Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, the reason it is hard to get order down here on the floor of the House is it is kind of a celebratory atmosphere down here. We just saw the Water Resources Development Act pass by a big bipartisan vote. It has been not a year, not 2 years--it has been years since we have been able to come together and pass this very important bill that deals with waterways and water supply all across this district. We do things together on a regular basis, but the big things are hard, and we have gotten to do the big things today. I will brag on my friend from Massachusetts just for a moment, Madam Speaker. I was at Crews Middle School in my district last Friday, and Crews Middle School, their eighth grade class, Megan Mendez runs that class, but they were talking about how it is that they could be effective, how they could make a difference. The students came upon Mr. McGovern's bill, I think it is H.R. 1692, dealing with Sudan and genocide, what we can do to come together to make a difference in other parts of the world. Now, I represent Georgia, Madam Speaker. It is a rock-solid hardcore Republican constituency. Folks can surmise where Mr. McGovern, out of the great State of Massachusetts, what kind of constituency he represents there. His ideas about how we could come together to make a difference for people resonated all the way down the eastern seaboard into that class at Crews Middle School, such that Nathan, Madeleine, Keegan, Georgia, Lauren all put pen to paper and invited me to come and talk about it to see how it was that we could come together. Now, we didn't have the entire cosponsorship discussion there in the classroom on that day. We were trying to talk about making a difference. That is what I get to come down and do today, Madam Speaker, with this rule that the Clerk just read. This is a differencemaking rule. It covers two bills today. One is the Commerce-Justice-Science and related agencies bill. It is H.R. 4660, and the rule provides for an open rule, so that every single Member, no matter what their political stripe, no matter what their ideas, no matter where their constituency is located, any Member of this body can come to the House floor and offer their ideas to make that deal better. It is a wonderful part of our process. It is a part of the process that gets used all too frequently, and I am very fortunate to be able to come and bring a rule today that does that. Almost more fascinating, Madam Speaker, is that this rule makes in order the debate for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015. It is H.R. 4435, and that bill--I am just going to consult my notes because it is almost unbelievable. That bill came out of committee 61- 0, 61-0. Here we are, the bill that is going to authorize our entire national defense infrastructure, in what constituents back home believe is a hyperpartisan U.S. House of Representatives, made that way by incredibly divergent views held by American voters; and when it comes to national security, we came together at the committee level and passed out a bill 61-0. This bill is made in order for debate by the rule that is before us today. I hope I will be able to get my colleagues' support for that. It is, again, an open rule for the Commerce-Justice-Science bill and a rule for debate on a bill that came out of committee 61-0. Now, what is fascinating about this institution, Madam Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me. You hear about the arrogance of power in D.C., that somehow you get elected to Congress and you get inside the Beltway, suddenly, you think you are the smartest guy in the room and only your ideas are the good ideas. This bill that came out of committee 61-0 isn't done with the legislative process there. This rule that we are debating today makes in order seven more amendments to that bill, so that we can all have a voice on that here on the floor of the House. My great expectation is the Rules Committee is going to continue to meet this afternoon, making even more amendments in order. Hundreds of amendments filed to this bill, and the Rules Committee is working through trying to get through each one of those amendments to determine what we can make in order. It is just a--I call it a festival of democracy, Madam Speaker. It is a festival of democracy that we are having right here on the House floor, where you not only have open rules, where every Member's voice is able to be heard, where every constituent back home is able to give that advice and counsel to their Member, and they bring those ideas to the floor, but it is on issues as difficult as national security, issues that do bring us together, but that have components that pull us apart, and we are able to work through that. Over 300 amendments have been filed for this National Defense Authorization Act, and the committee is working through them even as we speak. I know that every Member of this body has a contribution that their constituency has asked them to make, a voice that their constituency has asked them to come and bring. Madam Speaker, there are times where all of those voices, whether it be because of a clock, whether it be because of timing, whatever the reason may be, where folks don't feel like those voices have been able to be heard. This day is not that day. This is a day where we have an opportunity to make sure that each and every idea is heard and heard fully. And I am proud that the Rules Committee has produced this product today. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, Sheriff Nugent is the expert on these issues on the Rules Committee. I am proud to yield him an additional 3 minutes.

