. But the language was posted yesterday, and the vote wouldn't happen until tomorrow. So when folks say let's leave the language out there for folks to have a chance to read it, let's not rush something through, we have got 3 days built into the system. That is not a rule of the House. I want to make that clear. There is no rule in this institution that says you have got to present a bill before you can pass a bill to read it and find out what is in it. This is not a rule of this House. It is a policy of ours. It is a policy of who we are and of let's do this; let's make this our commitment to make this happen. Mr. Speaker, it does not always happen, but most of the time it does. I celebrate that success. Again, thinking about those things that unite us instead of divide us, I just listened to my friend, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, make an incredibly eloquent plea for her bill. She said, if we defeat the previous question--that vote is coming up very soon--we will take up her piece of legislation, which was just handed to me about 3\1/2\ minutes ago. Mr. Speaker, I get it that sometimes people think that they have such urgent ideas that those ideas need to come to the floor in a hurry. I will settle for either outcome: that it is okay that we bring ideas to the floor in a hurry and that it is okay if you hand somebody a bill 3\1/2\ minutes ago and tell them you want to bring it to the floor 30 minutes from now. If that is okay, then let that be okay. If what we need is for bills to lay overnight, then let that be okay. We have a process here that is built on mutual respect, that is built on years of tradition that men and women paid a tremendous price for, that they provided tremendous leadership for. In the name of short-term political gains, I want to make sure that we don't tear down those long-term policy successes. This institution should be a source of pride for the American people. I don't believe that it is today. The responsibility of making it that source of pride falls on you and me. We are the only ones who can get that job done. We have an opportunity today to do just a little bit of that, and I hope we take advantage of that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I heard a group of constituents ask one of our freshman Members what they found to be the most surprising part of this institution, having served here for about 100 days, and it was with no small amount of joy that they gave exactly the same answer that I would have given after my first 100 days. They said to their constituents: What really surprised me is how earnest, hardworking, conscientious, dedicated, and how committed each and every Member of this institution is. There are a couple of bad apples that don't follow under that perspective, but, by and large, the surprise when you get elected to Congress is about the high quality of the people who you get to work with, the commitment of the people you get to work with, the conviction of the people who you get to work with. What you have heard from my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, is 100 percent authentic. There is no one down here playing for the cameras today. I could make a powerful case that while cameras provide a great deal of sunlight, they create a great deal of unnecessary heat, as well. Folks sometimes are performing for cameras in this institution, but not my friend from Massachusetts. What you heard from my friend from Massachusetts was absolutely sincere concern about public policy. I agree with him. I believe we should have an open and deliberative process in this institution. You and I and my friend from Massachusetts don't work for the leadership. The leadership works for us. There is not one Member of the leadership team who votes for me. I vote for them. We have an opportunity to direct the way this institution is led. Candidly, I couldn't be more proud than I am of the way that Paul Ryan leads this institution. He is not the Republican Speaker. We have a Republican leader. The Democrats have a Democratic leader. Paul Ryan is the Speaker of the House. I am incredibly proud of the way he leads this institution. The way to make it even better, Mr. Speaker, is not to cite every single thing that we do as a failure. It is just not so. Let's find those things that we do that we can do better, and let's identify them and work together, but let's celebrate those successes. For example, my friend pointed to the number of closed rules that have come to the floor. For folks who don't follow the process closely, a closed rule means there were no amendments allowed. Well, many of those bills, Mr. Speaker, were bills that the Rules Committee sent out an email to all of Capitol Hill and said: We are bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. Here it is for you to read it and digest it. And if you have any ideas about how to make this bill better, you send them to us, and we will take a look. When we did that, Mr. Speaker, not one single idea came back from the Republican or the Democratic side of the aisle for improving the bill. So, yes, the bill came to the floor. The rule was closed not because we are trying to silence the minority, not because we are trying to silence elements of the majority, but because we had a completely open process, and it turned out that regular order got it right the first time. We don't need to identify that as a failure. That is an unmitigated success. Some of those closed rules, Mr. Speaker, came because we were bringing legislation under the Congressional Review Act. Now, for folks who don't know the Congressional Review Act, that is that act that was passed so that Congress could go back and review regulations that had been passed by the administration to make sure those regulations followed congressional intent. By definition, those bills have to be narrow and targeted. We can't have an amendment about healthcare legislation added to our waters of the U.S. Congressional Review Act bill. We can't have folks go and add a pay raise for our military men and women to that Congressional Review Act bill. We want a pay raise for our men and women in uniform. We passed it out of the House. It is sitting in the United States Senate, but it can't be on a CRA piece of legislation. So, yes, every single one of those bills came to the floor under a closed rule not because someone was trying to silence the minority, not because someone wanted to silence elements of the majority, but because that is the process that we have to work through together, and, by golly, we are doing it right. My friend from Massachusetts talked about what has gone on in this body. I will tell you, this body has moved more legislation to the President's desk for his signature in these first 100 days than any President since Truman. We have had Republicans running the show, we have had Democrats running the show, but it is only when we collaboratively have been running the show that we have moved more bills to the President's desk than any other Congress in modern American history. I am proud of that. Some of those votes went my way, some of those votes didn't go my way, but we worked each one of those through the