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

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it would be easy to close debate just by reminding my colleagues that the gentleman from Massachusetts plans to support this rule. That is reason enough when we can find agreement in the Rules Committee on moving forward. But I hate to stop it there just because it is worth celebrating. It is absolutely worth celebrating. The gentleman from Massachusetts is absolutely certain we are spending too much on the Department of Defense. I am absolutely certain we are spending too little. The gentleman from Massachusetts is absolutely certain that waste has no place in the Department of Defense. I, too, am absolutely certain that waste has no place in the Department of Defense. Madam Speaker, just because this bill came out of the Armed Services Committee 61-0 does not mean that we do not have differences in this Chamber. We do. But this rule provides us an opportunity to debate those differences and then provides an opportunity for the Members of this body to have their will done. Whether you are talking about the National Defense Authorization Act, or whether you are talking about the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill, these bills did not come down from on high dictated by a Speaker or dictated by a minority leader. These bills were both crafted by the membership of this body, and this rule allows them to be perfected by the membership of this body should it pass this afternoon. I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend 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. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), a member of both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 585 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the colloquy. As I understand section 1051, the Secretary may continue to be responsive to emerging industrial and municipal water supply needs through reallocation of storage consistent with existing laws. In that regard, an open and transparent rulemaking by the Army with substantive input from those affected seems to represent the best process to support that outcome. Is that also the chairman's understanding?

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, so often folks will use this time in the morning to draw attention to failures or to divisions, but I want to use this time to draw attention to successes. This is National Charter Schools Week, among other things, Mr. Speaker, and I happen to have two charter schools in my district. I represent only two counties, Mr. Speaker, Gwinnett County and Forsyth County, in the great State of Georgia. Both have outstanding public school systems. And so often when we start talking about charter schools, Mr. Speaker, we talk about an either/or, as if somehow charter schools and public schools are in competition with one another, but that is not the story that I tell from the great State of Georgia. In fact, Gwinnett County, one of my two counties, won the Broad Prize in 2010 for the absolute finest urban education school district in the Nation. Interestingly, they are now reeligible to win that prize again this year after a 3-year waiting period. They are in the final two. Just amazing stories of young people and their successes. And they come through, among other things, two charter schools in my district. We have the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology, GSMST, Mr. Speaker. They don't have a football team. They have a robotics team, and an outstanding robotics team at that. If you want a future in the STEM fields, you can find no better education in the United States of America than the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology, and it is free if you just happen to live in Gwinnett County. A wonderful story of success through the charter school program. Absolutely any student in the county is eligible. In fact, it takes a lottery to get in, Mr. Speaker, because so many young people, so many families want their children to be able to avail themselves of this charter school program. The Washington Post called it the 17th most challenging high school in the land. U.S. News & World Report called it the third best high school in the land. I, of course, believe it is the number one best high school in the land, but an amazing testimony of what you can do when you free an institution, when you free the teachers, when you free the students to be the very best they can be. Now, right next door, Mr. Speaker, to GSMST, the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology, we have the Maxwell High School of Technology. Now, the Maxwell School aims to take folks, these young people who are trying to find their way in life, and prepare them for a job tomorrow--program after program, Mr. Speaker, whether it is Web design, whether it is welding, architecture, technology field after technology field, not thought of theoretically, Mr. Speaker, but thought of from how can you graduate from high school and begin to provide for yourself and your family. That is not available in the normal public schools, but it is available at the Maxwell High School of Technology. And again, any student in Gwinnett County is welcome to come and be there. Mr. Speaker, we still live in a land where there is more that unites us than divides us. We still live in a land that brings people together rather than tears people apart, and the charter school debate should be that debate. It should be the debate not that pits public schools against private schools; it should be the debate that brings us together around making sure that every young person in this land, every family in this land who has a dream of what they want to do with their life, that we have the public schools in this land that can help them fulfill that dream. Mr. Speaker, we are doing that successfully in the Seventh District of Georgia, and I look forward to joining my colleagues in this Chamber to make sure we can do that successfully in every single congressional district in this land.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from Maryland if he has any speakers remaining.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. WOODALL. I would ask the gentleman if he would like to give me the opportunity to close?

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have talked about tax breaks for the rich here. There are no such tax breaks in this budget. We have talked about the preservation of corporate loopholes. There are no such preservation of corporate loopholes in this budget. I will say it again. This is the only budget that we will vote on that includes the Tax Code Termination Act, which admits to one another that the tax system we have today is broken. Republicans and Democrats alike have riddled it beyond repair with special interest loopholes, exemptions, breaks, and special carve-outs. I, Mr. Chairman, am the cosponsor, the lead sponsor of the Fair Tax, the only proposal on Capitol Hill that abolishes every single deduction, exemption, exception in the Tax Code. So nonsense, if folks will suggest that this is a budget for special interests. Let me tell you what this is a budget for. This is a budget for working Americans, because, Mr. Chairman--you saw it earlier when the chairman of the Republican Study Committee held up this chart. The red line represents a pathway of economic ruin contained in the President's budget. The President talks about a balanced approach, and yet his approach never balances. The Republican Study Committee budget balances more quickly than any other budget proposal that we will discuss. Does it have to make tough choices to do it? Yes, it does. What is the benefit of those tough choices, Mr. Chairman? The benefit is in interest savings alone. If you support NIH, as I do, with just the interest savings between our budget and the President's budget, we couldn't just double NIH funding, we could triple it, not just this year but every year in the budget window. Mr. Chairman, on our current path, by 2017 we are going to be spending more on interest on the national debt than we spend on the entire Medicaid program to care for our children and our elderly. By 2020 we will spend more on interest on the national debt under the President's proposal than we will on all national security concerns combined. There is not a family in America, Mr. Chairman, that believes they can borrow their way into prosperity. The interest that we pay on the debt that the President proposes that this Nation borrow steals opportunities from our children. It is immoral to advance our generation today at the expense of generations tomorrow. Does this budget make tough choices? It does. There is only one budget that we will be considering today, Mr. Chairman, that takes steps to protect and preserve Social Security. That is the RSC budget. There are only two budgets that we will be considering today that take steps to ensure the solvency of Medicare for generations to come. That is the RSC budget and the Budget Committee budget. Mr. Chairman, you cannot talk about a balanced approach that does not balance. You cannot talk about making tough decisions if you are willing to do nothing to save those programs, Medicare and Social Security, that so many of our families back home rely on. We know those programs are headed towards destruction, which is why the RSC has made the very difficult choice to begin saving them today. It will only get harder if we put those decisions off until tomorrow. We say, do it today. I urge my colleagues to support the Republican Study Committee budget, as has been key voted out of organizations across this town. I will end as I began. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland recognizing the support of those outside organizations, and those are organizations committed to balancing this budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, we all know that April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, but what you all may not know is about the amazing accomplishments of a young freshman at South Forsyth High School down in my district. Her name is Kelsey Hirsch. Having been affected by all of the events that she saw in the media around our part of the world, she founded a group in my neighborhood. It is called Bands4RAINN. RAINN is the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, and she came up with the idea of selling wristbands to raise money for that network. She set a goal for herself of raising $600. She ended up raising more than $10,000. She ended up winning the HOPE Award for RAINN. She ended up founding a group at her high school called WarEagles4RAINN, and this weekend, she is holding a Concert4Courage and Hoops4Hope, which are two more fundraising events, to draw attention to sexual assault and violence, particularly among young people. Mr. Speaker, one person can make a difference, and in my district, it is Kelsey Hirsch, a freshman at South Forsyth High School.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), my good friend.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say: Nonsense. Nonsense. This is the only budget that is being presented that includes the Tax Code Termination Act that terminates every single special interest loophole in the entire Tax Code. Both gentlemen know that. Every single special interest exemption, exception in the Tax Code is gone under this budget. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a fantastic member of the Republican Study Committee and a member of my class of 2010.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to thank my friend for his fealty for The Heritage Foundation. I share that and would remind him that the Heritage action is key voting a ``yes'' vote on the budget before us today. If he would like to be in line with Heritage, he can vote ``yes'' with me today. I would welcome that support. With that, Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Scalise, who is the chairman of the Republican Study Committee and a gentleman who has provided huge leadership for us in this Conference.