process, and we did each one of those things together. Mr. Speaker, I would love to tell you what is going to happen over the next 18 months. I have no idea. But I know that to the extent that this body is full of accusations, to the extent that this body is full of mistrust, to the extent that this body is full of frustration and condemnation, we are going to go down one path. To the extent that this body isn't afraid to tell folks back home when we are working hard together, to the extent that this body isn't ashamed that we rolled up our sleeves together and got some things done that folks thought we wouldn't be able to get done, to the extent that this body isn't afraid to confront the fact that we are always going to have disagreements, but from time to time bipartisanship breaks out and bills move a little more quickly than they do at other times. If folks are willing to accept our successes with the same zeal that they celebrate our failures, Mr. Speaker, I tell you, we are going to create a different institution over these next 18 months. Again, not under Democratic leadership, not under Republican leadership, but under Paul Ryan's leadership as Speaker of this entire House of Representatives. We have one such opportunity today. I encourage folks to go to the web page of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I believe it is oversight.house.gov. Those folks are working on some of the toughest issues in this town, and often they are bitterly divided along partisan lines. They are working on those issues that tend to separate Americans rather than unite them. They have sent us a bill today that was so widely supported, it passed by a voice vote unanimously out of that committee. It then went to the Committee on Rules, where every single Member of Congress was invited to improve it. Three Members of Congress took us up on the invitation, and every single one of their amendments was made in order by this rule. Mr. Speaker, we have lots of things that are going to bring my friend from Massachusetts and I back down to this floor, and we are going to disagree heartily about those. Today we have an example of something that brings us together. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule that brings our OGR unanimously passed bill to the floor, and vote ``yes'' on that underlying bill, just as our Republican and Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform did. Mr. Speaker, there are lots of challenges ahead of us. This is one we can put in the books as a success for our constituents back home. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have a confession to make to you. In fact, I have two confessions to make. The first is I have got a big group up in the Rules Committee right now. It is my Gwinnett County Chamber of Commerce. It is an amazing county, tremendous diversity, tremendous record of success in solving problems. They have been up there visiting with leaders all day long. I first met with them this morning while Mr. McGovern was down here on the floor during 5 minutes. I said: Well, this is a 5-minute time. You can step right through the doors there, if you would like to see it. They said: Who is on the floor? I said: Well, it is this fellow right here. His name tag is there in the Rules Committee. He is down there, #endhunger. I said: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and I can disagree on all sorts of issues, all sorts of public policy, but there is nobody in this institution who has a heart for service on the issue of hunger more than Jim McGovern does. I said: Here he is. He is representing Massachusetts, of all places, and he has chosen to serve on the Agriculture Committee. If you are a Georgian, you serve on the Agriculture Committee because you grow cotton and peanuts and row crop after row crop after row crop. When you are from Massachusetts and you sit on the Agriculture Committee, you want to end childhood hunger, you want to feed people. I tell you that as a confession, Mr. Speaker, because I am not going to confess to sharing my admiration for Jim McGovern all that often on the House floor, but I was with folks up there today who really do commit themselves to making a difference in our county. It was nice to have a colleague on the floor--again, with whom I disagree about much-- who was putting everything he had, as he does every day, into an issue that he cares a lot about. That is all my constituents back home want, Mr. Speaker, is to believe that we have sincere, earnest folks working on sincere and difficult issues. So I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for that. My second confession, Mr. Speaker, is that ordinarily I really enjoy listening to the Reading Clerk read the rule. It gets me all wound up about how the process is. Of course, today she was talking about all the amendments we are going to make in order. We are making every single amendment offered by both sides of the aisle in order on this underlying bill. I found myself thinking back to the days when I was a young man and I came up here with my class. I was sitting up here in the gallery, and I walked into the floor at a time when the Reading Clerk was just standing up there reading. There was no cheat sheet that they give you in the gallery, Mr. Speaker. You don't have any idea whether they are going to read for 20 seconds or 20 minutes. For all you know, they are going to read for the rest of the afternoon, and it was hard to follow. I get a cheat sheet here that my staff gives me before each rule. I didn't enjoy it as much today as I ordinarily do, Mr. Speaker, because there is a lot of procedural work in this rule. We are coming up on a bunch of big deadlines. So there is the ability to bring up suspensions. These are commonsense bills that two-thirds of the House agree on. You can bring those up at any time. That provision is made in this rule. There is the ability to bring things up the same day. If the Rules Committee goes up and passes a new rule, we can bring that bill to the floor immediately. Ordinarily that would lay over for 24 hours. But because there are so many things we are trying to get done, we waived that. All of those procedural issues, Mr. Speaker, get in the way of my favorite part of the rule, which is that every single Member of this body had a chance to come up to the Rules Committee, offer their ideas for how we can make this bill better, and the Rules Committee made every single one of them in order. Let me tell you more about that. This House Resolution 280, Mr. Speaker, is the structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1694. If you happen to tune into our Rules Committee web feed, Mr. Speaker, you can see it at rules.house.gov if you are not able to get up there with us as we meet sometimes late at night. This House Resolution 280 is for the consideration of H.R. 1694, the Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017. Now, folks know a lot about open records, Mr. Speaker. It is that procedure--it is called FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act--where any member of the United States community board of directors--that would be any United States citizen--can write and say: this is my government, and I want some information about what is going on. That has been a very fundamental part of who we are as a people for as long as you and I have been alive. What is unusual, though, is the way the Federal Government has gotten involved in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of about $187 billion--billion with a B, Mr. Speaker. The American taxpayer bailed out these two private institutions making the American taxpayer, making the U.S. Government the largest shareholder in both of these institutions. So we found ourselves in a unique situation of having the American taxpayers in charge of an institution with no ability, through the Freedom of Information Act, to request information from that entity. It just hadn't come up that often. Thank goodness we haven't had to bail out folks that way in the past. Mr. Speaker, these entities that Fannie and Freddie are a part--we called them government-sponsored enterprises--they just haven't historically been the subject of that kind of taxpayer scrutiny, but times are changing. This bill, Mr. Speaker, went through the regular order process. Hearings were held. Markups were held. It came out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. If you have not looked into government reform, Mr. Speaker, it is not often that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is moving unanimous legislation. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is a tough committee to serve on. I served there in my first term here, Mr. Speaker. It is the hardest things about our government, how we hold each other accountable. Of course, where you stand sometimes depends on where you sit here. If you sit on the left or you sit on the right, you might feel differently about government reform and accountability. This bill passed out of this committee on a voice vote, Mr. Speaker. The most collaborative of efforts moved this bill to the floor. Then when we got it in the Rules Committee, we had several Members say: I think we can make this bill better. I think we can make this bill even better. These were Members who may not have had a chance to fix those issues on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Again, as I said, we made all amendments in order from both sides of the aisle. I believe that totals three today, Mr. Speaker. But the take-home message for me is, if you had an idea about how to fix this bill, the folks in the Rules Committee made that opportunity available to you. Mr. Speaker, we can't do the big things every single day of the week. Every piece of legislation we pass, unless we stuff everything into it, can't do everything for everyone. Candidly, I am opposed to stuffing everything into a piece of legislation. I am glad when we have an opportunity to move one issue, one subject, one topic at a time and deliver on behalf of the American people. Mr. Speaker, this structured rule, House Resolution 280, is a good bill. It is a good resolution that, if passed, will provide for the consideration of the underlying legislation, H.R. 1694, which, if passed, will provide the American taxpayer, for the first time, the accountability that they deserve for the $187 billion in taxpayer support that Fannie and Freddie have received. I am proud to be associated with that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would tell my friend that I think this is exactly the right way to be moving legislation, and I am proud that we are doing it. Big bills are hard and big bills are sloppy. Can we do better on big bills? Of course we can. Of course we can. But you and I have been on the Rules Committee together, Mr. Speaker. The Rules Committee process, you have seen it happen. If I am down here talking about a small bill that everybody agrees on, folks want to know why it is we are not doing something bigger. And when I bring a big bill down here tomorrow, folks are going to want to know why I have rushed it to the floor and we are not doing something that has more bipartisan agreement on it instead. These issues are hard, and that is why they have sent serious men and women here to try to solve them. I want to do everything that my friend from Massachusetts has talked about, Mr. Speaker. I want to see a healthcare bill go across the floor. I want to see a full-year funding bill go across the floor. Shoot, I don't stop there. I want to see the budget go across the floor. I want to see a transportation and infrastructure bill go across the floor. I have got a tax bill I want to see go across the floor. The list is long. And while my friend from Massachusetts and I are down here working on this, I have got 433 other colleagues out there working on that, and my great hope is that we are going to deliver on those things in the very near future, too. But today, Mr. Speaker, today isn't a day for recriminations. Today is a day for celebrations, in that what we have here is a bill that we have worked through the regular order process. You are not going to hear one person, Mr. Speaker, not one, come down to the floor and say this bill wasn't moved through the process in the right way. You are not going to hear one person come down to the floor and say their voice was silenced on this bill. You are not going to hear one person come down to the floor and say their input was turned away on this bill. We do so much that we wish we could do better, Mr. Speaker. When we have these opportunities to celebrate those things we are doing right, I sometimes wish we would take a little more time to focus on our successes. There will always be time to turn our attention back to our failures. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 280 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you yielding and being willing to stick around with me this afternoon. I have a great pleasure this afternoon, and that is to talk about successes that we have had together. I was down on the floor earlier when we were debating the rule, and I was talking to my Democratic colleagues on the Rules Committee about the good work that was going on in the Rules Committee; the good work that was going on on the House floor. In fact, we brought the bill--it was a raucous debate, Mr. Speaker. You will remember it. We argued for an hour about all sorts of extraneous things, then we brought the bill down, and it passed, I believe unanimously, here on the floor of the House just a few minutes ago. I don't understand that. I just don't understand what those drivers are in politics, Mr. Speaker, that encourages us to tear folks down instead of build folks up. And that is why I want to talk about some successes today. You can't see my slides, Mr. Speaker, but I have got some numbers written down to the left in red, and those are the numbers that are worth paying attention to. Twenty-eight. Twenty-eight is the number of bills President Trump has signed into law in his first 100 days; 28. That is more bills signed into law than any other American President since Harry Truman. More bills. Now, I read the same newspapers you read, Mr. Speaker. I listen to the same news broadcasts you listen to. I hear folks talk about inaction. I hear folks talk about confusion. I hear folks talk about