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I rise today on behalf of the Republican Study Committee. As so many Members of this Chamber know, the Republican Study Committee is made up of those most conservative Republicans here in the House; and while I serve on the Budget Committee, I have great respect for our Budget chairman, Paul Ryan, and I have a great belief in the budget that came out of that Budget Committee. The Republican Study Committee's role is to try to do even better; and, Madam Chair, we have brought just such a budget today. We call it the Back to Basics Budget, and it is the budget that balances the fastest of any budget that we are going to be debating here on the House floor. In just 4 years, it will bring us to balance, but I am not here about the numbers. I am here about why the numbers matter because, for every year that we are not in balance, we are not just borrowing that money from our children, we are paying interest on that money that could have gone to other priorities. You will hear in this debate today about priorities that my friends on the other side of the aisle wish we would invest more money in that they don't believe our budget invests enough in. That may be true, yet what our budget does do is begin to pay back the debt in ways that we can take all of that money that we are dedicating to interest today and dedicate it to American families tomorrow. Of all of the things we disagree on in this Chamber, I think we can agree that the best use of our dollars is not in their going to pay creditors, but in their going to serve constituents, and that is what the Back to Basics Budget will do for us today. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material into the Record on H. Con. Res. 96.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentlelady so much for yielding. You are allowing me to correct a grave mistake I made earlier today. I had the great pleasure of carrying the RSC budget to the floor today. We weren't able to succeed in passing our balanced budget, but we did succeed in passing the Budget Committee balanced budget. I think that is a great success for this House, but those successes don't happen by themselves. They happen because we are surrounded by staffers in this institution who do an amazing amount of work day in and day out. In my case, it is Will Dunham, who is the staff director at the Republican Study Committee; the very able budget staffer there, Matthew Dickerson; and my own budget associate, Nick Myrs. Without their help, it would have been impossible to put that budget together, and I am so grateful for their commitment to this institution and to the very difficult work that we do. With that, I thank my friend very much for yielding.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds. I think I have got one of the best chart teams on Capitol Hill. I will say to my friend from Maryland that that is a great Big Mac chart, and I think it drives home my point exactly, which is that Federal Government math assumes that, if you bought a Big Mac 10 years ago, you are still buying a Big Mac today. I just wonder if that is true. I have switched to the value menu. I get the McDouble from time to time for 99 cents. The Spicy McChicken is now a part of what I do. I have to get into my wallet and justify the expense, and when prices double, sometimes we, as Americans, have to substitute.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a champion for budget transparency and a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. I am pleased to be down here with the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland, the gentleman whose opinion and counsel I have respect for. What I love about the Budget Committee is that we have a chance to talk about issues that are defined by numbers in committee, but whose outcome is a difference in people's lives back home. After all, the reason the gentleman from Maryland is the highest ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee is not because he cares about math, it is because he cares about people. That is who the Budget Committee consists of, Madam Speaker. The bill that is before us today is a bill first conceived in this House by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert). I happen to be on the Budget Committee, I happen to have passion on this issue, so my name exists to carry this bill forward; but it has been an idea that has been around in this institution, and it says this. We have all seen it. We have all been in townhall meetings, Madam Speaker, where you say: this is what we have done to spending for next year. And somebody is going to raise their hand, and they are going to say: Rob, is that Washington math, or is that real math? Is this one of those things where you raise spending by $10, but you call it a cut because you predicted you would raise spending by $20 instead? How sad is that? How sad is that, that in a country run by the American people, that they have to ask their representatives: Is this real math, or is this Washington math? This bill, Madam Speaker, puts a stop to Washington math forever. It says this: don't assume you are going to spend more money next year than you spent last year unless the law requires it. Social Security is a good example of that. We raise Social Security each and every year. Why? Because the law of the land requires it, but not so in Federal budgeting rules. In the crazy world of Federal budgeting, Madam Speaker, you raise spending next year just because. The assumption is: well, of course, they are going to spend more money than they did last year. Are they getting more bang for their buck? I don't know. Is the crisis still there? Does it still need to be funded? I don't know, but we are going to assume more dollars go out the door. My bill asks one thing and one thing only, Madam Speaker, that is to justify the American people's tax dollars when they are spent. If you need more money next year, come to Congress and say so. If it is a priority for my constituents back home, I promise you, you will get my ``yes'' vote, but gone are the days of assuming Congress will always spend more, irrespective of the merits. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.