division. I don't hear folks talking about success, and success is what marks these first 100 days. Again, there has been more legislative activity than any other President and Congress--collaboratively Congress, House, Senate, Republicans, Democrats--more legislative success than we have had in any Congress and White House combination since Harry Truman. Mr. Speaker, we had the first Supreme Court confirmation in the first 100 days since 1881--since 1881. Now, it is with no joy that I share with you that the Supreme Court is such a powerful institution, Mr. Speaker. I think too often we fail to get the job done legislatively, and the Court steps in and legislates from right across the street. That wasn't the job the Constitution envisioned. That wasn't the job assigned in Article III, but it is the job that has been taken on by default. So it has become increasingly important that we make sure the Court is staffed. I supported the Senate having hearings on the Garland nomination last cycle. I supported the Senate having hearings on the Gorsuch nomination this cycle. Decision after decision in the last session went 4-4, which meant we could sustain the underlying Court's decision, but we couldn't decide these important questions that were still a source of confusion across this country. We now have a fully staffed Supreme Court again-- the first time since 1881. We have seen a Supreme Court confirmation in the first 100 days of a new administration. Seventeen, Mr. Speaker. It has been 17 years since illegal border crossings reached this low level. I am going to come back to that. But what I am saying is that words matter. And what the President has said is: we are going to grow the most robust economy the world has ever seen, but we are going to do it with a legal visa program that makes sure folks are coming and going in accordance with U.S. law. And simply that change in attitude, Mr. Speaker, simply that change in attitude from ``we are going to ignore the law'' to ``the law matters'' has brought illegal crossings down to a 17-year low. Mr. Speaker, 728; that is the number of millions of dollars saved with the President's first foray into cutting Federal budgets. His first foray into cutting Federal budgets, he started taking a look at Federal contracts. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what it is like to be a new President of the United States, particularly one that doesn't come out of a legislative or government tradition? Everything is new as it comes to the content, but what is not new is so much of the process. The President has been looking at contracts his entire life, Mr. Speaker. The President has been negotiating contracts his entire life. He took a look at the beginnings of the Pentagon contracts and said, by golly, we can do better for the American people; $728 million on project number one saved for the American taxpayer. That brings us to number 16, Mr. Speaker, and that is 16 years since consumer confidence in this country has been as high as it is today. I enjoy traveling across the district, Mr. Speaker, and I am talking to folks. We are a divided community, like every community is in the country. Some folks believe one thing; some folks believe another. Generally, we are united on issues, but sometimes we are divided on issues. And voter after voter after voter says: Rob, I am not sure what is going to happen, but I feel like we are going to have opportunity. It has been 16 years since consumer confidence has reached this high of a level. Now, with that increase in confidence, Mr. Speaker, comes an incredible obligation on the 435 of us to deliver. This isn't confidence that is based on nothing happening. This is confidence based on something happening. We have real obligations to fulfill those promises, those commitments that we all made during the last election cycle. I think we have the men and women in this Chamber who can do it, but it has been 16 years since the American people believed that we could. I want to put those border crossings in perspective, Mr. Speaker. There has been a 61 percent decline in border crossings in President Trump's first 100 days. Now, I come from Georgia. We have got a robust agricultural economy in Georgia. And I tell my constituents day in and day out, if you are not going to raise your son or daughter to pick carrots in south Georgia; if you don't aspire for your son or daughter to be the very best cabbage picker that we have in the State of Georgia; if you are not aspiring to be part of that agricultural economy and help us get crops out of the field, we are going to need somebody who is aspiring to do that hard work. And it is hard work, Mr. Speaker. Well, if we can agree that these aren't jobs that American citizens are losing, these are jobs that are adding to the American economy, then we need a legal visa program to let folks come in and to let folks go out. I went on a bipartisan codel, Mr. Speaker--a bipartisan codel, Republicans and Democrats, traveling together to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras talking with families. You remember the women and children crisis there: unaccompanied minors coming across the border? I talked to family after family, and they said: Rob, listen, I don't want to be an American citizen. I don't want to go to America. I don't want to be in America. I am happy here at home. But dad, or my husband, he generally travels to America during the growing season, during the construction season, and turns around and comes back home when that season is over. Well, you all are getting so tough on your border security, you are not handing out legal visas to do this work, that now my husband or my dad can't come back home when the growing season is over. So now we are all picking up, and we are trying to get into America, too, so the family can stay together. Well, it makes perfectly good sense to me if you were that family. It makes no sense if you are the American taxpayer. You recognize that you have jobs that need to be filled. You recognize you have skills that you are not training your children to fulfill, and you don't want to change the visa program to make that happen. The President has committed to growing the economy. We know that is going to mean legal access in and out of the country. There was a 61 percent drop in illegal border crossings in the first 100 days. I will tell you what else that means, Mr. Speaker. That means, instead of our border patrol men and women working that border under very difficult conditions, instead of our law enforcement, instead of all of the instruments of homeland security that we have in this country being focused on families crossing the border, with a 61 percent decline in this human traffic crossing the border, law enforcement can now focus on the real security issues to this country: to the drugs crossing the border, to the weapons crossing the border; forbid the thought to weapons of mass destruction crossing the border. There have been tremendously important accomplishments here in the first 100 days; so much more that we will be able to do together. Mr. Speaker, there were 25 Iranian entities sanctioned by the Trump administration in the first 100 days. That is what we did together in this Chamber. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, we passed the Iranian sanctions language in a bipartisan way to send the word to the leaders of Iran that while we have great respect for your citizenry, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. We do not trust you to be a member of the league of nations with nuclear capabilities, and the answer is no as you pursue those very dangerous dreams. Well, you will remember, President Obama negotiated a deal with the international community and with the Iranians. I wish he hadn't, but he did. We had sanctions. Those sanctions are now gone. Iran is pursuing very much the same path that I would have expected them to pursue, given the deal that was negotiated. And the world continues to be a dangerous place. Well, we have rules on the books today, laws on the books today that allow the government, in consultation with Congress, in cooperation with Congress, based on statutes passed by Congress, to get involved unilaterally as the United States of America in trying to prevent a nuclear Iran. There were 25 different entities identified by this administration as helping the Iranian Government to pursue those dangerous and illegal nuclear goals sanctioned and reined in. It is going to make a difference. It is going to make a difference to national security. It is going to make a difference to international security. Mr. Speaker, $18 billion--you can't see this slide, but already in 4 months on the job, 4 months in cooperation with this Congress, we have seen $18 billion saved through the elimination of red tape. I don't mean $18 billion that is a one-time deal, Mr. Speaker. I mean $18 billion annually in wasteful compliance costs erased by this administration, again, often in cooperation and consultation with Congress. When I go back and tell you that this President has signed more bills into law than any President since Harry Truman in cooperation with this Congress, I am talking about many of the bills that did exactly this: cutting red tape, saving the American taxpayer money. Those bills, very often, were brought through the Congressional Review Act process. That is a process, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that allows the Congress to take a look at the regulations that the administration promulgates. We pass the laws; the administration writes the regs; we get to go back and look at the regs to make sure they represent the true intent of the legislation. Well, in many instances so far this year, Mr. Speaker--in fact, in more instances than any other time in American history, we have decided that those regulations do not reflect the intent of Congress. In fact, often they are running directly contrary to the intent of Congress. We have eliminated those $18 billion annually in savings to the American taxpayer. Remember the Keystone pipeline, Mr. Speaker. This administration approved the Dakota Access pipeline. Think back, Mr. Speaker. We are going to disagree on things. I am perfectly comfortable with the disagreements that this body has. But when the application for the Keystone pipeline was delivered to the administration, it took longer for the past two administrations to approve the Keystone pipeline--and by approve it, I mean ultimately they rejected it. It took longer for them to consider and reject the Keystone pipeline than it took for Americans to build the Hoover Dam from start to finish. I want you to think about that. When we are talking about jobs; when we are talking about the economy; when we are talking about America being that beacon of hope, and freedom, and opportunity across the country; when we are talking about the tremendous need for public works projects in this country, and the amazing things the American people can do when they put their shoulder into it, it took longer in the 21st century to get an answer to whether or not you are allowed to build a pipeline than it took to build the Hoover Dam from start to finish. That is bad for all of us. That is bad for every Republican, every Democrat, every Independent. Every single American citizen needs economic opportunity. Every single American citizen needs a job. Every single American citizen needs the certainty of knowing if the pipeline is bad, let's cancel it and let's move on. But let's not sit and wait and delay. Let's not debate and debate. Let's get to an answer. In the first 100 days on the job, President Trump got to an answer. President Bush and President Obama, combined, again, over 8 years of delay. President Trump, first 100 days, approved this. What does this mean? Well, it means that the oil coming out of Canada is going to come to America to be refined. Remember, the Keystone Pipeline debate, Mr. Speaker, was never about the environment and whether or not the Canadians were going to harvest this oil. It was never about that. The Canadians were loud and clear: We are going to get this oil out of the ground. We are either going to get it out of the ground and send it to America to be processed, or we are going to get it out of the ground and send it to China to be processed. You pick. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is an easy choice. If I get to be king of Canada, I can make different decisions about their environment. But while Canada has sovereignty and gets to make its own decisions about its natural resources, we get to decide: Are American citizens going to profit from the processing of this oil or is China going to profit from the processing of this oil? When this oil gets processed, who do you think is doing it in the most environmentally sensitive manner, Mr. Speaker? You tell me. If there's a single colleague in this body that believes the Chinese are better stewards of the environment than the Americans are, then you needed to vote ``no'' on the Keystone pipeline. But if you believe that we care more about Mother Earth than the Chinese do, if you believe that American rules and regulations protect the environment more than Chinese rules and regulations do, then you needed to be a supporter of the Keystone pipeline. In his first 100 days, President Trump took this source of indecision and confusion and provided certainty. That is not academic, Mr. Speaker. That certainty is directly connected to jobs. You can't see it from where you sit, Mr. Speaker, but I am talking about over 500,000 new jobs not connected to the pipeline, individually. There are going to be a lot of jobs on the pipeline. Not this number. I am talking about this approach to governing that says people deserve a ``yes'' or a ``no'' answer. People deserve certainty. People deserve fast responses. People don't need to hang in the lurch. Every single Member of this body, Mr. Speaker, has seen it in their constituency back home where a small-business owner said: You know what? I wanted to hire a few more people, but I wasn't really sure what was about to happen and so I have been putting it off. I wanted to open a new franchise, but I wasn't entirely sure of what the economic situation was going to be so I have been putting it off. When we talk about the economic growth over the past 100 days, when we talk about the stock markets moving, when we talk about consumer confidence rising, when we talk about new jobs being created, we are talking about a change in attitude. And I have seen it on both sides of this body. It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, there is that underlying current that maybe voters reward fighting with each other more than they reward working together. I don't believe it, but I certainly see people posit that theory. I believe folks reward cooperation and getting things done. I don't think people pay us to agree with each other. I think people pay us to make progress together--500,000 new jobs. I will read from The Wall Street Journal. It says: ``The Trump order is a promise in the bank for the voters who elected the President because he promised to focus on jobs and revving up the economy.'' I believe it is 12 congressional districts, Mr. Speaker, that have Democrats representing them in Congress, but those districts voted for President Trump in the Presidential election. These are not conservative men and women out across the district pursuing some sort of ideological agenda. These are hardworking American families who identify more with the Democratic Party and Democratic values but who began to lose hope in what was going on with regulation across the country and job creation across the country, and they cast their vote for President Trump. Over 500,000 new jobs, Mr. Speaker. What are we talking about? We are talking about the Keystone pipeline. We are talking about the Clean Power Plan, which, alone, threatened to put about 286,000 jobs out to pasture. We are talking about new investments in infrastructure. I am not just talking about roads and bridges, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about the FAA and air transportation. I am talking about ports like the Port of Savannah in Georgia, the fastest growing container port in the Nation, and sea transportation. I am talking about railroads. I am talking about water infrastructure to make sure every family has access to clean and healthy drinking water. These are job-creating proposals, and they are job-creating proposals that have been kept off the books for so long because of regulatory uncertainty. Today we have an opportunity to do that for the very first time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to take you back to where I began, and that is that we have a choice in this country. We can focus on the things that divide us all day every day. We can do it. I still believe there is more that unites us as a nation than divides us as a nation, but if you choose to spend your time talking about those things that divide us, you can fill up a day. If you choose to spend your time talking about those things that are broken yet proffering no solutions to fix them, you can fill up a day. If you choose to spend your day talking about why everybody else is a lazy son of a gun and only you have access to the truth, you can fill up a day, and then a week, and then a month, and then a year, and then a Presidential cycle, and then a decade, and then a generation. But, Mr. Speaker, if you will recognize that working together we have already passed more laws in 2017 than any other Congress and President working together since Harry Truman, if you will recognize that we have taken the uncertainty out of the Supreme Court--we fully staffed the Supreme Court so that uncertainty in the legal arena will exist no longer--if you recognize that a thorny issue like illegal immigration that has been made so difficult to solve because we haven't been able to figure out how to deal with the border security aspect so that we can go on and deal with the other thorny issues, those border crossings are down, which means our opportunity has increased for dealing with these problems that have plagued our Nation for so long. I can give you one example of that, Mr. Speaker. I am going to digress. I have got a family in my district trying to bring a relative into the country from Haiti. They have been working on it for 11 years--11 years. All the talk that goes on in this body about immigration, nobody is taking about helping my constituents from Haiti. Nobody is talking about passing a law to make it easier to get your family member in from Haiti. Nobody is talking about those families that have been separated while trying to follow the law of the land. Nobody is talking about those families that have paid out of pocket to go through the legal process--all the time, all the money, all the delay to do it the right way. Nobody is talking about fixing it for those families. Let's fix it for those families because we all agree there is a better way. If you want to get your adult child in from Mexico, Mr. Speaker, you needed to file your paperwork in 1993 for their number to be coming up today--1993, to do it the right way and have their number to come up today. Who believes a 25-year process to bring a family member into this country is the right answer? Of course folks are going to do it the wrong way. If you want to bring your adult brother or sister in from the Philippines, you had to file in 1994 for their number to be coming up legally today. Who believes that is the right system? The system is broken. We don't have enough trust together to repair the system. By eliminating the illegal border crossing's immediate challenge, the President has created the headroom for us to work together on issues that we can absolutely solve. 728, Mr. Speaker, the number of millions of dollars saved in contract negotiations thus far--in fact, not even thus far, but contract negotiations on one single Pentagon project that the President has inserted himself in. For all the things you may think the President knows, doesn't know, you agree with, you disagree with, you have to know that he knows how to drive a hard bargain. You have to know that he knows how to negotiate big contracts. The American taxpayer is not satisfied with the way we have been doing it, with the way former White Houses have been doing it. We have an opportunity to come together and do it better, and the President is leading us in that way. And that all culminates, Mr. Speaker, in 16. That is the number of years since consumer confidence in this country was at its current levels. You can do that math if you would like, Mr. Speaker. It will take you back through an entire 8 years of Democratic control of the White House, and it will take you back through an entire 8 years of Republican control of the White House. The American consumer does not care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. The American consumer cares whether or not they think their job is secure. The American consumer does not care if you are a Republican or a Democrat. The American consumer cares whether prices are higher tomorrow or lower tomorrow. The American consumer does not care about our petty, silly, inside- the-beltway Washington arguments. They care about whether America is going to be stronger for their children and grandchildren a generation from now. And it has been 16 years since American consumers have the optimism that they have today. I will say it again, Mr. Speaker. We can consume every second of every day in this body fussing, griping, complaining--there are lots of things that are wrong and lots of folks to blame for it--or we can recognize the big hopes and dreams that the American people have placed on this President and this Congress and this time in our history. We can recognize that there is still more that unites us in this country than divides us in this country. We can still recognize that folks care very little about us and our families and care so very much about their community and their families. With that as our touchstone, Mr. Speaker, call me an irrational optimist, but I think there is absolutely nothing that we can't do together, and I look forward to playing a role in that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand House Resolution 229. You heard the Clerk read it moments ago. Page 1 and page 2. Folks can find it on rules.house.gov if they haven't had a chance to see it already. It provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 1430, Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. If you work through that title, Mr. Speaker, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, you will find that ``honest'' is what those letters spell out. It is the HONEST Act. In the past, the Rules Committee has reported structured rules for consideration of this very bill. In this case, Mr. Speaker, there were no amendments offered in committee. There were no amendments presented in the Rules Committee last night. We have reported a closed rule for consideration of this bill. Science is, Mr. Speaker, in the EPA's own words, the backbone of EPA's decisionmaking. President Obama, in 2011, issued an executive order about how agencies should go about making the regulatory process more effective. He said, and I quote: ``Each agency shall ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information and processes used to support the agency's regulatory actions.'' We talk so much about what divides us in this institution, in this town, sometimes even in this country, Mr. Speaker, I think that point is worth dwelling on. Again, quoting from former President Barack Obama: ``Each agency shall ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information and processes used to support the agency's regulatory actions.'' It is what the HONEST Act aims to do, Mr. Speaker. It aims to provide the American public with the data that the EPA uses in each of its regulatory actions. It would come as a surprise to many Americans, Mr. Speaker, to learn that there are Agency actions that take place based entirely on undisclosed data sets, that the regulatory arm of government can be at work based on secret data that will never be released to the American public to verify, to confirm in this what is often, in scientific communities, referred to as peer-reviewed literature. We believe that, if we are making the rules, we should be able to expose the data on which those rules are based to scrutiny and, in fact, to challenge, Mr. Speaker. One thing I have learned in this job is sometimes I am not as smart as I think I am. I don't know if that has ever happened to you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure it has never happened to my friend from Colorado. But sometimes we are not as smart as we think we are. Sometimes being challenged makes us better. The HONEST Act, Mr. Speaker, aims to provide the opportunity simply by looking at the data for any American citizen to understand the regulatory actions being taken at the EPA, and, yes, if necessary, to challenge those actions if they believe they are not based on sound science. Mr. Speaker, I know what you are thinking. You are thinking: Is this bill necessary? The EPA's mission is to protect the environment and public health, so, of course, it is going to use the best science. The answer should be yes. The answer should be yes that in every set of circumstances we are always using the very best data. But as you know, time and time again, you can bring an expert into your office. A scientist on one side of the issue will tell you one thing; a scientist on the other will bring an equally compelling compendium of information to tell you the next. It is left to us, to the American people, to decide who is right and who is wrong. This is nothing to be feared. This is something to be embraced. It has certainly been a characteristic of our great country for over 200 years. But in these days of information pouring out of the administration at the speed of the internet, it is more critical than ever that we make that information available to the public. With the ability today to understand that information, to process that information, to compile that information, to inspect that information in details never before imagined, it is incumbent upon us to make sure that America has that opportunity. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to support this rule to bring the bill to the floor and then to support the underlying legislation so that we can pass the HONEST Act, bringing clarity and transparency to the EPA rulemaking process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. I would say to the gentleman, as he may know, the language is different in this section. When the CBO scored the bill last year, they presumed that the EPA would have the obligation of compiling all the data and making it all public themselves. In this bill, it presumes the EPA will only make use of publicly available data. I would refer the gentleman to the committee report.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, you know that I consider the gentleman from Colorado to be a good friend of mine. I find myself, after that presentation, though, wondering if that was a cloud of smog over Denver or if it was another cloud of smoke over Denver in these days. That is just not true. It is just not true. I will start with what I am proud about because I think we do focus too often on divisions. Mr. Speaker, you know that we wanted to hold the Obama administration accountable for sound science. And now that there is a Republican in the White House, we want to hold a Republican administration accountable for sound science. So often in this town, we see one set of rules when you agree with the person in office and another set of rules when you disagree with the person in office. I don't think that is the right way to govern a country. I am proud that we are not falling into that trap. If it is good for the Obama administration, it is good for the Trump administration. Number two, there is no smoke-filled backroom deal here. Number one, there is no smoke-filled room anywhere on Capitol Hill. Speaker Boehner is gone, and smoking is banned from all of our spaces. This bill went through a full committee hearing, the full committee process. So often, Mr. Speaker, you know at the beginning of a year like this one, we are trying to move legislation to the floor quickly. Some things that we have already had hearings and debate on, like this bill, from last Congress, we bring to the floor outside of regular order, and we skip the committee hearing process. Not so with this bill. It went through the Science, Space, and Technology Committee for a full hearing. Mr. Speaker, we talk about transparency as if it exists at the EPA. I will remind my friend from Colorado, Mr. Speaker, we have to issue subpoenas from the United States Congress to get the EPA to share its data with us, notwithstanding to get them to share it with the University of Georgia or Georgia Tech or Caltech, or wherever the best scientific minds of the day are. We have to issue subpoenas to get them to share that information. Clearly, transparency is not the norm, it is the exception. We talk about costs. My friend references $1 billion in costs from some study, apparently, not a peer-review study. I have not seen the data backing up this study. But the good news is I don't actually need the study. I have the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, and I will turn to the relevant part here. Paragraph 5, clarify that the administrator shall implement this section in a matter that does not exceed $1 million per year from the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated. Now, you don't have to spend the entire million dollars, Mr. Speaker, but in the name of transparency, to make sure that folks have access to the data, we have said it is worth investing resources but not to exceed $1 million. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we talk about the burden of red tape. I don't know if you have had to deal with the EPA or the DOT or the DOD or the DOE--insert DO acronym here--red tape is abundant in this Federal Government, and asking the Federal Government to be transparent is the antithesis of red tape. Since when did it become a burden on the institutions of government to be transparent with the American people? Since when, when you are making rules and regulations that affect the lives of every single American, did it become a burden to share the data on which those regulations are based? I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, we get wrapped around the axle so often here that we end up getting further and further from our goals. Sharing data, getting peer-reviewed comments on that data, and having folks come out in support of the conclusions reached on that data are going to make us stronger as a nation not weaker. If you are proud of your underlying data, you should be proud to share that data. If you are embarrassed of your underlying data, I understand why you might want to keep it a secret. We have an opportunity not to hide from science but to embrace science, we have an opportunity not to reach political conclusions but scientific conclusions, and we have an opportunity to restore the American people's trust in the institutions of government that are issuing these regulations. This is a small step in the right direction with the HONEST Act, Mr. Speaker, but it is an important step in the right direction. I hope my colleagues will support it. 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 often wonder what it is like to be in your position there, a distinguished career as a judge, and you come down here to talk about the EPA and whether or not the rules and regulations should be based on sound science or not, and you end up with a discussion over the Russians. There is no objection that can be lodged here for going outside of the scope of the bill. I can always tell, when I come down for Rules Committee debate, whether or not we are really talking about something that divides us or whether we are just talking. If we are talking about something that divides us, we spend every moment of the hours that we have debating the nitty-gritty of the issue before us--talking about how quickly should that data be disclosed; how many folks should have access to it. Are there going to be episodes where the data needs to be kept super secret and folks can't be trusted with it? What should we do about new and emerging business practices, propriety technologies? How do we deal with those questions? I enjoy those rules, Mr. Speaker, because we are doing exactly what we came here to do, and that is to delve into the details and get it right for the American people. What I am led to believe on a day like today is that we are pretty close to getting it right for the American people because we are not talking about the nitty-gritty of the legislation. We are talking about the Clean Power Plan that the past administration put forward. We are not talking about the details of the legislation; we are talking about the Russians today. I think that is because there aren't many things much more common sense than sharing with the American people that data on which the laws of the land are made. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the EPA is involved in a complicated line of work, a critically important line of work. I can't find a single constituent in the great State of Georgia that doesn't believe in clean water and clean air. I can find a whole lot of them who think that they believe more in clean water and clean air than does any institution in Washington, D.C. I promise you, no one cares more about the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area than those of us who live along the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. Nobody cares more about protecting the Earth in the great State of Georgia than those farmers who are creating the largest export we have in the great State of Georgia, which are our agriculture products. We are in this together, which is why, when this bill came before the House last Congress, it passed with a bipartisan vote. These are commonsense ideas that bring us together more than they divide us. Mr. Speaker, I think the real surprise is that folks believe the EPA to be transparent, and learn that it is not. Folks would not believe that this Congress has to subpoena information in order to get its hands on it. What this bill would say is not only should Congress be able to access the information, but any reputable scientist should be able to access the information. What my friend says about privacy concerns, they are a shared concern in this institution. There is absolutely nothing in this underlying legislation that threatens those privacy concerns. In fact, it requires that all private information be redacted before the information be utilized. Concerns over cost, again, are absolutely important, but I will read from the committee report: ``This bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.'' That it is a pretty simple bill and a pretty simple rule. It asks that we lift the curtain of secrecy around the regulations that protect our health and safety. It asks that we make health and safety issues not things that divide us around process, but things that unite us around results. Candidly, I came to this institution to achieve those results, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to be carrying this rule to the floor today. I encourage all of my colleagues to please support this bill, and with its passage we can get to the underlying legislation, end the shroud of secrecy, and restore public confidence in the laws that protect all of our health and safety.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 229 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.